|
|
Full Minutes October 18, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL MEETING and PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4043 SOUTH BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
Full Minutes for
October 18, 2007
Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members:
Walter Anderson, Debbie Guthrie, Tom Kitchens, and George Sipe
City Attorney and Associate: Dick Carothers and Amy Cowan
City Administrator – Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present- 14
CALL TO ORDER
Salter opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road.
I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Under new business Salter suggested moving staff proposal until after executive session.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
a.) O-60-07, Adoption Ordinance for Municode
b.) O-61-07 Chapter 78 (former Chapter 39) Zoning Ordinance
There was no public comment.
III. MINUTES of June 21st, 2007 and September 20th, 2007
Anderson motioned to accept Final Draft Minutes from June 21st, 2007.
There was brief discussion.
Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes of September 20th. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
IV. REPORTS
i. Police
Salter noted that council had received a police report. In the last three months we’ve had no incidents other than two fender benders on Berkeley Lake Road.
ii. September 2007 Financial Statements
Guthrie motioned to accept unaudited September 30th financial statements. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
iii. Ordinance Enforcement Officer
Salter noted that council had received a report from the OEO.
iv. Building and Process Review Committee Report
Salter noted that the chairperson of that committee is in attendance. Kitchens asked about some of the verbiage on the second page about midway down when safety inspector is mentioned. Mitsch responded that the safety inspector should only do the building inspections.
Sipe clarified that and stated that the safety inspector should do safety inspections and the OEO should do zoning inspections.
Guthrie asked if we could have staff respond to the report that has been issued.
Sipe asked if that included the P&Z. Guthrie stated that she intended just having a response from the City Administrator after her coordination with other staff.
Sipe stated that he would also like to see what P&Z has to say.
Bob Herb stated that he would coordinate with P&Z to have them review this and give their feedback.
Both reports are to be submitted to council before the next council meeting.
v. Architectural Design Firm Selection Committee Report
Salter noted that council had received a report from Barbara Carroll as representative of the Architectural Design Firm Selection Committee that was formed by council.
V. MAYOR’S MESSAGE TO COUNCIL
Salter noted distribution of the following written report to be incorporated into the minutes:
At the request of the Berkeley Lake Conservancy, I contacted the Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful organization about the trash along PIB and asked for their convict workers to remove it. That has been done.
We have completed marking the roads in front of all the fire hydrants throughout the old part of the city where they are most difficult to see. You may have noticed the blue reflective things in the middle of the road that will show up at night. We intend to complete the same type of marking throughout the rest of the city as soon as possible.
I observed a water leak at a wastewater pump station on Lakeshore Drive behind Miramont and reported it to our city engineer and the county. They checked the pump station and found the leak to be a potable water leak. Since the pump station’s operation is not dependent on potable water service, they shut off the water meter to stop the leak for the time being. I am told they will schedule a repair crew at the earliest available opportunity to make a repair on the leak.
The pipe beneath the Flanigan property outside the city being developed above Chris Holben has collapsed in 2-3 places. I have spoken to a county engineer about it, as well as to Bert Nasuti. I also contacted the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation agency and arranged for one of their staff to come out and review the problem. The county has agreed not to try to repair this but to replace it, which will be quite a difficult challenge.
I have solicited requests and suggestions for our 2008 budget from all our committee chairs and I invite them as well from council members. I hope to have a budget ready for your consideration at our next meeting.
Please pass the word about our decision to move the Veterans Day celebration originally planned for Nov. 10 to Memorial Day weekend in May, 2008, because of logistics. Several active components of the U.S. military are involved, and official participation was greater than expected. By delaying this until next spring we have the opportunity to add several interesting features to our celebration and to do it in warmer weather. More details will follow as planning develops.
Randy Kirkus continues to watch over our dam and has met with a representative of the Ga. Safe Dams Agency about plans for a sidewalk along it. Randy reports that Long Engineering is doing the sidewalk design for the county and has received the Notice To Proceed to redesign the area along the dam. When they have a proposal Randy will meet with the Safe Dams representative again and ask them to review the design for safety.
Please remember Berkeley Lake’s Fall Festival on the afternoon of Sunday, Oct. 28. The City pays for this as recreation for our citizens and we are very grateful to the BLOSOMS for planning and coordinating the activities.”
