|
COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4043 SOUTH BERKELEY LAKE ROAD NW
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
FULL MINUTES
March 20th, 2008
Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members: Walter Anderson, Rebecca Spitler, Debbie Guthrie, Frank Lombardi
City Administrator: Tom Rozier
City Attorney and Associate: Dick Carothers and Amy Cowan
Citizens Present: 7
CALL TO ORDER (0:00:00)
Salter called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road. She noted that all council members were in attendance except Tom Kitchens, who had notified Council in advance of his planned absence.
I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA (0:00:23)
Salter suggested removal of item c, Organic Garden, under New Business and the addition of a Septic System inspection extension item under New Business.
Rozier suggested the removal of item c under minutes.
There were no further suggested changes to the agenda.
Spitler made a motion to accept noted changes to the agenda. Anderson seconded the motion. All present were in favor and the motion passed.
II. MINUTES (0:02:20)
a.) City Council Meeting of February 21st, 2008
Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes of February 21, 2008. Spitler seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.
b.) Council Work Sessions of February 27th, 2008 and March 6th, 2008
Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes of February 27, 2008. Lombardi seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.
Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes of March 6, 2008. Lombardi seconded the motion. Guthrie, Lombardi and Anderson in favor and the motion passed. Spitler abstained due to her absence from the March 6th meeting.
III. REPORTS (0:04:24)
a.) Financial Statements for December 2007
Lombardi motioned to accept the unaudited financial statements for December, 2007. Spitler seconded the motion. Lombardi, Spitler and Anderson were in favor. Guthrie abstained because she had not had the opportunity to review them. The motion passed.
b.) Financial Statements for January 2008
Lombardi motioned to accept the unaudited financial statements for January, 2008. Spitler seconded the motion.
Anderson mentioned that he would like the opportunity to review financial information with the finance committee. Lombardi and Spitler agreed.
Spitler seconded the motion. Lombardi, Spitler and Anderson were in favor. Guthrie abstained because she had not had the opportunity to review them. The motion passed.
c.) Financial Statements for February 2008
Lombardi motioned to accept the unaudited financial statements for February, 2008. Spitler seconded the motion. Lombardi, Spitler and Anderson were in favor. Guthrie abstained because she had not had the opportunity to review them. The motion passed.
d.) OEO report
There were no questions.
IV. MAYOR’S MESSAGE
Salter noted distribution of the following written report to be incorporated into the minutes:
I have been talking with Don Hartsfield who is the new person in charge of the property at Berkeley Village. He has a potential buyer for the whole property but I asked him to wait briefly to see if we could get the county to build a library there. I have always wanted there to be a library branch in our city and Don agreed to give them the corner spot and to build to suit if the county would go for that. I have contacted Bert Nasuti to that end. Citizens and council persons who share my goal could contact Bert as well. Soon.
There are quite a few events coming up in our community, which I have detailed in the recent Mayor’s Message. Please remember and participate in Earth Day, the citywide garage sale, and the art show. I won’t repeat those details here, but there is some new information about our Memorial Day celebration. I have signed the contract with the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation for that. Britt Collins has obtained permission from the owner of some flat open property next to River District to use as a possible secondary landing site for the Huey. He and I are currently thinking of making the Chapel the center staging area for most activities and ferrying flyers back and forth to the landing site near the beach via boat and/or humvee. There will be a climbing wall at the Chapel and other activities. The BLOKES have been asked to make food available there. More details to follow.
The negotiating team for GwiMA has been assigned to begin talking with county officials about tax equity. As president of GwiMA I have some specifics that I could share with council members in individual discussion which are not ready for public release, if any of you would like to talk about that. I think I can say that the figures which will be suggested as compensation to the cities which have their own police forces are quite large. I say that to you now for the obvious implications it has for our deliberations about police. You have received the email from me with a lot of detail about police considerations. I have not, however, spoken to any candidates for jobs without your direction although I do have some candidates’ information. My recommendation to you is that we look into hiring a City Marshall as soon as possible, and that we use the county police while investigating the feasibility of having our own officers.
There were no questions.
