Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members:
Bernie Cohen, Debbie Guthrie, Walter Anderson, Tom Kitchens and George Sipe
City Administrator – Leigh Threadgill
Deputy City Clerk- Sandy Rosenberger
City Attorney- Dick Carothers
Citizens Present- 9

CALL TO ORDER
Salter opened the meeting at 7:30 pm at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road.

I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Salter asked Council’s wishes regarding changes to the agenda.  Salter asked to add fowl fencing to the agenda under New Business.  Anderson asked to add discussion regarding the new parking ordinance under New Business as well.

Anderson motioned to accept the agenda with these changes.  Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor.  The motion passed.  

II. MINUTES
Anderson motioned to accept the minutes from the February 15, 2007 Council meeting with one minor modification to Section 8-e so that the second to last word in the fourth paragraph is deleted.   Kitchens seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

III. REPORTS
Salter noted that council had received a report from the Police.

Salter also noted that council had received the financial statements for February, 2007.

Kitchens motioned to accept the February, 2007 financial statements.  Guthrie seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

IV. MAYORS MESSAGE
Salter submitted a written report to council, which said the following:  
“The old siphon pipes from a previous lake lowering are now located up on the dam and will be removed next week.

I have today received a request from a citizen about “ongoing builder abuses.”  I pass it on to council so that you can be considering this for possible future action, and I would appreciate any response when you have a chance to consider this and formulate one.  The following is an excerpt:
“We ask that Council re-visit the fines that are currently imposed for violations. It appears that these dollar amounts are nothing more than a cost of doing business for these builders. We ask that the fines be raised as high as is legally allowed and that the Ordinance Committee review those Articles and Sections of the appropriate Ordinances that need more "teeth" in them.  We also ask that Council look into requiring builders to post bonds for certain types of construction or land disturbance on residential lots that may result in siltation or interference with storm water flow. Since the county, state, and federal governments are heading in a more stringent direction as regards storm water and water quality, it seems timely that the city should review this also.  Additionally, we would like Council to re-visit the Tree Ordinance as regards density and location of the trees to be removed from a lot. We know this flies in the face of "homeowner rights", however cutting down old growth hardwoods just because they block the view seems to run counter to the concept of "Tree City USA".

The infrastructure project is 48% finished.  Our independent testing is proving to be worthwhile because on 2 sites they have found that compaction was not quite up to the standards we wanted.   Some of the soil near Holben’s Pond and also at the Caldwell / Voyles site will have to be removed and recompacted.  The next site is near Dave Bondon and when they finish that one they will bring in paving equipment and pave all the areas they have cut so far.  They will then begin excavation on new sites moving from the far north end of Lakeshore Drive and working south to finish the rest.  I believe these contractors are doing well in spite of some unforeseen difficulties.  These run the gamut from multiple old unmarked water pipes breaking to their superintendent being kicked in the face by a cow.  He was severely injured and we wish him well.

I have received a letter from the DOT instructing us to patch 381 to 409 Lakeshore by April 20 if we want LARP to pave that area.  I am hoping that our contractors who are already working in the City will be able to do this for us at a good price and I have asked for estimates.

Council members and our attorney are asked to have everything finalized by noon the Monday before future meetings.  If a document isn't prepared by that time, we will be leaving it off the agenda.  I hope that plan meets with everyone’s approval.”  

Council expressed their agreement with this plan.

V. OLD BUSINESS
a) O-45-07 Chapter 3, Administration Ordinance (for poss. adoption)
Guthrie noted that she had a number of comments to work through to try to get the ordinance resolved. Her first comment to the City Administrator or the ordinance committee was to be sure that we amend Code Sections 22-201, 22-702 and 22-703 in light of changes to the OEO section of Chapter 3.

Guthrie noted trouble with duplicative numbering in Section 3. Consensus of council was to change the second 3-104 to 3-105 and 3-105 to 3-106.

Guthrie noted that the meeting schedule for the Planning and Zoning Commission in Section 6 was changed from a scheduled monthly meeting to meeting on an “as needed” basis.

The City Administrator reported on the conversation at the Planning and Zoning Commission when the changes to the meeting schedule were discussed.  The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed at their meeting that the citizens would be better served by scheduling on an “as-needed” basis because the Planning and Zoning Commission can respond more quickly and there is a better chance that more members will be in attendance to hear the request.

Sipe believed that if there were regularly scheduled meetings, then Planning and Zoning Commission would often cancel meetings and call special meetings, and the process would end up working the same way that it is now, but it will be more confusing.  He stated that in his experience citizens were best served by calling meetings on an as-needed basis.