Kitchens asked about the pipe behind Chris Holben. Salter stated that the county has said that they will repair it. Kitchens asked about the silt and what would happen with that. Salter stated that that remains to be seen.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
a.) Decision re Christa property problems
Salter noted that Mr. Bentley has sent some information in behalf of Ms. Christa that has been forwarded to all of council. It was not received in the time that it was supposed to have been submitted.
Sipe stated that he has looked at it. It is helpful to have the survey showing what has been proposed. He was hoping that we were going to be aiming to have it be compliant. We knew it wouldn’t comply with the front setback, but that the other setbacks were supposed to be met. Sipe stated that there are still some serious issues, such as the rear setback, which would require hefty variances. It appears that the structure covers more than 15% of the lot. The net is that it looks like it requires a lot of variances. Would the P&Z grant those variances? They can’t consider the fact that it is after the fact. If they can’t grant these variances, then there would be no use permit. In that case, the plan would fall apart and the structure would have to be removed to be compliant.
Sipe added that variances would have to be requested formally through the normal P&Z process.
Anderson asked if it makes sense to go to P&Z and request the variances based on the assumption that the lot lines will be changed. Would the order be to determine if the change in lot lines would negatively impact the other structure/property and then look at the variances for the property under construction and determine if P&Z would grant those variances so the structure could be built? If the variances were granted, the survey would then have to be legally recorded and a health permit would be needed prior to us issuing a use permit.
Sipe stated that they would have to be compliant to get a use permit from the City. The question is whether P&Z will grant all variances that are required.
Anderson asked if the original construction included a rear setback variance. Sipe responded that it did not have a rear setback variance. There was question about whether one of the new lot lines as shown on the submitted survey would be considered a rear or side lot line.
Bob Herb, P&Z chairman, asked if the new line was a rear lot line or side lot line. Carothers stated that he would work with Herb on this. Herb noted that if they are trying to classify this as a ranch home, which limits the front height to 25’ at the highest point and 35’ at the rear to the highest point. This is significant to determine whether the structure meets maximum lot coverage according to our code.
Salter asked if council would want to set a date for when the variances would need to have been granted.
Sipe suggested P&Z holding a meeting that was open to the public to determine unofficially if the variances would be granted.
Anderson asked if the lot lines are not yet changed, but there is a plan to change the lot lines, can the variance be granted.
Herb stated that the variance can be issued conditionally with regard to the change in lot lines.
There was further discussion.
Herb stated that P&Z could hear this within 6 weeks, but not by the next council meeting.
Herb stated that the variance application should be submitted within a time period specified by council.
There was further discussion.
Guthrie asked the City Attorney what the next step would be if the action plan tonight is not met.
Carothers stated that Gene could issue citations based on the fact that it’s a nuisance and he, Carothers, can go to superior court to have it removed.
Salter asked if council wanted within a week, October 25th, to have a completed variance application and if not then staff will proceed with citations.
Anderson asked if an iron pin survey would be required for P&Z review. Herb responded that that wouldn’t be necessary at this point and added that P&Z would require an as-built survey at the end of the process to ensure variance compliance.
There was further discussion.
Salter asked if there is council consensus that the completed application be submitted by Thursday, October 25th, and, if not, then the city would proceed with citations.
Guthrie asked if Christa and Bentley would be able to meet the deadline requirements, to which they responded that they would not have a problem meeting that deadline.
There was discussion about what is required to be submitted for a variance application.
The question that still remains is whether or not the new lot line is a rear or side.
The consensus of council was that the completed variance application be submitted by Monday, October 29th.
Lynford Bentley submitted a copy of the full survey and a copy of the letter from Environmental Health stating they will grant the permit.
b.) City Hall
Salter stated that lots of time went into this and gave the process that we went through to come to a decision regarding the architect. She stated the final two firms were asked to give a cost for not just building design, but site design and planning for the park.
She reported the difference in cost between the final two firms $98,500 for Wakefield Beasley and $167,250 for BRPH. The committee selected Wakefield Beasley and stated that the references for the firm selected were thoroughly checked.
