HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-2013 regular meeting
City Council of Peachtree City
Meeting Minutes
June 6, 2013
7:00 p.m.
The Mayor and City Council of the City of Peachtree City met in regular session on Thursday,
June 6, 2013. Mayor Haddix called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Other Council Members in
attendance: George Dienhart, Vanessa Fleisch, Eric Imker, and Kim Learnard.
Announcements. Awards. Special Recoonition
Mayor Haddix recognized the members of the Needs Assessment Committee, thanking them for
their work, then the committee was dissolved. The adults from Class 15 of Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) training were recognized.
Public Comment
Michael Byrne asked Council to consider changing the ordinances to allow ice cream trucks in
the neighborhoods. the trucks that had soft-serve ice cream. Imker apologized to Byrne for not
answering his e-mail on this subject, but he had heard an ice cream truck recently when he was
on the cart path. Dienhart said he had seen one, too. Fleisch said that truck was not the same
type of truck. Haddix said he had spoken with staff, and ice cream trucks were currently illegal,
but he would request a review of the ordinance. since they were a tradition.
Curtis Wagner discussed a recent drug bust at a residence (613 Golfview Drive) in his
neighborhood, noting the residence was being used as a boarding house and bringing in
undesirable people. He continued that the home next to it was occupied by a widow with small
children, who was petrified of the people who were coming and going from the house. He
urged Council to be more proactive before the problem became worse. Dienhart clarified that
rooms were being rented out of the residence for the day or week. Wagner said they were.
City A ttorney Ted Meeker told Council there were some zoning issues that staff was looking into.
He hoped to bring information to Council at the next meeting. Haddix added that he had
introduced Wagner to the appropriate staff members prior to the start of the meeting.
Aoenda Chanoes
Learnard requested that agenda. item 04-13-12 Discuss Traffic Conditions on SR 54 West and
Consider Traffic Engineering Study on SR 54 West & MacDuff Parkway be moved to the end of
the agenda since it would probably be a lengthy discussion. Dienhart said that would be a
disservice to the residents who had come for that agenda item, and it should not come up for
discussion after everyone had left.
Learnard moved to change the agenda. moving agenda item 04-13-12 to follow agenda item
06-13-03. Fleisch seconded.
Haddix said there were people attending the meeting to speak on this issue, and he was not
sure it was fair to delay the item.
Learnard pointed out that Nancy Price of the Peachtree City Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB)
was always last, and it would be nice to move her item up. All of the agenda items were
important, but the most time would be spent on the SR 54 West discussion, and that discussion
should be given its due. Haddix suggested moving 06-13-03 (Price's item) to the front. Dienhart
agreed with Haddix. Learnard said that was not her motion.
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 2
Imker added that the other items could be dispensed with fairly quickly. The last time SR 54 West
was discussed it took 45 minutes to an hour, and he saw no reason for those here for the other
items to wait for an hour. The delay would not cause people attending the meeting for that
discussion to leave the meeting.
Motion carried 4 - 1 (Dienhart).
Minutes
May 7, 2013, Workshop Minutes
May 9, 2013, Regular Meeting Minutes
Fleisch moved to approve the May 7, 2013, workshop minutes and the May 9, 2013, regular
meeting minutes as written. Learnard seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Aaenda
1. Consider 2013 Municipal Election Agreement with Fayette County
2. Consider Acceptance of FY 2012 GEMA Grant for CERT
3. Consider Alcohol Ordinance. Amendment - Definition of Growler
4. Consider Municipal Court Ordinance Amendment - Pre- Trial Intervention Program
5. Consider Cancellation of July 4th Meeting
6. Consider Renewal of Mutual Aid Agreement with Fayetteville Police Department
Fleisch moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1 - 6. Learnard seconded.
Imker pointed out that Item #2 was acceptance of a $10,600 grant for the CERT program from
the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA), which would be used for the training. It
was quite an effort to train those people, but the residents did not pay for it. Haddix agreed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Old Aaenda Items
05-13-03 Consider Ordinance Amendments Regarding Blankets and Tarps
Public Information Officer/City Clerk Betsy Tyler addressed Council, noting that the two
ordinances had been tweaked at Council's request since the May 9 meeting to allow tarps and
blankets to be put out on at dawn on the day of a special event. The original amendment
allowed blankets and tarps to be left unattended for one hour. Stakes, barricades, and other
items were still prohibited.