V. OLD BUSINESS (0:08:51)
a.) New City Hall
Barbara Carroll – 3430 Kingsland Circle – Carroll, as Chair of the Architectural Design Committee, read the following report:
CITY HALL PLANNING REPORT
MARCH 20, 2008
On Saturday, March 15, 2008, a citizen open house was held at the chapel to give residents the opportunity to view the site plan, floor plan and elevation drawings presented by Wakefield Beasley Associates as we move forward with our new City Hall. This occasion was the result of months of citizen input meetings, Council/staff needs assessment surveys and work sessions and Architectural Design Committee input. There were approximately 17 citizens in attendance, along with Council and Eric Bosman of Urban Collage, who reviewed the drawings and heard a presentation by architects Lindell Sherrill and Ed Palisoc, citing specific selections and direction. Many comments and questions were fielded by the architects, Council and Eric Bosman and comment sheets were available for overall feedback. These sheets were later sent to Council, architects and Committee for review. A request was made by several citizens for information on the additional cost benefit of having a full basement in the City Hall building. Architects will provide this analysis and present it to Council for review and consideration at a later date.
The overall citizen, Council and Committee feedback on the site plan, floor plan and elevation drawings was very positive and it is, therefore, the recommendation of the Architectural Design Committee to City Council that these plans and drawings as submitted by Wakefield Beasley be approved. Committee and architects can then move forward to the next phase in development.
Carroll noted the presence of Urban Collage’s Eric Bosman at the meeting.
Spitler inquired as to the nature of the discussion of building security noted in the March 6th Council Work Session minutes. Carroll indicated that the issues were predominantly regarding entrance and egress from the building and how that would be fostered.
Spitler indicated that security is a concern, especially in public buildings. She said that things have changed since 9/11 and that she would want the people who we have employed to work in our city hall to feel secure there. She further noted that they are not really all that secure where they are now. She indicated that the city hall is the one public area in our city where people come and go as a result of construction which goes on in our city. She asked if we had decided whether we were going to address that now or at a later date.
Carroll indicated that the discussion did not lead to any immediate change to the plan but there was exploration with the architect of how he might envision making a change specifically in that area to accommodate a future security issue. Guthrie indicated that the option would be relatively inexpensive.
Salter indicated that in the meeting she had said that she felt strongly that we need to implement that option. The further stated that earlier in the day (3/20/2008) when Carroll polled her as a committee member regarding making the recommendation for Council to approve the design, she had done so with 2 caveats: 1) she believes that we should go ahead and install a glass wall with a glass door similar to that which is used in the Duluth City Hall, and 2) that we need some sort of informal gathering space on the property. She indicated that she wants to be on the record as saying those things at this point.
Carroll indicated that while glass is a much better option, that the area is a very small area and that a wall would cause issues.
Guthrie noted the issue of exposure of a receptionist placed in front of the proposed wall and that in order to address that issue equally, that individual would also need to be behind a glass wall – promoting a cold and sterile environment. She further pointed out that she felt that line of reasoning was overkill in the environment where we live, especially compared to local churches and banks, both having significant amounts of cash on hand at different times. She indicated that the options being considered were over and above what is being done by other local area businesses.
Spitler pointed out that she thinks businesses and government entities are different and that the public views them with a different mindset. She admitted that she may be sensitized to it because of being associated with the military for her entire life and because her husband being involved in Homeland Security. She noted that her point of view is shaped by being exposed to situations that the normal individual is not exposed to and knowing how many situations are averted that the public does not know about..
Spitler admitted that the current level of security may be okay, but that at the same time, there are news stories of violence perpetrated at city council meetings against mayors and council members as a result of a zoning decision with which they disagreed. She further indicated the possibility of the City having its own police department and an individual being upset with having received a citation and looking for someone to hold responsible by going to City Hall.
Guthrie pointed out that those same types of events occur in retail establishments such as Malls. She indicated that she would like to believe that we could choose security measures such as a door chime, electronic keys and silent alarms versus having to have a visibly high-security environment sending a message to our citizens that this is a dangerous place. She indicated that she doesn’t feel that Berkeley Lake is the kind of place. She further indicated that having a glass wall in this context would make individuals feel like they’re entering a cold governmental space based upon the way she feels when she enters establishments which have chosen to employ similar methods of security.
Guthrie stated a desire to wait until such a time as that level of security is deemed to be needed and retrofitting the space at that time. She gave examples of adding a police department or increasing the amount of cash received by City Hall as possible reasons for considering the retrofit.