Guthrie discussed that the Planning and Zoning Commission, if meeting on a regular schedule, still had the option to cancel meetings if there was no business and call additional meetings if business came up and they wanted to attend to it quickly.  She stated that with a monthly schedule, there is no reason that they can’t still have more than one meeting a month, if needed.

Anderson asked about the notice requirements if meetings were cancelled.  The City Attorney stated that all that would be required would be to post on the door of city hall that the meeting had been cancelled.

There was additional discussion about advertisement requirements.

Guthrie stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission could schedule a meeting any time they needed or wanted to have a meeting.  Having a monthly schedule gives citizens the chance to anticipate when a meeting would be held so that they are not uncertain about when they will be able to be heard at a meeting.  Guthrie stated that everyone should be able to plan better if there were a published schedule and there would be less time spent trying to round everyone up to have a meeting.

There was further discussion.
 
The City Attorney reported that in his experience folks like to know a certain date when Planning Commission would meet, but that he didn’t know what would work best for this Planning and Zoning Commission.  In addition, there was nothing to prevent them from holding a special called meeting.

Salter stated that Planning and Zoning Commission met five times last year.

Dan Huntington, 888 Lakeshore Drive, is a Planning and Zoning Commission member and stated that the members discussed this issue for about 30 minutes. They started out talking about it under the assumption that they would change the way meetings were scheduled as Council wished. However, as they discussed this, they felt that the citizens were better served by calling meetings as needed. He stated that the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission was that with regularly scheduled meetings they would only get three members rather than four or five, and that wouldn’t serve the citizens as well.  In addition, the system as it works now is more responsive to citizens because the chairman tries to call a meeting immediately when there is new business.

There was further discussion.

Guthrie was concerned that potentially one or two members would be continually absent if they didn’t have a schedule to plan around so that they could attend. She was concerned that scheduling meetings just for a quorum wasn’t the best service to the citizens.

Anderson asked Mr. Huntington how many variances were addressed at the five P&Z meetings last year. Huntington guessed that in total they heard about twelve variance cases.

Anderson asked how difficult it would be for Mr. Huntington to schedule around a published schedule. Huntington stated that it would likely become more difficult with his work, and that he hasn’t missed any meetings so far with the way that it has been working to call meetings on an as-needed basis.

Mr. Huntington also stated that when the chairman tries to schedule a meeting, he schedules it to get more than the three members required for a quorum.  They always have at least four members present at the meeting and at several meetings there were five.

Guthrie stated that in years past she understood that Planning and Zoning Commission meetings had not been held at times because a quorum couldn’t be obtained.

Mr. Huntington stated that as Planning and Zoning Commission functions now they are able to schedule meetings immediately to address variance requests, but that if an applicant just missed a deadline for a regularly scheduled meeting, then they would be pushed way back in the meeting cycle and would have to wait something like six weeks before being heard.

There was further discussion on whether it would or wouldn’t be more responsive to the citizens to have a regularly scheduled meeting.

Guthrie stated that if everyone agrees that calling Planning and Zoning Commission meetings on an as-needed basis is more responsive to the citizens, then the changes to Chapter 3 removing the requirement for a regularly-scheduled monthly meeting is reasonable to do.  She had based her comments to have a regularly-scheduled monthly meeting on feedback she had previously heard from citizens, conversations with the City Administrator and other council members, and review of the City Attorney’s comments.

Guthrie commented on removing the appeal option in section 3-701, page 20.  She agrees with the City Attorney’s recommendation that the last two sentences of the first paragraph on page 20 should be taken out of this ordinance.   

Guthrie commented on the BLC section of the ordinance, page 8, and stated that she thought that Councilman Sipe had requested at the previous meeting that the old verbiage for BLC be incorporated in this version of Chapter 3.  

Sipe wanted to restore the old BLC verbiage especially in regards to the two-year staggered terms and the advice and consent of council on appointments and terminations.

There was further discussion.

Sipe commented on Section 3-403 and the headings City Administrator and City Clerk. Sipe recommended removing Section 3-404 heading and leaving the description of the City Clerk’s duties as the last sentence under Section 3-403.  

The City Attorney recommended saying that the City Administrator shall serve as the City Clerk.

There was further discussion.

The City Administrator asked about the BLC section and Council’s wishes.  Anderson responded that the old BLC verbiage could be circulated to Council separately from the changes to the text as discussed at the meeting tonight.

After further discussion on O-45-07 Chapter 3, Administration Ordinance, the consensus was that further changes may be needed.  At this time, there was no motion and the consensus was to review a clean copy that incorporated changes discussed at the next scheduled council meeting.