Learnard said Council knew something had to be done, and if the ordinances were not perfect
and if the City found the changes were not workable, then the ordinance could be tweaked
and adjusted next year. Based on e-mails, some people were very happy with the change, and
some were not. Fleisch added that the City was having more and more outdoor events, but the
big test would be during the July 4th events.
Haddix said he had also received e-mails with many diverse opinions. The ordinances could be
adjusted if they did not work.
Learnard moved to approve the ordinance amendment regarding blankets and tarps. Dienhart
seconded. Tyler reminded Council there were two ordinances with amendments.
Meeker asked Learnard to amend her motion to include both ordinances.
'>"=~~~~
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 3
Learnard moved to amend her motion to include both ordinances. Dienhart seconded. Motion
carried unanimously.
The motion carried unanimously.
New Aaenda Items
06-13-01 Public Hearing - Consider Step Two Annexation Application, Foot Pain, LLC,
Peachtree Professional Center and other tracts (SR 54 East)
Planning & Zoning Administrator David Rast gave a brief overview of the area, noting there were
four tracts of land just outside the City limits that were part of the annexation application. One
of them was the 4.63-acre Peachtree Professional Center tract (Foot Pain Clinic property), which
had been rezoned by the Fayette County Board of Commissioners in 1999. The Paper Rose
Studio tract was 1.05 acres. The Peachtree City Chiropractic and Paletta Group tracts were just
under one acre each. The existing zoning was Community Commercial, and the proposed
zoning in the City was Office Institutional (01). The existing land use in Fayette County was
Commercial, and it would change to Office if annexed into the City.
Rast continued the nearby residential neighbors had been heavily involved in the County's
rezoning process for the Peachtree Professional Center tract, and a number of conditions had
been imposed on that rezoning. Rast proposed including the conditions set by the County in the
annexation and zoning process and to enhance them.
Originally, the Step One Annexation Application had included only the Peachtree Professional
Center tract. The Planning Commission had asked the other three properties be included in the
annexation, and the Peachtree Professional tract owner had contacted the other property
owners, resulting in the Step Two application under consideration at this meeting. Rast noted
one condition was to extend the cart path to the Peachtree Professional tract, but the location
had not been identified yet. Staff would work with the developer to find a suitable location. No
new streetlights or rights-of-way were needed. Public Works would maintain the cart path, and
Public Services Director Mark Caspar had determined the cost to maintain the cart path would
have a minor impact on the budget.
Staff had also analyzed the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update, which had identified several
areas the City needed to look at for future development and redevelopment. This area had
been included in the Update regarding potential/future annexations and also fell under
intergovernmental coordination so staff would work with the County's planning staff to look at
growth boundaries, and to compare the City's Comprehensive Plan with the County's. It also
fell under how to develop along transportation corridors and how to protect them. One of the
recommendations was to develop overlay districts on SR 54 East so the City would have control
over development. The City had also looked specifically at SR 54 East, identifying the
development patterns from Peachtree Parkway East to the City limits.
One of the primary reasons for the annexation was access to sewer. Rast noted the applicant
had not hidden that as a reason for the annexation, and the annexation had been reviewed by
Water & Sewerage Authority General Manager Stephen Hogan. Rast said there had been
discussions on the location of the lift station and how it should be sized, which would be
explained later.
Rast continued that the financial impact analysis had been interesting, and there was not much
of an impact. There were no residential tracts, and the four tracts were already developed.
There were no impact fees or building fees to be analyzed. There were no roads or rights-of-way
"".~~Iffii"~"'~~~~<
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 4
maintenance. The fair market value for the Peachtree Professional tract had been $3,329,840,
and that was the value prior to the expansion. Based on the 2012 taxes, the four parcels should
generate $46,000 in property taxes, with approximately $9,500 earmarked for the City. There
really was no impact on personnel and staff. Police and Fire routinely patrolled Sumner Road
and that portion of the City, and neither department felt additional personnel were needed.