Carroll indicated that there is no proof that we need to be locking everybody down in this residential environment.
Anderson indicated that he doesn’t think we’ve considered all of our security options and that we have not considered security for Council chambers. He noted several potential scenarios for consideration and indicated that there may be methods for addressing issues without having to make the entire building bullet-proof.
Guthrie indicated that typically those types of discussions, including policies, would be taking place further down the road from where we are now but that architectural changes would be costly and potentially place the project on hold for now.
Lombardi agreed with Anderson’s assertion that there are actions that can be taken for a reasonable amount of money. He further pointed out that there is a need for someone to act in the role of ‘traffic cop’ to meter foot traffic into the building.
Eric Bosman from Urban Collage, the original facility programmer for the building indicated that talking about safety is absolutely an appropriate thing to do and that this is in fact a good time to have this discussion. He echoed that Anderson is correct in that there are a number of ways to manage security. He encouraged Council to determine the level of security desired for the building and the amount of impact which Council is willing for that to have on the environment and character of the building, then charge the design team with recommending the best methods for achieving that level of security.
Guthrie indicated that she doesn’t want to downplay security but that she has a huge concern about the message it sends out to everyone who enters the building.
Spitler indicated that Guthrie was taking what she said to an extreme. She reiterated that she is looking for some sort of buffer which will provide a moment for employees to respond to individuals entering the building before they begin wandering down the hallway.
Guthrie inquired as to Spitler’s proposed solution for protecting the receptionist. She indicated that if glass were employed, that it would need to be bullet-proof because any individual could pick up a chair and throw it through a glass wall. She further indicated that she wishes these architecture-affecting topics could have been brought up earlier in the process.
Salter indicated that she had brought it up before. Guthrie responded that double-foyers and double-doors had not been brought up before.
Carroll drew Council’s attention to the existing City Hall situation and asked why we would address this in the new building if we had not addressed it in the old building. She said that she could see having the new building ready for the day when that level of security is needed and that there was an indication of a problem.
Ginny Nevins – 350 Lakeshore Drive - inquired as to what has happened to suddenly make it feel as though we have a need for a lock-down. She indicated that while she is concerned about safety and would not want anyone at risk, we have not seen signs that there is a problem or the need for making everything bullet-proof at City Hall. She voiced her dislike for the concept of having to slide items through glass and reiterated her question: ‘what’s brought this about?’
Salter indicated that her suggestion was not to slide things through bullet-proof glass but instead to install a glass wall with a glass door similar to that which is used at Duluth City Hall.
Nevins indicated the difference between the size of the lobby at the Duluth City Hall and the size of the lobby in the proposed design. Salter agreed that they were dissimilar.
Guthrie reiterated that if we are to have this level of lock-down, the receptionist has to have the same level of lock-down that all the other employees do and that doing so would change everything about the way the building has been designed thus far.
Salter asked for other citizen comments. There were none. Salter asked Council how they wished to proceed.
Anderson noted that there is sufficient sentiment that this issue is a concern that is worth pursuing to some extent and that it is reasonable to establish the level of concern and get Urban Collage and Wakefield Beasley & Associates to give us some suggestions.
Salter asked Council, ‘What is our level of concern?”
Anderson replied that from his point of view, it is preferable to be able to ramp up the level of security as we see the need to do so without needing to make the entire investment up front. He mentioned that while he did not want to entertain a full lock-down scenario, he was open to seeing how the architect could design a plan for addressing what could be done later on as we see or feel a need. He noted that some of the concern had to do with how the employees feel about the situation and that there may be some difference between that and reality.
Guthrie said that we did have that discussion at the last work session and the architect did tell us how this room could easily be retrofitted. She said that the first rendition of the floor plan had a receptionist off to the right hand side as individuals enter the building and that that floor plan had shown us what Anderson was mentioning.
Anderson indicated that there may be additional options which the architect has not employed in the iterations of the proposed design.
Guthrie indicated that the question in front of Council is whether to approve the proposed design with the understanding that it can be retrofitted if necessary or to send them back to the drawing board. She noted that there are many security options which can be employed in addition to architectural features but that the time for those discussions is out in the future.
Anderson agreed that those items were discussions for the future but that changes to walls and floors need to be discussed now.
