City Council - 17 December 2007 Minutes

WORK SESSION OF THE
MAYOR AND COUNCIL

PRESENT:
Mayor Lasseter, Councilmembers Kirouac, Bomar, Mundrick, Dugan, Hall
City Administrator, Department Directors, City Attorney

Mayor Shirley Fanning-Lasseter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.  

MINUTES OF THE
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CITY OF DULUTH, GA

1. CONSENT AGENDA
   1. GEORGIA MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION – CABLE AND TELECOM MANAGEMENT SERVICES [Exhibit “A”]
      Approval of this item approves the GMA agreement to provide Cable and Telecommunications Management Services from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008 and authorizes Mayor Lasseter to execute the contract and Agent Representation form.
   2. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE DULUTH CODE – MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT [Exhibit “B”]
      Approval of this ordinance amends Chapter 2, Article III, Section 2-47 (2) of the Duluth Code to increase the mileage reimbursement to $.505 per mile for business travel and medical mileage to $.19 per mile following the IRS 2008 Standard mileage rates effective January 1, 2008.
   3. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE DULUTH CODE – CAPITAL RESERVE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE
      [Exhibit “C”]
      Approval of this ordinance amends Chapter 2, Article VI, Section 2.96 of the Duluth Code to change the name of the committee to “Finance Committee” and to further outline the responsibilities and duties of this committee.
   4. RESOLUTION – SUPPORTING GWINNETT HOSPITAL SYSTEM OPEN HEART UNIT
      Approval of this item authorizes a resolution supporting a Certificate of Need application to the State Dept of Community Health for an Open Heart Surgery program at the Gwinnett Medical Center.
   5. WAIVER REQUEST – RADIO DISNEY CONCERT
      Approval of this item authorizes sponsorship of the Radio Disney Concert in the Town Green on Sunday, December 23, 2007, thus waiving food service requirements per section 26-2-370 of the Official Code of GA as well as fee and location requirements for promotional signage.
      
      A motion was made by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Bomar, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
      
      Those voting for: Councilmembers Kirouac, Bomar, Mundrick, Dugan, and Hall
      
      Motion carried.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION -– PENDING/POTENTIAL LITIGATION, REAL ESTATE, PERSONNEL
   1. An executive session was necessary in order to discuss pending and potential litigation, real estate and personnel matters.
      
      A motion was made by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Bomar, to adjourn to executive session to discuss pending and potential litigation, real estate and personnel matters at 6:15 p.m.
      
      Those voting for: Councilmembers Kirouac, Bomar, Mundrick, Dugan, and Hall
      
      Motion carried.
      
      After the discussion, a motion was made by Councilmember __, seconded by Councilmember __________, to return to regular session at _________p.m.
      
      Those voting for: Councilmembers Kirouac, Bomar, Mundrick, Dugan, and Hall
      
      Motion carried.
3. PUBLIC HEARING
   1. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE DULUTH ZONING ORDINANCE – LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
      [Exhibit "D"]
      Mayor Lasseter opened the continuation of the public hearing from December 10th to take comments on the Large Scale Development ordinance and present a final draft for approval.
      
      Planning Director Cliff Cross came forward to go over the general changes made to the introduction and recommendations from the City attorney regarding public notice requirements, etc. He clarified definitions of “abutting” and “contiguous.” He also reviewed changes for façade and noted that impervious surface ratios are to include floor area ratios of primary and accessory structures into total percentage allowed.
      
      Mr. Cross noted that section 2 regarding outdoor seating was changed and the most restrictive percentages will apply. He also referenced the addition of alcohol patio sales, which are already addressed in the alcohol ordinance, but just added a cross reference.
      