City staff recommended approval of the annexation request. The Planning Commission
unanimously recommended approval. Staff would work with the Peachtree Professional Center
applicant to ensure the landscaping complied with City ordinances, noting the City required
more extensive landscaping than the County. Rast said it would be very costly to bring the
parcels in compliance with the City ordinances, and staff recommended waiting until any
redevelopment occurred, then bringing the tracts into conformance.
The conditions for approval included:
1. The applicable conditions adopted on June 24, 1999 by the Fayette County Board of
Commissioners for the 4.84-acre and 0.87-acre tract of land shall be incorporated into
the zoning.
(a) There shall be no vehicular access from these tracts of land provided to or from
Sumner Road.
(b) Site lighting and! or lighting mounted on the building exterior shall comply with the
city's Lighting Ordinance.
(c) An undisturbed buffer of no less than 25' in width as measured from the right-of-way
of Sumner Road shall be preserved on each tract of land and shall be designated on
the plat of the overall property. Other than perpendicular utility crossings, clearing,
grading or the removal of any vegetation from these buffers shall not be permiHed.
In those areas void of vegetation, the buffer shall be re-established with evergreen
plant material (minimum 6' in height from finish grade) planted in staggered rows at
no less than 8' on center.
(d) All impervious surfaces, including stormwater detention facilities, shall be located no
less than fifty (50) feet from the right-of-way of Sumner Road.
2. The Applicant shall coordinate with City Staff to identify a location for an at-grade multi-
use path crossing on Sumner Road and shall then be responsible for constructing a multi-
use path from the SR 54! Sumner Road intersection to the northernmost property line of
the Peachtree Professional Center tract. A detailed plan shall be prepared in
accordance with city standards and submitted to City staff for review prior to
construction. The Applicant shall be solely responsible for design and construction of this
connection at no cost to the city. It is understood the multi-use path shall not impact the
existing buffer adjacent to Sumner Road.
3. The Applicant shall prepare a detailed analysis of landscaping requirements as they
relate to Fayette County in comparison to those required by Peachtree City. Should
additional plant material be required to satisfy the city's tree replacement requirements,
the Applicant shall prepare a landscape plan identifying how the existing landscaping
will be enhanced to comply with Peachtree City requirements. It is understood this
requirement shall apply to the Peachtree Professional building tract only. Landscaping
requirements on the remaining tracts will be analyzed as these tracts are either
expanded or redeveloped in the future.
4. Upon approval of the annexation, existing conditions on each tract of land, to include
parking design, landscaping, signage, lighting, etc. that do not comply with current city
ordinances shall be considered as legally non-conforming. Should these improvements
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 5
be modified and! or if the property is redeveloped, these items shall be brought into
conformance with city ordinances to the greatest extent practicable.
5. The zoning of the parcels shall be 01 Office Institutional.
6. The Land Use Designation of the parcels shall be OFF Office.
The public hearing opened.
Chuck Ogletree, one of the owners of Peachtree Professional and agent for the other tracts,
said his property was 70% leased and hoped to be 90% to 95% leased by the end of the year.
Their purpose for the annexation was access to sewer. His building was currently served by a
private septic system, and there were no issues with it currently. They felt the long-term viability
of the building was to tie-in to sewer. The residential neighbors would also benefit from the
annexation because the property was developed to County standards. The neighbors were not
happy with the sparse buffer, and if annexed, they would strengthen the buffer. Ogletree
added that. with the new addition, the value of the Peachtree Professional property was
projected at $8 million. The City would be able to collect occupational tax and stormwater
fees. There should be very little impact on City services, and the annexation would give the City
more control moving forward. Additional parking would be needed on his tract, and they
would present a plan for more parking and an enhanced buffer to the Planning Commission in
the near future.
Ogletree continued that. based on his talks with them, W ASA preferred to install a regional
pump station to service the entire area. The potential location of the pump station was on the
low end of the property, which was on the backside of the building along Sumner Road, but
outside the buffer area. There were still issues to be worked out with WASA. He said the area
was a known entity, and the buildings would still be there if the annexation were not approved.
