|
|
Full Minutes December 4 2007 |
|
|
|
|
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4040 South Berkeley Lake Road
Berkeley Lake, GA 30096
December 4th, 2007
7:30 P.M.
Full Minutes
Those in attendance at the meeting were as follows:
Chairman: Bob Herb
Commissioners: Craig Belt, Frank Lombardi, Rodney Hammond and Dan Huntington
City Administrator and P&Z Secretary: Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present/Guests: Irene and Wayne Gowens and Jennifer Lombardi
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Herb opened the meeting at 7:38 p.m. on December 4th, 2007 at 4040 South Berkeley Lake Road.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
a.) Minutes of the October 8th, 2007 P&Z meeting
Belt motioned to approve the October 8, 2007 minutes. Huntington seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
III. NEW BUSINESS:
Herb stated that item (b), which is an appeal of the Ordinance Enforcement Officer’s interpretation of the sign ordinance, should be taken out of the purview of P&Z and changed to be a council function since this is not code that was authored by P&Z and doesn’t fit into the zoning ordinance.
a.) Variance - 537 Lakeshore Drive:
Irene Gowens, 537 Lakeshore Drive, introduced the variance application. She stated the existing house has a small deck off the back of the kitchen. They would like to expand that deck lengthwise to be the full length of the back of the house. The space back there is unusable. It is a natural, leafy groundcover. The goal is to install doors from the dining room out to the expanded portion of the deck to update the house, improve the house, and expand usable space. It’s just a deck and not an addition.
Herb stated that the first criteria for P&Z to hear this request is to be able to prove that there is something unusual about the size, shape or topography that prevents the proposal from adhering to the code. Herb stated that he can’t see that there is anything that prevents them from adhering to the required 40-foot rear setback requirement.
Herb reiterated that on any property there has to be something unusual about the size, shape or topography in order for a variance to be heard. This request is to make the situation even worse than it is today. P&Z can not approve a variance request if they don’t agree with you that there is something unusual about the lot. P&Z can only make exceptions to the code requirements when there is a situation that makes it impossible from someone to meet the requirements of the code. Herb stated that he can’t see that they meet that hurdle.
Herb stated that we are in the process of changing the code, which is proposed to say that on non-conforming properties, you don’t have to meet that hurdle of size, shape and topography, but you would not be permitted to increase the nonconformity. In this case, the proposal would increase the non-conformity. Either way the application doesn’t meet the requirements of the current code or the proposed changes to the code.
Irene Gowens stated that there is a 40-foot buffer behind them and that they are at a disadvantage because the house was originally built so close to the rear property line and it is non-conforming. Having the 40-foot buffer behind the house helps in terms of the impact on the neighbors. The only thing that will change from the perspective of a neighbor is a wood deck would exist instead of a leafy cover. They aren’t trying to add-on a room. She stated that this project will update the house and increase the value of the property and the aesthetics of the property. She stated that it will look nicer in the backyard with this improvement.
Wayne Gowens stated that it is virtually unusable space there now. He added that Commissioner Hammond had been to the site to examine the situation.
Hammond stated that the code is clear and the practice has been to uphold the code unless there has been unusual hardship. As much as he is sympathetic with the intent to improve the property, he doesn’t see how P&Z can approve this variance and uphold the responsibility that P&Z has with the existing codes.
Huntington asked if the 40-foot buffer was part of Miramont. Ms. Gowens responded that the buffer was not on her property. Herb stated that It is likely owned by the Miramont HOA. Herb stated that the 40-foot buffer was required to be in addition to the 40-foot rear setback. Herb stated that the code doesn’t allow them to consider the buffer.
Lombardi asked about a discussion that occurred in P&Z regarding a fence in a buffer zone. Lombardi stated that the ordinance was changed to allow fences in the buffer zone. He recalled the discussion that if it was in the buffer and unobtrusive then the fence would be permitted. Maybe the conditions for a fence might apply to this.
Hammond stated that as the code stands now, there are not grounds for granting a variance.
Lombardi asked about the installation of hardscape if it weren’t attached to the house. Belt and Herb stated that that could be done without a variance. The key is to not attach the hardscape to the house so it doesn’t become part of the structure.
Ms. Gowens asked if for a variance to be granted the applicant would have to demonstrate extreme hardship. Herb responded that they would have to demonstrate that there was something unusual about the size, shape and topography of the property.
Herb stated that if the deck was hardscape and not attached to the house, then that would be permissible without a variance. It would just require a permit.
Belt stated that the house is very near to the rear lot line as is.
Threadgill read the section of the code related to exemptions for fencing in buffers, which is Section 78-368.
There was discussion about whether the applicant would withdraw their application.
Ms. Gowens asked about the procedure for variances and the conditions that had to be met regarding hardship.
Hammond stated that certain conditions have to be met for an application to be made. Even if the conditions have been met, it is a deliberative process as to whether or not granting the variance would create an undue hardship on the applicant.
Herb stated that variances are typically granted for 10%, 15% or 20% of the requirement and the request before P&Z now is for 80%.
Hammond stated that in general P&Z tries to get properties more in line with the code. If there is some way to do that with any particular variance request, that is helpful.
Herb stated again that there is an option for the Gowens to do the hardscape if not attached to the existing structure.
There was further discussion about the hardscape option and whether or not steps could be protruding off the side of the existing deck.
Lombardi stated that there is nothing that says they can’t build a new wooden deck at the same elevation as the existing deck as long as there is a quarter of an inch from the existing house and existing deck.