Guthrie lamented the architect’s absence from the meeting because she believes changes of that nature will dramatically change the elevations which have already been presented to citizens who had expressed positive feedback based upon those drawings.
Anderson agreed that it is unfortunate that there was not more emphasis placed upon this topic earlier but that we are where we are and that if there is a time to do it, it’s better now than later if in fact any recommended changes are going to change the layout.
Rozier indicated that as one of the people who brought this topic up in one of the work sessions, at no time did he envision a lock-down environment with bullet-proof glass but that in fact he had envisioned a glass wall with a glass door as a method of slowing individuals down as they enter the facility.
Guthrie echoed Lombardi’s earlier comments regarding a receptionist in the role of traffic-cop.
Rozier indicated that he had been addressing the question of ‘what level of security is needed’ in his earlier comment and that a glass wall with a glass door or a receptionist in the role of traffic-cop was more in line with the need.
Gutrie expressed that she would much rather pay for a receptionist who would provide many other administrative benefits, especially when demographically this is not a high-risk area. She further indicated that there are other technological possibilities for addressing security in addition.
Guthrie indicated her support for approving the plans as drawn and taking technology and security needs into consideration as we move forward. She also went on the record as saying that she thinks that eventually we are going to need to have a receptionist anyway.
Lombardi indicated that he had seen the drawing which the architect had sketched addressing the addition of a wall in the future and that he feels comfortable moving forward knowing that there is an inexpensive solution available.
Spitler indicated that she was not present at the second work session and did not have the benefit of that discussion and so that is why she did not bring it up. She further indicated that her issue is two-fold: the first being security and not bullet-proof glass or a lock-down situation and the second being the courtesy of having staff allotted some amount of time to respond before they have someone standing right at their door – and the privacy issue which prevents many discussions from occurring.
Spitler noted that there are so few employees in the building and that there is a need to prevent visitors from wandering in the hallways.
Anderson noted that there seems to be a consensus that there is not a need for a siege-proof building but that there needs to be a method to slow people down and make staff aware of their arrival with a little bit of time to spare. He asked Council members their opinion of approving the plans as they are. He further asked Eric Bosman to comment on whether Council would be correct in approving the plans as they are and noting to the architect that this topic is being taken under advisement and that there may be alterations to the plans based upon these discussions.
Bosman confirmed that such a scenario should not be a problem but that if Council chooses not to approve the floor plan there may be additional costs incurred with the architectural firm.
Guthrie asked to change the subject and there was a short discussion regarding adding an awning-type protection over the basement doors.
There was discussion regarding the formulation of a motion.
Lombardi suggested a demonstration of the architects wall-addition solution for Spitler’s benefit.
Bosman demonstrated the architect’s option and further indicated the possibility of adding a vestibule to the front of the lobby or to reconfigure the building.
There was further discussion regarding the purpose of vestibules.
There was discussion regarding the size of the lobby.
Mary English – 4323 S Berkeley Lake Road – She indicated that a plain door isn’t enough of a deterrent to prevent someone from barging in.
Guthrie indicated that all of the staff at City Hall are there for customer service and that they do not need to be protected like executives. She further stated that the staff members do not need a buffer between them and the citizens.
Salter asked whether approval of the site plan would mean that we could not add a drive-by mailbox for citizens to access in the future. Carroll indicated that she feels that can be added in the future and that the architect had indicated that there were several options available for addressing it. Salter indicated that she wishes to go on record again as stating that that is important to our citizens.
There was further discussion regarding the formulation of motion language.
Guthrie made a motioned that Council approve the preliminary site plan, floor plan and elevations as presented by Wakefield Beasley with the exception of adding a covering over the 2 basement doors and with the size of the basement to be determined through a cost-benefit analysis.
Anderson seconded the motion. Guthrie, Lombardi and Anderson were in favor. Spitler opposed the motion. The motion passed.
Salter asked Lombardi whether he had any information to report about the cell tower.
There was discussion regarding the cell tower. Salter encouraged wrapping the topic up fairly quickly and asked Lombardi to let her know if he needed any help.
b.) BLEMA, direction from Council for Mary English (1:17:43)
Salter noted that some Council members had spoken with Mary English during the informal discussion session prior to the formal Council session and that she was unsure of how much was discussed. She then asked Council members if they had any further instructions for Mary English related to BLEMA.