Salter along with the other two members of the architect selection committee suggests that the council authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Wakefield Beasley for the amount of money she noted earlier. She stated that she will also need to tell them how much money we’re telling them to design a building for.
Salter went over the projected SPLOST funds for the budget for the development of the new city hall site. She suggested that the county’s projection was for $774,000 in the city hall bucket of SPLOST funds and $515,740 in SPLOST recreational facilities. This does not include the interest that we are accruing on this money. We had expected to generate $1,000 in interest and we have already generated almost twice that. She suggested that we not err on the low side and give the architect that projected budget plus some for interest in order to design the site and building. If the whole economy tanks, the safety margin is that we would have our city reserves if needed.
Sipe stated that we have to be careful about the SPLOST park money because there are restrictions about how that is used.
Sipe asked if the architects would be able to give us some variability in what they design so that we could get a little bit more out of them if we have some money available or scale back if the funds aren’t what we had thought they would be.
Salter stated that the window is good and it’s in our interest to move forward because this is a favorable time to build according to other mayors and both architectural firms.
Sipe asked then if the numbers she’s given are relatively fixed since we plan on moving forward quickly. Salter responded yes.
Guthrie pointed out that if we do come in under budget we could use the SPLOST funds for furnishings and equipment.
Salter stated that she just wanted to be sure that we got the most out of the building that we could.
Guthrie stated that we needed to understand that if we spend everything from SPLOST on construction then we have to use reserves for furniture and equipment.
Salter noted that we have already spent approximately $16,000 on Urban Collage and the $98,500 would need to be backed out of the estimates as well.
Anderson asked what the ballpark budget was to furnish this building. Guthrie stated that Urban Collage had given us information on that.
Guthrie asked whether this year’s city hall budget for $75,000 was just for this year’s portion or was that the total suggested for us to spend on the architect. Guthrie stated that we needed to know if we are already over budget. There was further discussion about whether we needed to give the architect the target budget for designing the site and building.
Anderson motioned to authorize Salter to enter into contract with Wakefield Beasley for $98,500 for the purposed architect and related services of design of the building and the site and recreation facility. Guthrie seconded the motion.
Sipe asked how the architect would be spending their time and whether they were on the same page with us about what we want.
Salter stated that we did have a meeting with everyone and showed them all the things that our citizens had suggested.
Guthrie stated that we are going to be nailing down the details now and that some of the original thoughts were conceptual, but the next step is to appoint a committee to work with the architects.
Sipe stated that there should be some touch point earlier on between the architect and the council directly to show preliminary drawings.
Salter reported that the architect said they would do that. The architects suggested that the group that would deal with them would be small just to streamline the process. Salter suggested that the original architect selection committee continue with this.
Salter stated that the architect also asked for a survey of the property. They want a topographical survey. Salter stated that she would email the information.
Sipe asked if a survey was done previously. Salter stated that she isn’t sure how detailed the existing survey is. They wanted to know the utility crossings and additional detailed information on the survey.
There was further discussion.
It was requested that staff would get some information regarding the cost of the survey.
All were in favor. The motion passed.
Salter asked if council was all right with the existing three people continuing to serve on this committee. Anderson suggested that Guthrie be either the 4th on the committee or the 3rd and Threadgill act as a non-voting member of the committee.
Anderson motioned that Lois Salter, Debbie Guthrie and Barbara Carroll be the voting members of the committee to carry forward with the architects on the city hall project and that Leigh Threadgill act as a non-voting advisory presence. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
c.) GwMA dues and assessments
Salter noted that we need a motion to ratify the GwMA dues and assessments, which amounted to $2.75 per person based on 2000 census for a total of $4,662.
Guthrie motioned to ratify the dues and assessments. Kitchens seconded. All were in favor. The motion passed.
d.) O-47-07 Chapter 32-102 Regulatory Fee Ordinance (for poss. adoption)
There was discussion about whether the ordinances needed to be amended again for the effective date beginning the process of first read and second read over again.
Carothers stated that council could just have a resolution that says these begin to be in effect as of now and put the procedures in place and then institute the tax and fees on January 1, 2008 or whatever day council selects.
