|
|
Full Minutes August 14, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4040 South Berkeley Lake Road
Berkeley Lake, GA 30096
August 14th, 2007
7:30 P.M.
Full Minutes
Those in attendance at the meeting were as follows:
Chairman: Bob Herb
Commissioners: Frank Lombardi, Rodney Hammond and Dan Huntington
City Administrator and P&Z Secretary: Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present/Guests: Joe Voyles, David Aldoretta, Michelle Aldoretta, Dov Jacobson, and Judy Jacobson
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Herb opened the meeting at 7:38 p.m. on August 14th, 2007 at 4040 South Berkeley Lake Road.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
a.) Minutes of the July 16th, 2007 P&Z meeting
Lombardi motioned to approve the minutes. Huntington seconded the motion. Herb, Lombardi and Huntington were in favor. Hammond, having not attended the July 16th meeting, abstained.
III. NEW BUSINESS:
a.) Variance - 624 Lakeshore Drive: 24-foot variance to the required 100-foot minimum lot width at the building line, i.e. the lot is 76 feet wide at the building line of the proposed house. (39-804-3)
Herb introduced this variance request to allow a new home to be built on a lot where the lot width at the building line does not meet the minimum 100-foot requirement. He stated that other lot requirements, such as lot area and lot depth, are not applied to lots around the lake, and Herb stated that the lot width requirement was similar to those, but for some reason had not been included. The other things in place are minimum setbacks and a maximum lot coverage of 15% for the building footprint which seems to hold everyone in check regardless of the lot size.
Voyles introduced the project. He stated that the former house was non-conforming and not able to be renovated for many reasons. The house was about 60 feet set back from the front and 6 feet from the left side lot line. The house was not able to be repaired. He stated that the lot is what it is. It is an extreme lot. It took a little over five months to get the septic system designed and approved, which was inspected four different times as it was installed.
The new structure going in will be conforming in all aspects in terms of height, setbacks, and lot coverage. The only thing that it doesn’t meet is the required 100 foot lot width at the front building line. The lot is a registered lot so he didn’t think this would be an issue.
There was some discussion about the survey submitted and the location of the proposed house on the lot with relationship to setback requirements.
Huntington asked if the former house had been demolished. Voyles confirmed that it had been.
The new home will be set back further on the lot and will meet all the required setbacks.
Herb stated that there are a lot of discrepancies with the measurements in the information that was submitted, but that he will not get hung up on that, because P&Z can just condition the variance to meet all the applicable requirements.
Hammond stated that the issue is what can be fit on the lot to meet the zoning requirements. Voyles stated that there is no way to meet the 100-foot lot width at the front building line because the lot is existing.
Huntington asked how wide the fishing lots are around the lake. Herb stated that it depends on the definition of a fishing lot, but that he would define it such that you couldn’t meet the setback requirements. Huntington asked how many more lots would be like this one, too narrow at the front building line. There was further discussion.
Herb stated that most cities have stipulations for existing lots of record. Herb stated that the main control for keeping the house from being too large on a lot is by imposing the 15% maximum lot coverage requirement and all the setback requirements.
Hammond asked for confirmation that the variance was just for the reduced lot width at the front building line, but that all other setbacks and zoning requirements would be met. Voyles confirmed that that was true.
Huntington asked why there is a minimum lot width. Threadgill stated that the minimum lot width is required to regulate the creation of new lots.
Ms. Jacobson stated that she understood each lot to be 40 feet across and that you need three lots to build. She stated that there is another place where there is just 80 feet, comprised of two 40-foot lots. Herb stated that there is no code requirement that you would need 3 40-foot lots to build. She stated that this lot is 76 feet from edge of property to edge of property and then 25 feet comes out of that to meet the required side setbacks. She went on to discuss the location of the septic system. Herb stated that environmental health approved that.