Guthrie asked about the current setup of BLEMA. English noted that there were co-chairs. Salter clarified that Shawn Cochran would continue to work on the Risk Assessment plan that he’s been developing and Mary English would be organizing citizens and getting training for them.
Guthrie indicated that BLEMA needs to assess differences between Emergency Management Agencies and Citizen Corps, advise Council as to the differences and recommend most appropriate solution for the City of Berkeley Lake.
Guthrie noted the following: There is a tremendous amount of work that the City needs to do to implement all the things we need to implement. We have the Emergency Communication Resources that Shawn Cochran gave to us a year or two ago. I don’t know where that is right now but that needs to be done. We have a pre-disaster hazard mitigation plan that the county had written and adopted and we had to adopt in order to be eligible for FEMA funding. There are tasks within that which are required but that we have not been doing to her knowledge. Also we have the Prepare First emergency plan which I have not finished reviewing. I’m 2/3 of the way through. When I’m finished, Walter Anderson will be reviewing it. I will try to finish it up this weekend. Prepare First is waiting for our feedback. There will be many things the City will need to implement as a result of that. Someone from the City side will need to be responsible for ensuring that we implement those tasks. I suggest Tom Rozier take it on as the City lead on that and work with English and the Committee as a resource to figure out what they can do to get these things done.
Rozier pointed out that it would be a matter of finding the time to do it. Guthrie pointed out that it may be a matter of re-prioritizing other items currently assigned to staff. She further noted that many of these items are either our responsibility as a City or are required by our own ordinance and that there is a certain amount that the City is obligated to do. She expressed hope that Rozier and English could work in concert on the matter.
English indicated that one thing that the committee could provide is an understanding of where some of the thresholds are so that Rozier would not have to be brought in to make a decision on each individual item.
Guthrie gave an example of emergency preparedness kits and the possibility that Rozier might know a source for those kits such that BLEMA members might not have to expend a large amount of time putting those kits together. She described the responsibility as being more of a City contact on the topic.
Rozier indicated that he has no problem being the City’s contact but that as far as undertaking the responsibility of moving everything forward, Council should realize that in the coming week, City staff will entering a period of 3 months where it will be down to a temporary employee, the OEO and himself. He advised Council to gauge their expectations based upon what English could force him to do during that time.
Anderson indicated we have obligations in this realm and that while he’s aware that the City is developing a master list of items which need to be done including the time by which those items need to be done and that he is not sure that these items are on that list. Rozier assured him that these items were not on that list. Anderson indicated that Rozier needs to be aware of these items and get them on the list.
Rozier stated that this discussion was the first he had been made aware of any of these requirements.
Guthrie committed to providing a significant amount of information which had previously been compiled and noted that Emergency Preparedness and Management is a very serious part of that for which the City is responsible. She indicated that we have too many plans and that we have not adopted or executed any of them.
Guthrie stated that BLEMA needs to recruit volunteers who really want to be first responders, learn CPR and some abbreviated version of CERT and then to set up training for them.
All feedback from Council regarding that idea was positive.
English indicated that it is her intention to provide a booth on Earth Day for the purpose of providing information regarding CERT and for recruiting BLEMA volunteers. She further stated that Shawn Cochran had requested to have a Work Session with Council in the coming months.
Salter asked other Council members whether they had any comments or requests.
Anderson noted that Guthrie’s list was a great overview of the general direction of where we should be going.
No one was in disagreement.
c.) Police Coverage (1:28:45)
There was discussion regarding Police Coverage. Salter mentioned that she has signed the contract with the County. She stated that we have received another extension for our existing Police Coverage at least through April 1st. She noted that via that extension, she will be able to complete the Quarterly Police Report for first quarter. She noted her recommendation in her Mayor’s Message to Council. She recommended tabling further activity on the issue for one month but also noted that she has performed research regarding having a study created. Government Solutions, the company performing the tax equity study for Gwinnett County cities has indicated that they are willing to perform such a study for approximately $6500.00. Another option would be the Vincent School of Government.
Lombardi was supportive of a study as long as it takes all possibilities and technologies into consideration and including costs and methods of implementation and does not limit itself only to the feasibility of creating a Police Department.
Guthrie also indicated she would be in favor or such a study and asked whether the report could include a historical analysis of ticket revenue generated by the geographic area.