      Mr. Cross covered the addition of “Intent and purpose” which indicates why this ordinance is in place, and adds the requirement of a community impact statement (CIS), but noted that it has little bearing on whether or not something would be approved; it is solely going to be used for future planning and provides further information. He noted the changes made to architectural standards, secondary materials, and the concern regarding non-façade exterior walls, changing to allow 100% of exteriors to be secondary materials. Architecturally-treated concrete masonry could be allowed, as in something painted, if Council wished to keep that language in.
      
      Mr. Cross further discussed the “unified theme” and that the Director of Planning would have the authority to approve. The applicant is responsible for recording the site plan, and any variation to a unified theme concept that has been approved and recorded must be approved by the City of Duluth Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted that the Planning Department would review corporate architecture as part of the administrative review.
      
      Fenestration and reflective glass requirements were taken from the ICC Energy Code and incorporated. Mr. Cross also discussed blank walls which are visible, roof pitch ratios, and maximum percentages for flat roofing. He included Roof design illustrations and architectural roof design standards. He noted that once a building reaches a height of 75 feet, flat roof standards are null and void and 100% of the roof can be flat. Said height is calculated not from the ground, but from the top of structures within 1000 feet of the building. The maximum flat roof at ratio was set at 60%, minimum sloped area 40%. The language also takes into account a maximum 6 feet in height to screen mechanical equipment, minimum 4:12 slope. He gave examples of allowed roof types.
      
      Councilmember Bomar asked about the traffic study and why the GDOT policy design was used, since it doesn’t include things such as capacity analyses. She suggested considering using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standards as reference to address items such as direct impact, and scope of the study as in whether turn lanes need to be added, adjacent intersections are studied, and factors such as what time of day and day of the week the data is collected.
      
      Mr. Cross thought part of these would ultimately be regulated by the administrative review during the engineering portion, and just felt there needed to be a basis for a set of guidelines. He said that inter-parcel access is subject to the recommendations of the reviewing agency. He noted changes in approvals, and a defined swap ratio for open space limited to 50% of the required amount. He addressed driveway spacing standards, and a change to a landscape buffer of 10’ as requested.
      
      In conclusion, he noted that the issues brought up by the Wheeler/Kolb memo, concerns of Smart Growth, and a letter from Vince Michel were all addressed.
      
      Councilmember Dugan questioned the proposed fenestration glass ratios and whether it would be too high. Mr. Cross said the variance requirements are in there with the option of going to ZBA. Also, administrative variances of up to 10% can be granted by the Planning Director, so there is some flexibility already built in.
      
      Mr. John McGovern had some further suggestions for further definition of façade, questions about utilizing the term “public way” and references to “ walls” or “faces” without switching back and forth between the two terms.
      
      Mr. Cross noted that a required “exit strategy” will be addressed via a separate ordinance.
      
      Mr. Tom Wheeler came forward and still had concerns regarding this ordinance. He felt it would be impractical to ask a builder to declare what they are doing with 110 acres in order to do an impact study if they were only planning to develop a small portion of the property at the time. How could he be asked to submit plans with a unified theme or develop a Community Impact Statement (CIS) for the whole property?
      
      Mr. Thompson responded that the uniform theme only applies if they ask for rezoning, or if the development permit application is for 75,000 square feet or more.
      
      Councilmember Bomar noted that when the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority considered their DRI impact process, one of the benefits to having thresholds with larger scale development was the potential for “give-ups,” meaning added benefits or amenities. Larger scale projects normally have a margin to work with, and we should not put restrictions in place so that it would push developers to chop up their properties to keep from coming under the requirements. She also referenced that at the County level, Steinberg conditions are used on all cases, which is a series of questions similar to a CIS, and enforces consistency.
      
      Mr. Thompson said that in the definition of large scale development, you could take out the last sentence concerning intent.
      
      Mr. Wheeler was still concerned with whether or not painted concrete block could be used on exterior walls that have no view shed from a single family home, view shed from a public street, or within view shed of a public parking area. He mentioned architecture standards under corporate architecture prototypes, said the roofing section was impractical for big buildings, and he would like to see lakes, ponds, pools, and detention areas as pervious and green space. He also noted dangers to the parking lot design as illustrated as having parking strips parallel to a main building is dangerous.
      