Herb reminded the commissioners that for a variance to be granted there are certain conditions that have to be met. He went through the conditions, which are enumerated in the code. The first is the big hurdle, which is that there are extraordinary or exceptional conditions relative to the size, shape or topography of the lot which make the variance necessary. Herb stated he believes this application meets that and all other conditions.
Hammond asked if this was a case where the whole structure could be looked at and additional requirements could be imposed to mitigate the impact on neighboring properties since this is such a small lot.
Herb stated that in other cases P&Z has allowed a variance, but would impose a more stringent requirement in other areas to minimize the impact of the variance. The example that he used was when variances to front setbacks are granted, the maximum height is reduced to mitigate the impact.
Huntington stated that, in this case, the impact to neighbors should be no different if the setbacks are still being met.
Herb stated that the difference is that most people don’t just adhere to the minimum setbacks on the side, they easily double them. Huntington stated that if it is really beneficial to have greater setbacks, then we should make that the rule. If 12.5 feet is sufficient, then we should allow that.
Lombardi stated that this is a small lot, but that he agrees with Huntington that if the setbacks are being met, then that’s all that matters.
Voyles went on to say that the house will end up posturing similarly to 186 Lakeshore Drive in terms of the front yard and how the house sits on the lot. It won’t dominate on the street side.
Huntington sees this as being quite a bit different than if someone was trying to subdivide the lot to make the lot too small.
Herb stated that he still didn’t know why we shouldn’t require greater setbacks to mitigate the impact.
Huntington stated that when the house is imposing, he understands setting more stringent requirements, but in this case, he doesn’t see that this is necessary.
Ms. Jacobson said that this house will impose a lot more on them because it is a big house and much more visible on a small lot and what was there previously was a much smaller house.
Huntington said that it isn’t more imposing than what would be allowed if the lot had been 100 feet wide at the front building line.
There was further discussion.
Huntington asked if the lot happened to be 100 feet wide at the front building line, then couldn’t the same house be put on this lot. If so, then how is this any more imposing?
Mr. Jacobson stated that one thing that hasn’t been discussed is the position of the house. This house is going to be down at the lake when most of the other houses are set up toward the street. It will be visible from the lake and from his house looking down at the lake. He stated that there is no concept of registered lots in the ordinance but there is the concept of grandfathering, which is that the house should be rebuilt on the same footprint.
There was further discussion.
Herb noted that the position of the house is being dictated by the city’s zoning requirements.
There was further discussion about the issue of grandfathering and it was discussed that what is proposed is conforming to the zoning regulations.
Lombardi said then it seems we would be approving a variance for a non-conforming lot and that we would be setting a precedent to open the door to allowing variances for structures to be built on other non-conforming lots.
Herb stated that variances are not precedent setting, but that each variance is individual.
Herb reiterated that if lake lots were exempt from lot area and lot depth, then he questioned why is width being imposed? He believes this was an oversight in code and possibly an error in lot width not being exempt.
Herb stated that it all stays in check and in proportion because of the other requirements such as lot coverage, setbacks, etc.; in addition, the P&Z can impose greater restrictions.
There was further discussion.
Herb stated that as a condition to this variance he would recommend that a certified survey needs to be provided prior to certificate of occupancy. If the survey indicates any requirements not being met, then the c.o. will not be issued. Herb suggested that surveys also be done at the time of the footers. With this one being so close, then it is all the more significant to ensure that requirements are being met.
Hammond asked about the impact of the location of this house on the neighboring properties. Ms. Jacobson stated that a lot of trees had been removed, it’s hotter and there is less privacy. She expressed concern about runoff. In addition, there are boards and dirt on her land. She is concerned about how that is going to be cleaned up and how the drainage is going to work. She is also concerned about the stability of the hill. It is a very steep hill. In addition, one of her trees was loosened and is now leaning severely.
Hammond stated that he asked this in terms of the guidelines that the P&Z is supposed to follow when granting the variance.
Herb stated that the decision should be made about the impact on the public in general, not the homeowners that are here at the time. The spirit is to worry about the community at large.