There was further discussion regarding a potential study and potential solutions for public safety.
Anderson indicated he is concerned that historical numbers related to ticket revenue will not be of much value because those numbers would be generated based upon a different policing scenario where there was less opportunity for ticket issuing and that they would not be representative of what a police force could do.
Guthrie asked Carothers about the limits for ticket revenue. Carothers did not have those figures at that time. Guthrie indicated that she is skeptical of the suggested numbers for ticket revenue. Carothers noted that he is doubtful that the City could operate a municipal court and break even. He pointed out several funds which receive a share of fine revenue by law.
Guthrie expressed concerns about the City’s ability to manage ticket writing administratively and the costs involved in doing so. Her concern is that she keeps hearing that the tickets will offset the expenditures but she is skeptical of that. She indicated a wish to have safety and enforcement but not for the City to turn into a horrendous place to live.
Anderson indicated that he thinks we should delay a study until we have a few of months of use of the new police configuration behind us.
Salter indicated that she is not opposed to a study but that she feels we’re not ready to give meaningful information at this time.
Spitler indicated that she feels that the situation is too dynamic to perform a meaningful study at this time and that we need to wait until a few things settle down prior to moving forward with a study.
There was discussion regarding a City Marshall.
Salter reiterated that we should continue on the current course with the County police option and that she would bring more information to the next Council meeting.
d.) O-66-08 Chapter 62-24, Variances and Appeals (Sign Ordinance) (2nd read) (1:45:56)
Said ordinance reads:
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF GWINNETT
Ordinance O-66-08
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE; TO AMEND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 62 ENTITLED “SIGNS;” TO DELETE SECTION 62-24 “VARIANCE AND APPEALS” AND SUBSTITUE A NEW SECTION 62-24 OF THE SAME TITLE; TO PROVIDE FOR SEVERABILITY; TO PROVIDE FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE that Chapter 62 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Berkeley Lake entitled “Signs” shall be amended by deleting Section 62-24 “Variances and Appeals” in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following:
Sec. 62-24. Variance and appeals
The city council shall have the following powers and duties, in addition to other duties provided elsewhere:
(1) Administrative review. To hear and decide whether there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the city clerk or his designee in the enforcement of this chapter.
(2) Variances. To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of this chapter as will not be contrary to the public interest, when due to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will, in an individual case, result in unusual hardship, so the spirit of this chapter shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. The mere existence of a nonconforming sign or advertising device shall not constitute a valid reason to grant a variance. A variance may be granted in an individual case of unusual hardship upon a finding by the board that the following conditions exist:
a. There exists extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property in question resulting from its size, shape, or topography which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the area.
b. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other similar properties.
c. Granting the variance requested will not confer upon the property of the applicant any significant privileges which are denied to other similar properties.
d. The requested variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or to the general welfare.
e. The special circumstances are not the result of actions of the applicant.
f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which will make possible the logical use of the land, building or structure.
g. The variance is not a request to permit a type of sign which otherwise is not permitted in the zoning district involved.
(3) Publication of advertising regarding appeals. Any appeal made to the city council pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in the Code of the city. The city council shall cause the advertising required by section 78-366(b) to be published at least 15 days prior to the hearing.
(4) Appeal. If the applicant is not satisfied with the ruling of the city council, he may seek judicial review by filing for a writ of certiorari in the superior court of the county within 30 days of the decision of the city council.
Severability
If any article, section, subsection, paragraph, clause, phrase or provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect or invalidate the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Repeal of Conflicting Provisions.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed.
Effective Date
This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption by the Council of the City of Berkeley Lake.
SO ORDAINED this 20th day of March, 2008.
________________________________
LOIS SALTER, MAYOR
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
ATTEST:
_____________________________
TOM ROZIER
City Administrator
First Read: February 21, 2008
Second Read and Adoption: March 20, 2008
Anderson motioned to place Ordinance amendment O-66-08 Chapter 62-Variances and Appeals on second read and to adopt it. Lombardi seconded the motion.
Carothers indicated that there were no legal concerns with substituting ‘Council’ for ‘Planning & Zoning’ in the amendment.
All present were in favor. The motion carried.