Josh Bloom said he was not actually opposed to the annexation. The City had recently
annexed an area to the south, and this was going east. It appeared the City was in a race with
Fayetteville to Pinewood Studio. A strategic annexation plan needed to be considered before
any more took place. Bloom said he read the City's partial Comprehensive Plan update, and
the plan was needed before the 2017 Comprehensive Plan was completed.
Phil Prebor said he was opposed to the annexation. The Foot Pain Clinic building was beautiful,
and it fit with the City. The buildings on the other parcels were not a good fit. The City needed
to look at the occupancy rates of the existing 01 in the City. Council should serve those
members of the community before taking on something else.
Randy Ramsden told Council he would love for the area to be annexed. His doctor had moved
to the Foot Pain Clinic building. His only transportation was his golf cart, and he could not get to
their new location now. It was a safety and independence issue for him.
Wade Mastin said he supported the annexation, but he was concerned about the pump
station, including size, possible noise, and the location, adding there was really no buffer there if
it was located on the back of the property toward Sumner Road. He also did not see how the
parking could be enhanced as well as the buffer, asking if he could see a landscape plan. Rast
said he had a small copy of the landscape plan and showed it to Mastin. Mastin added that
Sumner Road was classified as a scenic route, but the back side of the Foot Pain Clinic was not
very scenic.
'~~J'!~
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 6
Iris Salzman also wanted more information on the regional pump station. She did not want to be
forced onto the sewer system, asking if that would happen. Haddix said it would not.
Romero Martinez asked what the value of the landscape plan was, whether it was 1 % or 2% of
the entire property.
The public hearing closed.
Haddix asked Ogletree if he could include one .or two citizens in his meeting with W ASA to help
answer their questions about the pump station. Ogletree said he would. Haddix said the buffers
would win if it came to a decision on whether to allow more parking or to enhance the buffer.
Imker referred to page 69 of 98 in the meeting packet. which was a photo layout of the
property, asking Ogletree where the pump station would be located. Ogletree said he did not
have any details on the location yet. If it was a regional pump station, it could be located 1,000
feet north of his parcel. If it was a private pump station, it could be as small as 12 feet by 12 feet
with an above ground generator.
Public Services Director Mark Caspar said it looked relatively the same as other pump stations
located in residential areas. They were generally screened with either a vegetative buffer or a
privacy fence, and the residents only knew they were there when the emergency generator
was running, which was infrequent.
Ogletree said the additional parking would be located in the current drain field for the septic
system.
Rast read from the proposed zoning ordinance for the properties:
(a) Multiple frontage lot: Because the subject tracts abut both SR 54 and Sumner Road, they
are considered multiple frontage lots and, therefore, front building and parking setbacks
shall be established adjoining the right-of-way of both public streets.
(b) Setbacks: All impervious surfaces, including buildings, parking, stormwater detention
facilities, etc., shall be located no less than forty (40) feet from the right-of-way of SR 54
and no less than fifty (50) feet from the right-of-way of Sumner Road.
The minimum side building setbacks shall be no less than ten (10) feet.
The minimum rear building setback shall be no less than twenty (20) feet.
(c) Maximum building height: The maximum building height shall not exceed two (2) stories
in height or 35 feet in heighffrom finish grade to the ridge line of the roof.
(d) Parking: Parking shall be provided as set forth in Section 909. No automobile parking
shall be permitted within the established front building setbacks.
(e) Curb cuts: There shall be no vehicular access from these tracts of land to or from Sumner
Road.
(f) Architectural detailing: All sides of the buildings and associated structures shall include
similar architectural detailing, building materials and color selections.
(g) Storage: No storage shall be permitted on the zoning lot outside of a fully enclosed
building.
(h) Dumpsters, loading and service areas shall not be located within any building setback
and shall be properly screened from view in accordance with current city ordinances.
(i) Site lighting: All site lighting, including all fixtures mounted on the exterior of the buildings,
shall comply with the city's Lighting Ordinance.
(j) Sumner Road undisturbed buffer: An undisturbed buffer of no less than 25' in width as
measured from the right-of-way of Sumner Road shall be preserved on each tract of land
r;~~~~".. ... .