There was additional discussion about unresolved comments/questions to these ordinances and it was determined that what was originally adopted was satisfactory.
Anderson motioned to resolve to institute the occupation tax and regulatory fee as of January 1, 2008. Kitchens seconded the motion.
There was brief discussion about the date set for beginning to institute the occupation tax and regulatory fees.
Kitchens, Anderson and Guthrie voted in favor. Sipe voted in opposition. The motion passed.
Sipe stated for the record that he remains opposed to these ordinances.
e.) O-48-07 Chapter 32-101 Business and Occupation Tax Ordinance (for poss. adoption)
See above.
f.) O-60-07 Adoption Ordinance for Municode (second read)
Sipe motioned to put on second read and adopt this ordinance. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
g.) O-61-07 Chapter 78 (former Chapter 39) Zoning Ordinance (second read)
Sipe motioned to put this ordinance on second read and adopt. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Anderson noted that he had some concerns about the unclear wording and there are some important missing definitions. Anderson stated that he would like to have the OEO and building inspector to provide feedback on the proposed changes. Threadgill responded that the building inspector has reviewed this and his comments have been incorporated.
Guthrie stated that she would like to have staff input on these changes. Guthrie shares some of Anderson’s concerns. It’s obvious that a lot of work has gone into this and wants to have a little bit more time to review it.
Sipe amended the motion to put this ordinance on second read. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Staff was asked to provide feedback on this at least one week prior to the next meeting.
Herb asked if there were any questions he could answer while he’s here tonight.
Carothers stated that it would be particularly important to include the P&Z chairman in communication about changes and comments. Anderson stated that he would have no problem putting down what he has concerns about to circulate to the whole group.
h.) Emergency Management Plan
Salter noted that at the last meeting council wanted more time to review it. It is a lengthy document.
Salter has already mentioned to the former chair of BLEMA that we would need something more streamlined. We need to give some response to Shawn Cochran who prepared the document.
Salter asked for council’s response.
Guthrie stated that it is obvious someone has put a lot of work into this. She understood this to be an overlay, but this plan is complex, and Berkeley Lake doesn’t have the staff or resources for this kind of plan, nor will we likely need something this intricate and complex. She noted that this may have been a corporate plan that was retrofitted for us. There are many things that don’t apply to the city. It needs to be boiled down to something much simpler and more pertinent to Berkeley Lake and what our resources are. We need something that identifies what we don’t do in that we rely on the county for some things.
Kitchens added that this is a complex plan. He added that we’ll have far more than we need to operate responsibly.
Guthrie is confused about the intent of this. We need to deal with the fact that we passed a resolution a year ago to adopt the county’s disaster and mitigation plan and FEMA funding is based on us carrying out that plan. We have a plan that we’ve adopted that we’ve not done anything with. We need to look to see how the plan presented to us could be dovetailed to the county’s plan.
Irvin Gunter, 4190 Berkeley View Drive, noted that this plan is an overview of the master plan. It is a broad project approach as to who would be responsible for certain pieces that would need to be done. Gunter added that Cochran could respond better in person.
Salter asked if she should communicate the sentiment she’s heard tonight to Cochran.
Guthrie stated that maybe Cochran and the committee need to figure out how this fits into the plan that we’ve already adopted, and if they don’t want to do that then council needs to pick that up because we have an adopted plan that we’re not using.
Sipe stated that this is just showing a structure and the kinds of thing that we should be thinking about.
Guthrie stated it needs to be simpler and needs to look at the relationship between the city and county.
Salter said that she would try to relate that to Cochran and asked Gunter to do the same at the next BLEMA meeting.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
a.) Berkeley Village Preliminary Plat – Revision to Condition on Hours of Operation
Salter stated that we’ve had an interesting sequence of events. Snap Fitness asked for a plat change so that they could be open longer hours and P&Z worked through it with them and made a recommendation to council. Then there was an email circulated that indicated that the Snap Fitness franchisee may be backing out. There may be some legal issues between that potential franchisee and the leasing agent. Tonight a letter has been delivered from the developer stating that the management at Berkeley Village does want to proceed with the same plat revision because the corporate level Snap Fitness wants to find another franchisee for that site.