Anderson asked the City Administrator to pull Chapter 22-201, 22-702 and 22-703 and review those and make any necessary changes and circulate those to council with the changes to Chapter 3.
 
b) City Hall Planning – Next Steps with Urban Collage
Sipe motioned to accept recommendations from the facilities committee and allocate the funds.  Anderson seconded the motion.

Anderson asked if there was a general consensus about whether council should go with the design-build option or design-bid-build option and possibly save $1,500-$2,000.

Barbara Carroll, 3430 Kingsland Circle, stated that the Facilities Committee had met and discussed this in meetings both with and without Eric Bosman.  After reviewing the December memo from Urban Collage about next steps, the Facilities Committee wanted to move forward with the first three recommendations from Urban Collage.  It appeared to the Facilities Committee that Bosman was assuming that if Council asked him to come on board with those three areas that he would think we had already made the decision about design-build v. design-bid-build. The Facilities Committee didn’t have enough information to know whether they wanted to go with design-build or design-bid-build.  When the Facilities Committee communicated that, Eric Bosman said that he would be happy to help with the decision to determine design-build or design-bid-build, and that that could be done on an hourly basis in a council work session with the Facilities Committee or without. He estimated 15-20 hours, although it may not take that long.

Salter noted that we need to try to be careful with monies spent on this process with Urban Collage to maximize the money available for the building itself.  

There was further discussion about the how best to move forward with choosing firms to either do design-build or design-bid-build.  

Guthrie requested that the motion be modified to specify the budget amount.

Sipe modified his motion to approve recommendations from the Facilities Committee to allocate funds not to exceed $11,600.  Anderson seconded the modified motion. All were in favor. The Motion passed.

Council discussed the need for a work session to be scheduled with Urban Collage to discuss the design-build v. design-bid-build option.  Barbara Carroll stated that she would contact Eric Bosman with Urban Collage to schedule something, which will likely be held in the Berkeley Walk Club House.

c) Deer Crossing Signs
Sipe asked if the signs are the standard traffic-approved signs. The City Administrator responded that they are the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) signs.

Discussion followed about the role that the county was willing to play in installation of the signs.

The City Administrator was asked to determine where the appropriate place to install signs would be, as far as distance from an intersection and other standards on installation of these types of signs. Cohen suggested that the county should have a manual addressing this.

There was much discussion about the size, location and placement of signs.  

Sipe motioned to allow the city to buy 4 signs, not to exceed $400, of medium or small size, size to be determined by the City Administrator upon researching this issue further, and to be installed by the county.  Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

d) O-52-07 Chapter 32-308 Body Art Studios and Artists (for poss. adoption)
Guthrie motioned to adopt O-52-07 Chapter 32-308 Body Art Studios and Artists. Anderson seconded the motion.

Discussion followed about changes to the ordinance. Anderson recommended changing a typographic error on page 10, section 32.208.11 paragraph 4, an extra space needs to be removed before a period.

Anderson wanted to discuss 32.208.18, page 17, in terms of who has the authority to inspect a body art studio.  Anderson recommended adding a paragraph to allow the OEO to inspect any time he deemed necessary.  

Discussion followed.

The City Attorney stated that if we needed to add the information about the OEO later, then we could change the ordinance then.  It was also mentioned that these facilities are prohibited in the City.

All were in favor.  The motion passed.  

e) O-47-07 Chapter 32-101, Regulatory Fees (for poss. 2nd read)
f) O-48-07 Chapter 4-103, Occupational Tax latest version (for poss. 2nd read)
The City Attorney stated that he did not have any additional changes other than those suggested by Anderson the last time these ordinances were discussed.

Anderson requested a clean copy of both ordinances and suggested that comments by Guthrie be reviewed and addressed.

After a brief discussion, the consensus was to postpone adopting O-47-07 Chapter 32-101, Regulatory Fees and Chapter O-48-07, Chapter 4-103 Occupational Taxes.

Anderson asked the City Administrator to begin pulling together the forms that would be needed to move forward with the implementation of these ordinances.  The City Attorney recommended obtaining forms from Gwinnett County and Lilburn.  

g) Council Consideration of StreetSmarts Report
Salter requested that council specifically consider recommendations on county roads in preparation for a meeting with Gwinnett County representatives in the coming week to discuss sidewalks.

Salter intended to ask them their opinion of StreetSmarts suggestions and which ones they may be most interested in supporting.