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 7
and shall be designated on the plat of the overall property. Other than perpendicular
utility crossings, clearing, grading or the removal of any vegetation from these buffers
shall not be permitted. In those areas void of vegetation, the buffer shall be re-
established with evergreen plant material (minimum 6' in height from finish grade)
planted in staggered rows at no less than 8' on center.
(k) Multi-use path connection: The Applicant shall coordinate with City Staff to identify a
location for an at-grade multi-use path crossing on Sumner Road and shall then be
responsible for constructing a multi-use path from the SR 54/ Sumner Road intersection to
the northernmost property line of the Peachtree Professional Center tract. A detailed
plan shall be prepared in accordance with city standards and submitted to City staff for
review prior to construction. The Applicant shall be solely responsible for design and
construction of this connection at no cost to the city. It is understood the multi-use path
shall not impact the existing buffer adjacent to Sumner Road.
(I) Landscaping enhancements: The Applicant shall prepare a detailed analysis of
landscaping requirements as they relate to Fayette County in comparison to those
required by Peachtree City. Should additional plant material be required to satisfy the
city's tree replacement requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a landscape plan
identifying how the existing landscaping will be enhanced to comply with Peachtree City
requirements.
It is understood this requirement shall apply to the Peachtree Professional building tract
only. Landscaping requirements on the remaining tracts will be analyzed as these tracts
are either expanded or redeveloped in the future.
(m) Non-conforming issues: Upon approval of the annexation, existing conditions on each
tract of land, to include parking design, landscaping, signage, lighting, etc., that do not
comply with current city ordinances shall be considered legally non-conforming. Should
these improvements be modified and/ or if the property is redeveloped, these items shall
be brought into conformance with city ordinances to the greatest extent practicable.
Dienhart asked what the City would be granting leniency on. Rast said the leniency would be
for the three smaller tracts, and they were very narrow. The undisturbed buffer would still apply,
but no pavement or building could be any closer to the buffer than it was now. When Sumner
Road was built several years ago, it was graded to leave as much buffer as possible, and the
buffer was probably the thickest on. the backside of those three parcels. There would also be no
vehicular access from the tracts to Sumner Road.
Fleisch asked where the cart path would be located. Rast said staff wanted to involve the
neighbors in locating the path, since there might be issues with cut-throughs if it was closer to
Sumner Road, adding it might be better if the path were located closer to SR 54.
Haddix said there were other non-conforming commercial sites in the City that looked like the
other three parcels. These would not be a special exception. If there were any significant
construction on any of the tracts in the future, then the entire building would have to be brought
into conformance. Nothing uncommon was going on.
Dienhart said he did not support the spread toward Pinewood Studio, but this annexation would
give more protection to the City residents who lived on Sumner Road.
Imker asked Meeker for clarification on the annexation process, noting that the Step One
Application simply authorized staff to work with the developer. Meeker explained that approval
of a Step One Application allowed the formal application to be filed. lmker asked for the formal
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 8
interpretation of approval of a Step Two Annexation. Meeker said the property would be
annexed into the City.
Imker moved to approve the Step Two Annexation Application and zoning ordinance for the
tracts as discussed on SR 54 East. Learnard seconded. Motion carried 4 - 1 (Fleisch).
06-13-02 Consider Ratification of Hotel/Motel Tax
Meeker addressed Council, saying that once the changes to the hotel/motel tax had been
approved by the State Legislature and the Governor, Council needed to ratify it as set forth
under Georgia law. The effective date of the increase in the hotel/motel tax would be August 1 ,
2013.
Fleisch read the following statement:
This has been a long time in the works. I have been genuinely impressed by the
way in which so many groups have worked together to get this legislation passed by
the Georgia State Legislature and then signed by Governor Deal on May 7.
The City of Peachtree City is so blessed to have 416 acres of recreational
amenities throughout the city. Our parks and recreational facilities are a huge draw
for our residents and potential residents.
In these economic times we need to be thinking of new and innovative ways to
generate revenue for our city. It made sense to me to use what we already had in
our own backyard to bring in that additional revenue to our hotels and motels. The
idea was not to do every evenfbut to do signature events or tournaments that would
fill our hotels and help to sustain them during this economic downturn. The parties
involved in this process sought to boost the hotels' bottom line by using the
Convention and Visitors bureau to bring in these events.