There was further discussion.
Hammond stated that we do need to consider the public good.
Huntington stated that he does care about the point in the conditions for a variance to be granted which states “relief if granted would not cause substantial detriment to the public.”
Huntington motioned to approve the variance as requested with the following conditions: 1.) the maximum height on the front is met; 2.) the maximum height on the rear is met ; 3.) the front setback is met; 4.) the rear setback is met; 5.) the side setbacks are met; 6.) that the maximum lot coverage is met such that the square footage of the buidling footprint including all decks and roof overhangs would be within the maximum square footage of 15% of the total lot area and 7.) before a c.o can be issued, an as-built survey shall be provided proving that the structure meets all these zoning requirements . Huntington asked if we can simplify that to say that all ordinances other than lot width will be met.
The motion was amended to approve the variance as requested with the following conditions: 1.) all minimum and maximum requirements stated in 39-804, Area, Yard Coverage, Height and Supplementary Regulations, shall be met, except the minimum lot width and 2.) before a certificate of occupancy can be issued, an as-built survey must be submitted proving that the structure meets all zoning requirements per condition 1. Lombardi seconded the motion.
There was further discussion. Lombardi stated that this variance has no bearing at all on the design of the house. He asked Voyles how many bedrooms it was approved for by Environmental Health. Voyles responded 2 bedrooms.
Herb stated that the deck shown on the plans will not be permitted because it will exceed the maximum lot coverage of 15%. His calculations show that the house already exceeds that requirement. In addition, if the roof overhangs are 16 inches over then that should be included. Voyles asked if the footprint for the purposes of determining the maximum lot coverage of 15% included the roof overhangs. Herb stated that it does, it is the bird’s eye view. Voyles stated that he didn’t realize that.
Mr. Jacobson asked about all the other 80-foot lots. Herb stated that there is no precedent because every other variance is individual and independent. However, there is nothing that would prevent those lots from coming in for a variance.
There was further discussion.
Huntington stated that he understood the Jacobson’s concern, and that if the variance was for an encroachment into the setbacks that would be different.
Lombardi added that the 15% maximum lot coverage was also keeping things in check.
All were in favor.
b.) Consideration of changes to the zoning ordinance, including, but not limited to, changes to Section 39-401 (78-89 of municode), Accessory Structures.
Herb stated that some of the changes are coming from the Building Process Review Committee which is looking at what is required at the time of permit application.
The commission went through the draft changes one by one.
Herb stated that the accessory structure code needed to be reformatted to move the (a) after the first paragraph. There was further discussion. Threadgill stated that she would work on formatting that section of the code and circulate proposed changes to the P&Z.
There was discussion about enclosure of boathouses. It was discussed that no walls could be solid, and this needs to be captured in the code. In addition, there was discussion to add that the furthest point of the enclosure couldn’t be further than 10 feet from the shore.
There was further discussion about boathouse enclosures and how to write the code to achieve the intent.
Herb went through the changes to the building permit requirement section of the code.
Lombardi raised some concerns about what is being required especially with regard to septic locations. In some cases, the location of drain fields is not easy to find, even with a survey. The field lines would have to be dug up to determine their location.
Lombardi asked if the county would require different information to be submitted than the city. Lombardi asked about the costs involved to provide information to the city.
There was discussion about the setback notations and the need to change the code to state that setbacks must be met from all points along the applicable property line.
There was discussion about the requirement of a survey and how to word these changes so that it wouldn’t be implied that a new survey showing all of this information would be required.
There was discussion about changes to the variance sections of the code.
Lombardi motioned to approve the changes with the modifications discussed here. Hammond seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Threadgill will circulate proposed changes with the modifications discussed to P&Z for their review and approval.
IV. CITIZEN COMMENTS
V. ADJOURNMENT
Huntington motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Hammond seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
(Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill, approved by P&Z October 8th, 2007)
|
to top
|
|
|
 |
