|
|
Full Minutes June 14, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC HEARING
(3rd Millage Rate) and
SPECIAL CALLED COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4040 SOUTH BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
Full Minutes for
June 14, 2007
7 P.M.
Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members:
Walter Anderson, Bernie Cohen, Debbie Guthrie, Tom Kitchens and George Sipe
City Administrator – Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present- 0
CALL TO ORDER
Salter opened the meeting at 7:05 pm at 4040 South Berkeley Lake Road.
I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Guthrie requested to add a new agenda item to discuss the special use permit application for a church submitted to Gwinnett County and abutting the city. This was added as New Business agenda item b. It was consensus of the Council to approve the agenda with this noted change.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
a.) Proposed 2007 Millage Rate
Salter called for citizen comments. There were none.
III. OLD BUSINESS
a.) O-56-07, 2007 Millage Rate
Anderson motioned to put O-56-07, 2007 Millage Rate, on second read and adopt. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Anderson asked about the Resolution before council. He asked if this needed to be passed as well as the ordinance.
Guthrie asked to follow up on information that the City Administrator was asked to research after the 1st millage rate hearing at noon on June 7th. Council had asked that she find out from the county what the ramifications would be if we did not submit our millage rate information according to the deadlines imposed by the county.
Threadgill responded that she had emailed the county and had emailed the council the response that she received, which was that the county would not mail our tax bills if we didn’t meet their deadline.
Sipe stated that the impact for us would be that the city would have to do our own billing, which we had done for years in the past.
Anderson noted that the initial tax bills are set to be mailed next month, which is why this deadline is now.
There was further discussion.
Guthrie, Anderson and Kitchens voted in favor. Sipe and Cohen opposed. The motion passed.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
a.) R-32-07, Resolution to Establish the Millage Rate for 2007
Anderson motioned to approve the resolution R-32-07 adopting the 2007 millage rate. Kitchens seconded the motion. Guthrie, Kitchens and Anderson voted in favor. Sipe and Cohen opposed. The motion passed.
b.) Council consideration of the Special Use Permit Application for a Church at 4450 Peachtree Lakes.
Guthrie began by stating that she is not against churches, but she expressed concern about a church going into a M-1 zoned office complex that borders residential homes. The Good Shepherd Church is asking for a Special Use Permit to locate their church in 12,000 square feet of existing office space in the Peachtree Lakes Office Park, which is zoned M-1. They are not asking for a zoning change.
She has called and spoken to various county employees about this application and discovered that they had only been given the information that was forwarded to us. The county couldn’t answer any additional questions about how much the church planned to build out, how many people, or any other specifics about the project. There is no other information required upon which to grant the SUP, but that is what they may do if they do not receive comments. In addition a Steinberg response is required stating that the church will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area.
Guthrie discussed the impact of parking for the church on adjacent homes and the Berkeley Walk subdivision which is across the street from the office park. She stated that she is concerned that there is no concept plan indicating how parking would be accommodated. She questioned what percentage of the space would be used for classrooms, offices, sanctuary and storage. Based on information from the Fire Marshall’s department, if the 7,000 square foot warehouse was built out for the sanctuary, they could have an occupant load of 466-1,000 people depending on whether they used fixed or non-fixed seating. Of course, there would be additional occupant capacity for the 5,000-square foot office area. Parking requirements for the 7,000-square foot sanctuary would range from 93 to 333 spaces, according to the county. There are only 34 spaces shown on the existing site plan to serve the entire building, which is shared with another tenant, Night Glass Media Group. The building is still going to be shared with another tenant according to the church’s letter. Are the 34 spaces to be shared between both tenants? Will the existing parking be sufficient to handle the number of cars coming on site for the church? Will the church share parking with neighboring tenants? Even if they share parking with other tenants throughout the office park, are there enough parking spaces throughout the park to accommodate the potential occupant load?. Are there agreements with other tenants for shared parking and will those agreements remain in effect if the property owners or tenants change in the future?