But before we could seriously bring this proposal to the hotels we needed to
bring our own house in order. Our parks and fields were not in the condition to host
any kind of quality sporting events; they were suffering from years of neglect and it
was left to the volunteer sports associations to repair them, as the city had essentially
abdicated its responsibility to them for routine maintenance. It took a year of intense
renewed emphasis on facilities management to help bring this to fruition.
In order to get this ordinance to where it is today, it meant many people
working together.. ..and tapping into the spirit of Peachtree City. I want to thank the
following groups and individuals for all of their help - the hotel general managers;
Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB); Airport Authority: sports associations:
Recreation and Special Events Advisory Group: Recreation and Special Events
Department: Public Works Department; State Representatives John Yates, Virgil Fludd,
and Ron Mabra and State Senator Valencia Seay for sponsoring this legislation; and
the Governor for the passage of this bill which allows for a new distribution of the
hotel motel tax as well as an increase by 2%.
By negotiating and working with all of these groups we were able to get this
legislation passed. Working together for over a year has also helped to establish
business relationships that will carry on into the future as we move forward with this
initiative.
I am very pleased to report to you that this weekend a large women's lacrosse
tournament is being held here in the city and all of the hotel rooms are sold out. The
CVB and the new sports alliance have all been poised and ready for this moment
and I am pleased to make the motion on this item when the Mayor is ready.
.W4'~~l;?;"l;IW!___,... .
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 9
Haddix said the state's local legislation policy had changed, but if a majority of a Council
supported the legislation, then the legislative delegation supported it and brought it forward. It
was not a big effort on their part. Local legislation was submitted as a batch. It was a simple
policy procedure for the Legislature. Haddix said his position on the hotel/motel tax had not
changed; this was another tax on the citizens of the City, and he noted that NCR booked 120
rooms per week for those attending training, and this tax increase would hit them.
Dienhart said he had not heard Rep. Matt Ramsey's name, asking if he had not been a sponsor
of the legislation. Fleisch and Haddix said Ramsey, who represented the majority of the City,
had recused himself.
Imker said residential citizens would not be impacted by the increase in the hotel/motel tax. He
had been surprised when the hotels had supported the additional tax on their own industry.
They saw that the long-term business plan would put "more heads in beds." Other cities the
same size and larger had always had the higher tax, and this put the City on a level playing
ground.
Haddix said it was not true that all the residents would not be impacted, adding Imker was
parsing his words. Imker said it was not a residential property tax. Haddix said it would affect the
City's industrial citizens, and they were being ignored.
Learnard said she understood Haddix's position. She thanked Fleisch for her hard work.
Fleisch moved to ratify Ordinance 1053, establishing the Hotel/Motel Tax at 8% as of August 1,
2013. Learnard seconded. Motion carried 3 - 2 (Haddix, Dienhart).
06-13-03 Presentation on Proposed "Diva Half-Marathon" Event for 2014
Nancy Price, CVB executive director, introduced Pat Duncan, a consultant for the CVB, and
Robert Pozo, Continental Event and Sports Management Group, LLC, the producer for the "Run
Like a Diva" series of races.
Duncan said the CVB was proactive in getting leads on bringing sporting events to the area,
which had to be a good fit and generate economic impact. The "Run Like a Diva" half-
marathon was not just a lead, but a tremendous opportunity, as it was one of the premiere
women's races in the United States. Multiple races were held across the country.
Pozo said the Diva races had become very popular, adding the majority of participants were in
the 30 - 50 age groups, which were the groups that had more money to spend. He reviewed
the demographics for the event held in North Myrtle Beach in May 2012, noting that 57 men had
participated in the half-marathon along with 4,362 women. The 5K held in conjunction with the
half-marathon was a co-ed event. The majority of participants were married and had
completed college or had graduate degrees. Pozo continued that, in North Myrtle Beach, 648
participants had come from North Myrtle Beach and the surrounding area; 790 had come from
other parts of South Carolina; 2,953 had come from other states; and 28 participants were from
other countries.
Pozo continued that the average number of days spent in town outside the 50-mile local radius
was 2.31 days, with estimated room nights at 7,038. The average number of people in a party
(including the runner) non-local was 3.37; and the average number for local runners was 2.05.