Leslie Riethmaier, Reithmaier & Yang, LLC spoke. He was supposed to move in as Snap Fitness into this location. If corporate is suggesting that they can have a franchise with someone else for this location that would not be a true statement. His lease was signed in early August and it was clearly asked if there were restrictions to prevent the 24-hour operation of the facility. The plat restriction wasn’t disclosed until after the lease was signed. On October 1st, Lavista was notified that this franchisee of Snap Fitness was not going to move forward with locating in this space. Lavista proceeded to go before P&Z on October 8th. It would be contradictory to their franchise agreement with Mr. Riethmaier for corporate to talk with the leasing agent about another franchise agreement for this location. The only reason they may want to have this plat condition changed is to legally bind him to the lease they had signed prior to this.
Sipe noted that that is a dispute between the leasing agent and the franchisee, and doesn’t really pertain to the decision before council. We are asked to make a decision on the application before us.
Guthrie stated that the plat amendment was requested for a specific operation. Guthrie stated that the purpose of doing this was to find quality tenants in the office park, but now we’re looking at changing the plat so that they can go hunt down someone that fits the 24/7 fitness facility, which may not be the quality of Snap Fitness.
Guthrie noted that the plat change is very specific to one type and doesn’t do anything to attract other high quality businesses to this location.
Guthrie stated that if another Snap Fitness wants to go there then we could table it to the next meeting.
Sipe asked if a public hearing would be required to make this plat change.
Carothers asked if P&Z had held a public hearing. Threadgill responded that they had.
Council needs to consider if this is something that they want without consideration for the current situation. If they think that Lavista can get another Snap Fitness in that location.
Guthrie asked if build-out had started. Riethmaier stated that it had not. Guthrie stated that she had been told 3 weeks ago by Lavista that build-out had begun. The information she was told first-hand is not matching up with what we’re hearing tonight.
Guthrie motioned to postpone this until the next council meeting. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
b.) O-62-07 Section 78-206, Home Occupation – Exemptions (first read)
Anderson motioned to put on first read Chapter 39-811 as submitted by P&Z. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Sipe asked who wrote these changes as he understood it hadn’t originated in P&Z. Anderson responded that he and Threadgill had been asked to write this code section two months ago. This is an amalgam of code from other municipalities with modifications deemed necessary for Berkeley Lake.
Sipe asked if the Duluth code had been reviewed. Sipe stated that Duluth doesn’t permit this. Threadgill stated that she had reviewed the Duluth code and that these were permitted as temporary use permits. Sipe stated that we are looking at a by-right use for this. Threadgill responded that P&Z discussed whether to require licensing or permitting of these uses.
Salter asked if Herb had comments to make.
Guthrie stated that it seemed there was a lengthy discussion at P&Z.
Herb stated that the original text submitted by Threadgill and Anderson was amended by P&Z, but that there were many of the uses covered that existed today, perhaps illegally, and that there was some angst about the home daycare use, but the number of kids was modified to make it more restrictive.
Sipe asked if the people who were there to speak were either operators or people with interests in this. It was stated that that was correct.
Guthrie asked about the number of children. She stated that she was not in favor of the number of children being 6. She was glad that P&Z had moved it down to 4. Guthrie stated that these uses should be for the most part invisible. That is an important part of this, and could the number of children be reduced down from this to help achieve this? In order to try to address the concerns that some citizens have had, would it be better to reduce the number down to 3. She stated that there is a balance between homeowner’s rights and the rights of people to do something like this in their home.
Guthrie stated that she is in favor of having piano teachers and tutoring at home.
Sipe stated that he was just looking at this from the daycare aspect. He is not in favor of having in-home daycares because it will affect property values. The right number of kids is 0. This is exactly against what it says in our existing ordinance to achieve invisibility. We have a legally enforceable ordinance which says you can’t do these things. The whole situation came up because of one situation that was brought to our attention by a citizen complaint.
Guthrie stated that we are not changing this code for one situation, but that the one situation is what brought this code to council’s attention.
Guthrie stated that she has a problem with the fact that we allow other home businesses, such as attorneys, architects, and tax consultants that do have clients which can come to the premises. How invisible is that? There was further discussion.