VI. NEW BUSINESS (1:47:04)
a.) City of Ethics
There was discussion regarding becoming a GMA City of Ethics versus establishing a Code of Ethics as recommended by Scott Wright
Guthrie volunteered to contact Scott Wright and get a price and a rough schedule about his availability for a workshop for the purpose of developing that Code of Ethics.
b.) North Berkeley Lake Road Sidewalks (1:59:00)
Salter reminded everyone present of the upcoming County meeting on Monday at 5PM at Berkeley Lake Elementary School.
c.) Earth Hour (2:01:01)
Salter indicated that the City of Atlanta is participating in Earth Hour on the 29th of March from 8pm to 9pm to reduce electrical consumption. She provided the following written information about Atlanta’s participation:
Earth Hour Coming to Atlanta
Join thousands of your Atlanta friends, neighbors, and businesses and millions of people around the world to make a bold statement about energy conservation on Saturday, March 29, 2008 from 8 p.m. to 9p.m.
Turn out your lights for one hour. Earth Hour.
On 31 March 2007, 2.2 million people and 2,100 businesses in Sydney, Australia, turned off their lights for one hour. This massive collective effort reduced Sydney's energy consumption by 10.2% for one hour, which is the equivalent effect of taking 48,000 cars off the road for a year.
This year, Earth Hour, run by the World Wildlife Fund, the conservation organization, is calling on individuals and businesses around the world, to turn off their lights for one hour on Saturday, March 29,2008 between 8 pm and 9pm. Atlanta is one of the 20 cities world-wide joining this effort. Dozens of major landmark buildings in Downtown, Midtown, Atlantic Station and Buckhead will go dark in honor of the event-as will neighborhoods throughout the area.
The WWF is also encouraging everyone to not stop at Earth Hour but to use it as an incentive to continue efforts to reduce energy consumption in our daily lives. Simple things like turning off appliances while not in use and switching your light globes to energy efficient bulbs, will all help us reach our goal of reducing our annual emissions by 5%. Even something as simple as turning out lights when you're not in a room and switching to cleaner sources of electricity like "green power", make a big difference. _ .
For more information, go to http:// www.earthhour.org
[Those outside Atlanta can join in, of course, as well.]
Lombardi made a motion that Council resolve that the City of Berkeley Lake participate in Earth Hour and that we make it known via the City website. Anderson seconded the motion. All present were in favor and the motion passed.
d.) Citizen Concerns expressed regarding traffic safety on Lakeshore Drive (2:03:51)
Salter noted that one of our concerned citizens was present and may want to address Council. She further indicated that a lot of email discussion has occurred between City Council members about the topic. She indicated that the reason she placed the item on the agenda was that because citizens are concerned, she felt there should be discussion on the record, sharing ideas which were discussed in e-mail.
Salter noted that the curve near Todd Sinney’s house where several vehicles have gone off the road is of concern and that she had consulted an Engineer regarding the citizen recommendation for a guard rail at that location and that the Engineer had responded and that the response was shared with Council as well as the citizen expressing concern and that even the citizen expressing concern had admitted that perhaps a guard rail is not the appropriate response to the situation at that site.
Salter noted that a citizen had suggested that the City may need to revisit the possibility of installing speed tables due to the recent loss of the mailbox in front of his house.
She mentioned that some Council members had responded indicating that it had only been a year since the City had paid Street Smarts for their expertise in evaluating and preparing a report. She indicated that Street Smarts had not reported any repetitive speeding issues and that people were functioning pretty well on Lakeshore Drive. She further mentioned that Street Smarts had not made any recommendations for action to be taken on Lakeshore Drive from a safety perspective, but that the report had stated that if Council wanted to take any action, that rumble strips were suggested as opposed to speed tables or speed humps was because in a curvy and winding road, it is not always possible to see speed tables or speed bumps and that drivers need to be able to see them in order to prevent launching a car. The report noted that rumble strips do not need the advance notice to drivers, but that they have an effect of annoying residents in the area due to noise. Salter also noted that we have done a good job with enforcement in that area.
There was discussion as to whether the Street Smarts Report is on the City website or not and it was decided that it is on the website.
There was discussion regarding content of the Street Smarts report and recommendations made by the report. She recommended that Council members re-read the report.
Guthrie indicated that perhaps the City should ask Street Smarts to reassess that particular curve.
Anderson pointed out that speed may not be the only cause of accidents on Lakeshore Drive.