      Mr. Wheeler said that Council should be very careful on restricting redevelopment and noted that the Ingles property is a prime project. Mr. Cross said that major renovations could be performed at that site without triggering some of the provisions of this ordinance due to the ability to grandfather. Mr. Wheeler noted that the Hudgens property is unique in the city, and he just wants to make sure there aren’t any unintended consequences which make it impractical for development.
      
      Mr. Vince Michels came forward and pointed out page 7, the section applying to exemption for roofing. He was concerned with concealing HVAC units and aesthetics. Mr. Cross pointed him back to section 9, “Screening of Mechanical Equipment.” Cell towers were mentioned. Mr. Michels also requested the traffic study language be completely clarified, and in his opinion, simply submitting a study is not good enough. It should be analyzed and reviewed carefully before permits are issued. He asked about the CIS and studies, and wanted more specific measures for adverse community impact and it’s relation to whether a project is halted or denied?
      
      Mr. Cross responded that if the Planning Commission has major concerns about something, it should be addressed with PUD’s etc, not just with large buildings.
      
      Councilmember Mundrick noted that zoning standards are set by state law, and read the requirements of section 2205 which say that projects shall adhere to the six standards as follows:
      
      1. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property.
      
      2. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property.
      
      3. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned.
      
      4. Whether the zoning proposal will result in a use that would or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation, facilities, utilities, or schools.
      
      5. Whether the zoning proposal is consistent with the Land Use Policy Plan, Comprehensive Plan, transportation plans, and other plans adopted for guiding development within the City of Duluth.
      
      6. Whether there is other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of property giving supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the zoning proposal.
      
      Mr. Michels questioned during the permitting process, if serious negatives come back as a result of the CIS or traffic study, what stops this project or generates corrective action? He was concerned that it was all reviewed administratively and not through Mayor and Council. The CIS should not be just “going through the motions;” that document should be meaningful and generate some analysis, such as whether infrastructure upgrades are necessary, etc. and due to the magnitude of large scale projects, be reviewed by the governing body. He said he is not trying to kill development, but wanted to know where the lines are drawn to ensure that the ordinance achieves what it sets out to do.
      
      Councilmember Bomar agreed that if the studies are going to be useful, there needs to be a way to generate mitigation measures that are imposed upon the development before the permit is approved.
      
      City Attorney Lee Thompson said that the Special Use Permit process or Conditional Use Process did route through Council or the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). A CIS can be used, and decisions on what conditions to put on it. But if the zoning is already proper and a developer meets the standards as set, the City cannot tell him he can’t build. In that case, Council meets as quasi judicial body, not a legislative body. He said this document primarily sets the standards.
      
      City Administrator Phil McLemore said that the impact study could be required with a plan to lessen negative community impact. Councilmember Dugan noted that while Council is knowledgeable, Planning Staff is the most competent due to their areas of expertise and therefore should be the best ones to make those decisions. He emphasized going forward on this and later coming back with changes if needed.
      
      Councilmember Mundrick said a plan for mitigation of significant adverse impact could be required if deemed necessary, but it would be hard to quantify “significant.” Mayor Lasseter reiterated that this is still a work in progress and a learning process and many changes could be made on a case by case basis.
      
      Mr. Ed Wilson came forward for clarification on the fenestration percentages. He referenced the change to 30% on the first floor and thought that each additional floor should have a minimum of 10% as well. He also commented on parking and cross landscape strips.
      
      Mayor Lasseter called for further comments. There being none, the Mayor closed the public hearing and called for a motion.
      
