Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves first reading of zoning updates including performance guarantees and limits on commercial vehicles
Summary
On first reading the Berkley City Council moved to amend multiple sections of the zoning code to clarify performance guarantees, set timelines for project completion, revise temporary‑sign rules, allow municipal annual parking passes to count toward requirements, and prohibit commercial vehicles at single‑ and two‑family dwellings; the first reading passed unanimously.
The council held the first reading of a comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment on May 18 that updates multiple code sections to clarify performance guarantees, temporary sign time limits, parking rules and site‑plan procedures.
Community development Director Miss Kaplansky described the package as largely cleanup and adjustments based on use of the existing ordinance. She said the performance guarantees are meant to protect residents and the city if a developer abandons work, describing them as aimed at finishing site utilities and grading rather than building structures: “Performance guarantees are basically to make sure that if someone starts to develop a site and they get a third of the way through or halfway through through and they run out of money ... we can come in and say, we're gonna fill the hole,” she told the council.
Key provisions the council highlighted include a one‑year completion period for listed site improvements (with extensions possible for extenuating circumstances), an initial requirement to post $100,000 in cash, certified check or a letter of credit with the option to use surety bonds beyond that amount, and a requirement that construction cost estimates be reviewed by the city’s engineering consultant, Spalding de Decker. Kaplansky said guarantees may be reduced as work is completed and moved to maintenance guarantees once construction is finished.
Council members asked for clarifications about the definition of “commercial vehicle” and whether the fixed $100,000 threshold should be tied to a fee schedule or otherwise made adaptable to inflation. Council member Hennen suggested moving fixed dollar figures into a fee schedule or resolution so amounts can be adjusted without an ordinance amendment; a city attorney attendee noted that shifting the mechanism to a resolution or fee ordinance is possible but may not be necessary if the council prefers to monitor and revise later.
Council member Baker moved to approve the first reading and Council member Elrod seconded. The council voted unanimously in favor on roll call.
The council did not adopt final ordinance language at the meeting; staff indicated they will return with any clarifying edits for the second reading and to reconcile cross‑references in the municipal code prior to adoption.