The issue of traffic was discussed. Guthrie stated that if a piano teacher could have someone come every hour on the hour, why is it worse to have three cars in the morning and three cars in the evening. Sipe stated that he isn’t aware of any complaints about the piano teachers, but we have had a complaint about the daycare. Sipe asked Salter if this was correct and she confirmed that it was. Guthrie stated that one anonymous complaint shouldn’t keep us from reviewing the code.
Sipe would be interested to know how much of the public would support this change and believes that citizens would be against the daycare.
Salter called for citizen comment.
Irvin Gunter, 4190 Berkeley View Drive, stated that the public perception is that we’re changing the code rather than giving someone a citation. He agreed that he would rather not have a daycare center beside him whether 2 kids, 4 or 5 kids. What if you set the number at 3 and the operator has 4 of their own children. What would stop someone from taking more than the child number limitation? Gunter suggested that council hold a public hearing on this topic. Threadgill responded that a public hearing would be held at the next council meeting.
Randy Johnson, 296 Lakeshore Drive, stated that there is a big difference between in-home daycare and piano lessons and tutoring. He is strictly opposed to any size in-home daycare.
Guthrie stated that any home in one of the subdivisions may be restricted by the HOA covenants. The BLHA is different, but for all other HOA’s, the covenants may restrict in-home businesses. Berkeley Walk for instance requires permission from the HOA for any in-home business to operate in the subdivision.
Salter asked about instruction in music, and wanted to ask Bob Herb if the P&Z considered trumpets, drums, or electric guitars. Threadgill stated that this would be covered with the restriction regarding noise not being permitted to come off the property.
Kitchens, Guthrie and Anderson voted in favor. Sipe voted in opposition. The motion carried.
Guthrie encouraged citizens to email council with their thoughts or to attend the next meeting to share their comments.
c.) Leave Policy
Sipe asked how many employees would be covered by this. Salter responded that only one employee would be covered by this.
There was discussion about the number of days which would be appropriate for the paid time-off schedule. Sipe stated that we should start out modestly on this. Guthrie stated that we wouldn’t be hiring someone for this position as an entry-level person, and there would be an expectation that that person would likely be given two weeks of vacation.
It was determined that Guthrie would work on the table regarding days off and to provide feedback by next meeting.
The consensus was that this would be postponed to next meeting.
Anderson noted that the policy did not address maternity leave. Guthrie stated that maternity leave beyond paid time-off can be a separate leave as an unpaid leave of absence. Sipe suggested that we not put that kind of information in the leave policy to avoid an unpleasant legal situation.
d.) Staff Proposal
Moved for consideration after executive session.
e.) Septic extension requests
Anderson motioned to approve the administratively vetted request for septic extensions. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
f.) Public works issues
Salter gave some background about the needs for stabilization of shoulder areas that were worked on as part of the shoulder reconstruction areas. She noted that the city had received a quote for grassing the bare spots. The suggestion was to seed at a cost of about $1600.
There was discussion about whether it was appropriate to grass at this time.
Consensus of council was not to seed bare areas at this time.
There is a citizen that is requesting that an outlet structure be repaired. Rich Edinger, City Engineer, has been sent to look at it and can’t discover whether it’s a private homeowner or city right-of-way issue without a survey. The suggestion was made to the homeowner that a survey be done and if it was a city problem the city would pay for the survey and the fix and if it was the homeowner’s problem then the homeowner would pay for the survey and the fix. The homeowner did not want to do this. Randy Kirkus, chair of the public works committee, went out to measure with his tape measure and to the best of his ability, the beginning of the outlet structure is right on the edge of the city right-of-way and extends back from there 5 feet, from 25 feet to 30 feet from the centerline of the road. The problem is that in the old part if the city is difficult to be sure what the right-of-way is just measuring from the center of the road. The cost would be expensive, a minimum of $10,000 to fix it and at least $500 to $1,000 for the survey.
Sipe asked if there was even money in the budget to do this. There was discussion about whether SPLOST funds could be used for the survey and potentially the repair. Carothers stated that it would be reasonable to use SPLOST money for the survey.
Salter said that Edinger and Kirkus both agreed that it is desirable to fix the problem. Now is probably a better time to do it.