      A motion was made by Councilmember Mundrick, seconded by Councilmember Bomar, to approve the ordinance as presented with the following adjustments be adopted:
      
      
      • Grandfather language in Zoning Ordinance
      • Definition of Façade – “The exterior face of a building extending, the entire width of the building elevation opposite a public right-of-way. Any exterior face of a building that is visible from a public right-of-way, public parking lot, or residential development shall be considered a façade.”
      • Impervious surface – “Areas that significantly prevent or impede the natural infiltration of stormwater into the soil. For the purpose of this ordinance, impervious surface will also incorporate the floor area footprint of primary and accessory structures into the total percentage allowed. Lakes, ponds, pools, detention ponds and similar features are considered pervious surfaces and green space for the purpose of this ordinance.
      • Delete last line of Large Scale Development definition declaring intent.
      • Article 6, Section 616 “Community Impact Statements,” add new paragraph C to read “A plan for mitigation of adverse impacts which in the opinion of the Director of Planning and Development are significant, shall be developed as part of the ‘Community Impact Study’.”
      • Under Architectural Standards, b) secondary materials – take out “architecturally treated concrete masonry.”
      • Under Corporate Architecture, change the word franchises to architecture. End of paragraph shall say “shall be subject to prior design review and approval by the Director of Planning and Development.
      • Fenestration – fix typo by saying in the first sentence “at least 30%.”
      • Under number 8, Roofs – sub paragraph A: “flat roofs are permitted, but cannot account for more than 60% of the overall roof square footage. Under B: change to “Roofing materials for the visible sloped portions of the roofs shall be limited to Metal standing seams, tile, slate or stone, Wood shake. Flat roofs may consist of membrane, TPO, concrete or aggregate or similar materials.
      • Roofing provisions and exceptions: add a sentence that says, “however, mechanical roof equipment shall be screened as required by paragraph 9.
      • Paragraph 9, screening, change subsection a to read: “not visible from public rights-of-way, public parking lots, or any residential property within 1000 feet…” In subsection b: add dumpster to the list.
      • Under section J: Traffic study, change to say “a traffic study in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standards or the standards of Chapter 13…”
      • Diagrams, figure 616(3), change 8’ perimeter landscape strip to 10’ and take zone B and rotate so that the parking strips are perpendicular to the front of the building. Make sure the landscape cross strips will collect water.
      • Mr. Thompson clarified definition of abutting “having a common border even if separated by right-of-way…” and under section O: Land use transition, should read “Where large-scale developments abut or are contiguous to property zoned for…”
      
      
      It was clarified that for purposes of Land Use transition, the right-of-way cannot be counted as part of the buffer. Councilmember Bomar wanted it noted that this is still a living document and a few things have already been recognized as requiring additional examination.
      
      Those voting for: Councilmembers Kirouac, Bomar, Mundrick, Dugan, and Hall
      
      Motion carried.
4. NEW BUSINESS
   1. TERMINATION OF MORATORIUM – LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
      Considering the passage of this ordinance, Councilmember Mundrick suggested removing the moratorium on large scale development that was established on July 30, 2007 and set to expire January 31, 2008.
      
      A motion was made by Councilmember Mundrick, seconded by Councilmember Kirouac, to terminate the moratorium.
      
      Those voting for: Councilmembers Kirouac, Bomar, Mundrick, Dugan, and Hall
      Motion carried.
   2. AMENDMENT TO LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
      A motion was made by Councilmember Mundrick, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to amend Section 6 of the Large Scale Ordinance to read, “This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and approval by the Duluth City Council.”
      
      Those voting for: Councilmembers Kirouac, Bomar, Mundrick, Dugan, and Hall
      Motion carried.
5. MATTERS FROM CITIZENS
   1. Greg Whitlock of 3144 Brookshire Way thanked Councilmember Kirouac for her term on Council, has always served with honor and love for the City. Thanked Mayor Lasseter for her term, for her passion and dedication to the City.
6. ADJOURNMENT
   1. A motion was made by Councilmember Kirouac, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to adjourn at 9:35 p.m.
      
      All for. Motion carried unanimously.