Guthrie said that down the road the church may want to have daytime activities such as daycare, Vacation Bible School, Mothers Day Out because that’s a natural progression of church ministry. How will parking and traffic flow be accommodated for such activities during regular business hours?
Guthrie asked about the effect of any night activities on neighboring areas, and how late they could operate. What about the effects of outdoor lighting if they were permitted to add such amenities as basketball courts? Would they be permitted to add such things as playgrounds or picnic areas? Would there be restrictions on noise and lighting?
Her main points were based on concerns about traffic, parking, noise and lighting.
Guthrie referenced a previous request for an auction house to go into this office park, and stated that the result of having a church would be very similar to having an auction house. The difference with the auction house is that the use required a rezoning, and the county was opposed to a zoning change.
Sipe stated that there is a difference when a zoning change is considered because once the zoning changes to commercial, then that opens the door for lots of other commercial uses to locate there. He noted though that churches are permitted in R-100 in the City of Berkeley Lake.
Anderson stated that there are also ordinances about noise and other issues, which we can enforce within the city limits. Would the county enforce their ordinances to handle this new use adjacent to the city? The city doesn’t have any ability to enforce any ordinances with regard to this particular use because it’s located outside the city.
Guthrie stated that there is a church nearby that had a battle with the surrounding homeowners regarding new ball fields that were being built. Homeowners were very upset because of the potential noise and lighting.
Guthrie stated that there are some mega churches that have located in these kinds of developments - office parks. They may have started small, but then grown to fill the office park and require substantial parking. Guthrie stated that it was important to look to the future to see what the end result may be and what the worse case scenario may be.
There was further discussion.
Guthrie stated that she is not necessarily opposed to the church, but she does have some concerns which may be able to be handled through the county placing restrictions on this permit.
Salter asked if we should request restrictions on the special use permit.
Sipe stated that once special use permits are issued, then the issuing authority has to be consistent with how they issue them.
Anderson said that light pollution, noise late in the evening, parking and traffic are legitimate concerns that could be communicated to the county to impose some conditions on the special use permit.
There was further discussion.
Salter asked if the city should go to the county and give them the city’s concerns and request certain conditions be considered.
Sipe stated that we could be vague and ask the county planning commission to develop conditions to mitigate the concerns raised here.
There was consensus of council to do this.
It was also decided that the county should be informed that this site directly abuts Berkeley Lake residential property.
There was further discussion.
Anderson asked about the load. Guthrie responded that per the Fire Marshall, with portable seating all that is required is 7 square feet per person, so she determined that the capacity in the 7,000-square-foot warehouse would be 1,000 people. If seating is fixed, then 15 square feet is required per person, for a capacity of 466 people.
Cohen stated that the church has bought the property and will likely fight really hard, but that the city should go ahead and object.
There was further discussion.
Anderson stated that the city could just fight for certain conditions rather than object altogether to the church use.
There was further discussion.
Anderson added that during normal business hours the church shouldn’t exceed the capacity of its own parking.
Anderson stated that noise, light, traffic, and parking are the primary concerns here, not necessarily the church use.
Guthrie requested input from the City Administrator. Threadgill responded that she was not intimately familiar with Gwinnett County’s regulations. She stated that in her experience in North Carolina, the special use permit would be narrowly construed, and that the church couldn’t add a daycare without amending the special use permit.
Salter asked for specific and concise wording for any conditions. She stated that obviously we need a condition for lighting adjacent to residential property and that the topography is such that it shines down on people. She stated that we would need a condition about noise. She asked for Sipe to provide verbiage for a condition for parking. Sipe stated that our concern would be to have the parking entirely contained within the Peachtree Lakes office park, not out in front of the school, or any of the banks, or Pinckneyville Park. Salter asked what could be said about traffic.
There was discussion about traffic.
Salter stated that she would try to get a list of comments written up for us to submit to the county to meet the county’s deadline of Monday.
There was further discussion.
It was decided not to object to the request, but to raise some concerns and ask for conditions. We need to request that the city’s concerns be addressed if the county is going to approve this.
V. CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were none.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Cohen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
(Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill, approved by council June 21, 2007)
|
to top
|
|
|
 |