Anderson noted that for whatever reason, when these accidents happen, people assist the individuals to get out of the ditch but nobody ever calls the police, therefore no record is made of these accidents. He indicated that having only anecdotal evidence when considering addressing the issue at this location places Council at a disadvantage.
Bill Smith, 876 Lakeshore Drive – indicated that he and his wife walk on Lakeshore every other day at varying times of the day. He indicated that he has read the study and that he and his wife see speeders or hear speeders as they round 2 different curves including the curve at the Miramont pond. He noted that the turn at the Miramont pond also needs to be addressed because there are cars which have gone off it. He indicated that he is an advocate of speed bumps and that he is an advocate of anything. He noted that after the Street Smarts report, nothing was done. He said that there was talk of signs to alert drivers unfamiliar with the area of what he is up against when making that drive, or the numerous young drivers who look at Lakeshore Drive as a great place to drive fast. He recommended that the City begin with signage in considering its response to the issue. He expressed his disappointment with the lack of action on the City’s part after the study was completed. He also pointed out that a single 24-hour look at Lakeshore Drive was not enough.
There was discussion regarding signage options and road painting and striping options
Council asked Salter to request a quote from Street Smarts for studying issues on Lakeshore Drive and to ask Doug McClure about particularly dangerous curves.
Salter indicated that she has consulted with McClure in the past and that at that time, he indicated that he did not feel like there were any dangers on Lakeshore Drive equal to the dangers on North Berkeley Lake Road and that Street Smarts had echoed his opinion.
e.) Septic Inspection Extensions – (2:33:46)
Anderson motioned to approve the Septic Inspection interval extension, as recommended by staff, for the residents at 277 Lakeshore Drive. Spitler seconded. All present were in favor. The motion passed.
VII. CITIZEN COMMENTS (2:34:39)
Craig Belt – 566 Lakeshore Drive provided the following written comments:
March 20, 2008
To: Mayor and City Council of the City of Berkeley Lake
From: Craig Belt
Subject: Temporary and Permanent Easement Clarification
The civil court case which is a condemnation of a portion of my property by the City of Berkeley Lake came up on the trial calendar before Judge Warren P. Davis on Monday February 25th. Dick Carothers and I were both in attendance.
It was agreed before the judge that I would confer with the city engineer in an attempt to clarify discrepancies regarding what is the true location of the property line. The documentation of my property which I provided is apparently inconsistent with the proffered drawings and legal descriptions of both the temporary and permanent easement. The differences are NOT small.
Leigh Threadgill has courteously forwarded to me an E-mail thread of correspondence which briefly recaps some of the steps taken so far by Rich Edinger to address this issue. That E-mail thread states a surveyor's opinion of the property line location and the same surveyor's opinions regarding the documentation which I provided.
A brief recap of some "opinions" stated in the e-mail thread is as follows:
I) The platted survey which I provided was described as incorrect (according to the e-mail).
2) The iron pin indicating the comer my property on the platted survey has heen described as "not on the lot comer" (according to the e-mail).
3) The most recent addition to the e-mail thread states an opinion that "Mr. Belt's deed is incorrect".
The dimensions of my property as shown on a certified copy of a plat of Berkeley Lake Estates (and Miramont) agree with the other documentation which I provided.
The proposed "Consent Order and Final Judgment" which has been presented for review, signature and return contains the following sentence: "All issues of fact and law in the above-referenced case are thereby resolved." Some issues of fact have NOT been resolved.
While I have ample doubt that my deed is incorrect currently, I am certain that it will be incorrect and seriously confusing to anyone in the future if the easement is recorded using city proffered documents which are not in agreement with other legally recorded information.
I) I respectfully request that this topic be placed on the agenda for the next regular council meeting.
2) I also respectfully request that this topic be looked at by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to that council meeting, with a goal of making some recommendations to the city council as to how this easement can be correctly recorded so that it does not conflict with my deed.
I truly believe that all parties concerned will be best served by correct legal recording of this easement.
sincerely,
Craig Belt
No other citizens spoke.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT (2:35:40)
There being no other business to discuss, Lombardi motioned to adjourn. Spitler seconded. All were in favor and the motion passed.
Salter adjourned the meeting at 10:06pm.
(Respectfully submitted by Tom Rozier, correct as of March 24, 2008)
|