Guthrie asked if the homeowner would fix it if on private property. Salter stated not to her knowledge.
Sipe noted that we would need a survey just to get an easement to go fix this problem. Salter noted that if it is on private property then it would be analogous to Miramont’s stormwater infrastructure repair.
There was further discussion.
The consensus of council was to have the survey done as cheaply as possible to ascertain whether the structure is on private property.
VII. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Marty Brinton, 595 Lakeshore Drive, stated that no one asked for public comments regarding Berkeley Village Preliminary Plat amendment regarding hours of operation. He stated that nothing should be changed on the plat since the conditions were written to keep 24-hour businesses out. If we change things on the plat level, we open up a can of worms for other businesses to do the same if we grant this. He suggested that the tenant seek a use variance just like a homeowner would, if that is even possible. He recommends that we reject the change in the plat. There are plenty of businesses out there that would go into this space. No one should lower their standards. If they can’t live with the current plat conditions then so be it.
VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION for consideration of legal, land acquisition and personnel issues
Anderson motioned to enter executive session for consideration of legal, land acquisition and personnel issues at 9:48 p.m. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Anderson motioned to exit executive session at 10:17 p.m. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS:
d.) Staff Proposal:
Salter noted that Threadgill has developed job descriptions for City Administrator and Deputy City Administrator. It was decided that Threadgill should email those to council.
Sipe stated that he has a problem with the planning and zoning function of this job because they have been done by the P&Z in the past. We wouldn’t have a need for this function because the city is built out.
Salter stated that she needed to be able to move forward with looking for a City Administrator irrespective of how the tasks were defined.
Sipe stated that he would be all right with this position doing general ordinance research and that she already knows how to do the City Administrator job and could function as a true back-up to the City Administrator.
Anderson stated that Threadgill has specific experience in planning and zoning which can be a benefit to the commission. Sipe stated that that decision should be left up to the Planning and Zoning Commission, if they want her assistance researching something.
Salter stated that we don’t have to decide tasks for this position tonight and that Threadgill will email job descriptions. Salter wanted to know if council wanted to authorize her to go out and look for a City Administrator.
Guthrie stated that we do need to know what the new position would be.
There was further discussion about the role of the Deputy City Administrator and Threadgill’s proposed hours and what her existing hourly rate is.
There was discussion about the role of the Deputy City Administrator regarding planning and zoning tasks.
Sipe stated that with regard to zoning questions, staff can make decisions if they know the answers, but the P&Z members have typically helped out with this because they are the ones who have the history of the code.
There was discussion about the way that variances are heard in the city.
There was further discussion about the tasks of the proposed Deputy City Administrator position.
Guthrie asked if Threadgill would be happy not doing the planning and zoning tasks. Threadgill stated that it would be difficult to answer that question, but that she would like to provide more support to the planning and zoning commission and perform additional planning and zoning tasks. She did note that there would be plenty that could be done just in support of the City Administrator.
Sipe stated that the P&Z has always been the driving force for zoning ordinance changes.
There was further discussion about the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the tasks envisioned to be performed by the Deputy City Administrator related to P&Z.
Guthrie motioned to accept the staff proposal.
There was further discussion.
Kitchens seconded the motion. Guthrie, Anderson and Kitchens voted in favor. Sipe voted in opposition. The motion carried.
There was discussion about additional information that council would need to consider the details of the new position such as job descriptions, salaries, and the interaction of the new position with the P&Z.
Carothers stated that Salter could begin advertising the position of City Administrator and state that salary would be commensurate with experience. The position could be posted on GMA’s website.
Salter stated that council may need to consider how to compensate for the benefits that the city doesn’t offer, such as health insurance and retirement. If we are going to compete for good people, then we may have to pay more than we would like to in order to compensate for that.
Sipe asked for the last 10 years of data on administrative costs to see what we’re doing trend wise. Salter stated that she is sure we’re going up because the tasks are going up. We have less in the way of citizen volunteers, such as the events committee, and those kinds of things make a difference.
There was consensus of council to authorize the Mayor to begin looking for a new City Administrator.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Anderson motioned to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
(Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill, approved by Council November 15, 2007)
|
to top
|
|
|
 |