Salter stated that she wanted some of the StreetSmarts recommendations to be considered in conjunction with the plans for the new city hall. She also thought a roundabout at the Bush and Berkeley Lake Roads intersection, although not part of StreetSmarts’ report, could be incorporated into the new city hall and draw attention to the city center.

Cohen suggested that Salter approach the county generally about StreetSmarts recommendations.  Sipe also suggested not deviating from the report and trying to get the county to think along the lines of getting them to fund some of the improvements on the county roads.

Salter’s concern with only talking in generality is that they are coming to discuss sidewalks that may be affected by some of the StreetSmarts recommendations.

Guthrie wanted to discuss the StreetSmarts recommendation for chevrons at the River District section of N. Berkeley Lake Road, and expressed concern that the county may want to do that because it is a low cost improvement.  Guthrie asked about photographs of chevrons that council requested StreetSmarts to provide, which do not appear to have been provided. Chevrons are nothing but a psychological method of reducing speed, but they may not be attractive and they are cheap. There is an interest in having an alternative recommendation for that location.

There was further discussion about the roundabout recommendation on Bush Road at River Mansions and the placement of an additional roundabout at the intersection of Bush and Berkeley Lake Roads.  

Consensus of council was for Salter to talk in general terms to the county about what the study suggested on the county roads, to not focus on any one StreetSmarts recommendation, to try to move them toward funding some of these recommendations, and to explore alternatives.  It was suggested that she highlight that the City paid for this study and that there are recommendations for improvements to county roads so what will the county do about those recommendations.

VI. NEW BUSINESS
a) Gift for Former City Clerk
There was discussion about the gift for the former City Clerk and the need for a policy to address this in the future.  Salter described the gift as a framed photograph of Berkeley Lake by one of the local artists and its cost.

Salter asked someone to draft a policy for council consideration.  The City Attorney stated that he could search on Municode for examples of a policy. Salter requested that he not spend a lot of time drafting something.

Guthrie motioned to approve the gift for the former City Clerk at a cost of $310. Kitchens seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

b) Septic Extension Requests
Anderson motioned to approve the Septic Tank Extension Requests as submitted.  Sipe seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

c) Fowl Fencing
The consensus of Council was to allow BLHA to install fowl fencing once the City has obtained authorization in writing from the Safe Dams office.

d) Parking Ordinance
Anderson wanted to discuss the forms that may be needed to grant exceptions to the new parking regulations.  

Cohen suggested only granting an exception for those people who are a grandfathered situation with a pad, not just anyone who asks for it.

There was further discussion about enforcement of the ordinance.

Salter stated that a form would be drafted for next meeting.

Guthrie asked that staff consider what requirements would need to be met for an exception to be granted and what the process would be for Council to consider granting an exception.  

There was discussion about how to go about delaying enforcement until the appropriate process and necessary forms have been established.

Guthrie requested that the OEO provide friendly reminders before citing citizens right away once enforcement of this ordinance begins.  All were in agreement.

Sipe motioned to delay enforcement of the Parking Ordinance until after the next Council meeting.  Cohen seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.  

VII. CITIZENS COMMENTS
Debbe Robinson, 540 Lakeshore drive, spoke about the BLC and stated that she was in favor of two-year staggered terms.  She was involved in the original conception when consideration of GOLT was happening.  The BLC has gone through a lot of transition and changes. The process has worked as it was intended when they wrote and made recommendations to the code. There were years when everyone was together and there were years where there was contention and stress, but they learned to work together and brought ideas forward. The best years were those when tension was resolved at the citizen level.  When the whole group rolls over at once you lose a lot of history and a sense of what the group before you has learned and will share with you. If you lose that opportunity it is unfortunate.  Staggering the terms allows history and knowledge to be passed on to new members. As Council considers how best to manage the BLC let it grow together for the best of the whole community and for the best of the greenspace.

Dan Huntington, 888 Lakeshore Drive, commented on the StreetSmarts report.  He stated that the recommendations for Berkeley Walk were preposterous, which cast doubt on the entire report.  He thought the recommendations for Berkeley Walk were ludicrous in regards to pulling the stop signs, which were a good addition to the neighborhood and everyone has been happier now that they are there.  He also stated that there are some really ugly roundabouts if they are done cheaply. He suggested that Council may want to look at them on West Nancy Creek Rd where roundabouts were done very poorly and cheaply.

VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION for consideration of legal issues
Cohen motioned to enter executive session at 9:30 Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

Cohen motioned to adjourn executive session at 10:00 P.M. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

IX. ADJOURNMENT
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, COHEN MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT APPROXIMATELY 10:00 PM.  ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.  ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED.

Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill (approved by Council, April 19, 2007)