Herb went on to state that that is not in the spirit and intent of the ordinance, but that would be permissible.
The Gowens chose to withdraw their variance application.
b.) Appeal of Ordinance Enforcement Officer’s Determination regarding definition of “construction sign”, Section 62-2.
Herb recommended that Lombardi recuse himself from consideration of this agenda item due to a conflict of interest. Lombardi agreed to do so.
Jennifer Lombardi stated that the way staff interpreted the ordinance didn’t cover the kind of contract that she has with homeowners. The way staff interpreted the code and the mechanisms they had at their disposal to enforce the code was to use existence of a valid permit to determine whether construction was proposed or existing. She stated that she may have a contract with a homeowner to design the building for up to 12 months before needing a building permit. She contests that she should have a right, like a real estate agent may have a house on the market for 6, 9 or 12 months, to have a sign while a house is being designed. Lombardi stated that she would provide a contract.
Herb asked Threadgill what code was interpreted to make this determination. Threadgill stated that it was the definition of “construction sign” that was considered.
There was a short recess while Threadgill researched other code pertaining to the regulation of construction signs. Threadgill read the additional code related to construction signs, but stated that the issue was at what point the sign could be erected, and that determination was based on the definition of a construction sign.
There was further discussion and it was determined that if there is a contract then that would be sufficient evidence of proposed construction and the sign could be erected.
Huntington asked about work that would not require a permit but for which a contractor would want to erect a sign such as a house painter. We don’t want such contractors to have to get a permit in order to put up a sign.
Jennifer Lombardi stated that if the city staff wanted to verify that there was a contract then the homeowner could provide a letter stating that there is a contract without the actual contract needing to be provided to city hall. She continued that it may not be useful for contracts to be stored at City Hall, but staff would need proof of the contract.
Huntington asked whether or not it would be burdensome for city staff to call and ask for a contract.
Herb stated that this is one instance and P&Z is responsible for hearing the appeal on the staff interpretation.
Threadgill stated that once P&Z makes its interpretation, such interpretation will provide a guide for staff moving forward for how they will handle these types of signs.
Huntington motioned to grant the appeal under the existing code with proof of a contract that there is proposed construction.
There was further discussion about whether this was just for one property.
Hammond stated that he is uncomfortable granting the appeal but would like to grant some temporary relief on this situation until such time the code is changed and revised as needed.
There was further discussion.
Hammond asked about how ordinary citizens would know that a contract would be needed to erect a construction sign.
Threadgill stated that the P&Z ruling on this appeal would become a policy guide for how to interpret this code from this day forward and that would be documented in City Hall.
Belt asked for the motion to be read back.
Belt seconded the motion. Belt, Huntington and Herb voted in favor. Hammond voted in opposition. The motion passed.
Herb recommended that the city council be the appeals body for disputes regarding sign-ordinance interpretations rather than the Planning & Zoning Commission and that the code be changed to reflect that. Hammond endorsed that to be included in the minutes.
c.) Consideration of text amendment application to change section 78-201, Building restrictions on city right-of-way
Herb read the current wording of the ordinance. “No structures, including walls or fences, shall be erected on the city right-of-way. Parking pads are specifically prohibited under this article. Mailboxes are permitted, but their construction shall be limited to the traditional stake and arm design only.” He then gave some background information on the request from the homeowner to amend the code. The applicant wants to amend the code to allow break-away mailboxes of a composite material which have been tested to meet Federal Highway Administration Standards. The Federal Highway Administration now allows break-away mailboxes that are designed to look like brick or stone mailboxes provided they comply with certain standards for highway safety.
Herb stated that the applicant had made a recommendation regarding proposed language, which Herb and staff had reviewed and edited slightly. The amended language has been proposed to P&Z. The following language was read into the record… “No structures, including walls or fences, shall be erected on the city right-of-way. Parking pads are specifically prohibited under this article. Stake and arm mailbox designs and any structure which supports a mailbox and/or decorative covers for mailbox supports which are approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to be used on the National Highway System (NHS) right-of-way are permitted. For all mailbox designs other than the traditional stake and arm design, the homeowner shall provide a letter to the city from the structure manufacturer or directly from the FHWA that states the structure installed meets the guidelines outlined in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350. Any modifications to an approved pre-manufactured structure shall require a letter from the manufacturer or the FHWA stating that the modified structure meets the guidelines outlined in the NCHRP Report 350.”
Huntington stated that he liked using the work of others for this rather than re-inventing the wheel.
Hammond asked the intent of the original ordinance and whether it was for safety. Herb confirmed that it was. Hammond confirmed that the safety issue is moot with the new technology that exists for construction of these types of mailboxes. This amendment is to revise the code to allow construction that meets safety standards as long as there is documentation of it.
Hammond asked if staff was satisfied with the proposed language. He asked if there were any possibility that this language could not be easily interpreted. Threadgill responded that she didn’t have any expectation that the language would be difficult to apply.
Lombardi stated that if you want a stake and arm mailbox you don’t have to do all this other stuff and that isn’t clear in the proposed language. He suggested to make a separate sentence for stake and arm mailboxes first and then say “In addition” or “Any other structure..” to begin the next sentence regarding the other types of design.
Herb recommended that the proposed language be modified to state that “Stake and arm mailbox designs are permitted. In addition, any structure…”
There was further discussion.
Hammond motioned to support the revisions in code as discussed. Huntington seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
IV. CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were none.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Lombardi motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Hammond seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
(Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill, approved by P&Z on March 3, 2008)
|
to top
|
|
|
 |