The total number of attendees in North Myrtle Beach, based on those ratios, was 14,692. Local
volunteers and spectators numbered 500. Total event attendance was estimated at 15,192.
~.IW_r",l~..,
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 10
Pow said the direct economic impact on North Myrtle Beach was $4,368,601, and the indirect
economic impact was $6,552,901.
Pow said it was rare to be met with open arms by the local running club, and he appreciated
the "red carpet" treatment and the time everyone had given.
Fleisch asked if anything would be planned at the Amphitheater the same weekend. Price said
they were having that discussion. Pow said his company was not an expert on concerts, and
they would work with the CVB.
George Martin of the Peachtree. City Running Club said they had been working on routes,
adding the half-marathon was about double the size and distance of the Classic race, but
logistical issues were not insurmountable. There were many options available.
Pow said the event would be held September 7 - 8,2014, the weekend after Labor Day, with
the race normally scheduled on Sunday morning. Their Wine Country race was held on
Saturday, but they generally preferred to work around traffic, and Sunday morning was usually a
light traffic time. They were still discussing it. The start time was a balancing act due to the heat
so they would be talking to the FireDepartment. All their races were destination races, and they
worked to be a good neighbor.
04-13-12 Discuss Traffic Conditions on SR 54 West and Consider Traffic Engineering Study on
SR 54 West & MacDuff Parkway
Dienhart moved to protect the citizens and homeowners of Planterra Ridge and Cardiff Park by
setting a clear example and taking a solid stance on behalf of protecting all neighborhoods
from intrusive development that the City Council not allow a sixth traffic light on SR 54 West at
Line Creek Drive, to prevent traffic from bogging down any further and potentially damaging
existing businesses and residential neighborhoods. He further moved that Council not allow any
kind of connector road to Planterra Way and said it was time for this Council to show it stood
with the people and against unbridled access to neighborhoods for developers. Haddix
seconded.
Learnard pointed out the agenda item was "discuss," asking Meeker for his opinion. Meeker
explained that typically, Council did not take action on items labeled for discussion.
Technically, the concern was whether appropriate notice was given before taking action per
the Georgia Open Meetings Law. There was nothing in the Charter regarding the situation. But
the question was whether appropriate notice was given. Dienhart asked if this situation had
happened before. Meeker said he did not recall voting on an item labeled for "discussion."
Typically, Council gave guidance to staff on the issues, or some indication on where Council
might stand. In terms of taking formal action, that had not been the practice. Dienhart asked if
voting would be legal or not. Meeker felt it would be okay, but said he tended to err to the said
of caution in how things were advertised on the agenda, and it was of some concern.
Haddix said that, while he supported the vote, he did not want to disrupt Council's practice,
and he withdrew his second. Dienhart said that was unfortunate because Haddix had had the
chance to stand up for a neighborhood. The motion died for lack of a second. Haddix said
Council could still discuss the issue and arrive at an opinion, then schedule a vote for the next
meeting.
Dienhart said he did not want to argue, but the four of them had made promises to the residents
of Planterra Way and Cardiff Park, and not one of them had stood up for their promises. Haddix
~~
r. J .RI]ll.... .~
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 11
said it was a difference of opinion. He was going to stay with protocol, and a vote would be on
the next agenda.
Learnard said this was obviously an important issue. The property being focused on was owned
by someone, and she asked Dienhart if he had reached out to the owner to let them know the
issue would be discussed. Dienhart said the onus was on the owners as the meetings and
discussions had been advertised as required by law. Learnard asked Dienhart if he had invited
the property owner to any of the discussions Council had conducted. Dienhart said the owner
knew it was controversial and should have seen it in the newspapers. He also had not reached
out to any of the hundreds of affected families in the neighborhoods either. He asked Learnard
if she reached out to everyone that would be affected by an item she put on the agenda,
saying Learnard was holding him to an unfair standard. Learnard said, if she had a discussion
item involving someone's property, they would be invited.
Learnard continued there were a lot of issues, and it was very complicated. She asked Dienhart
if he was familiar with the SR 54 West Corridor study on file in the Planning Office that had been
done by a citizens advisory group, the Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) study. The purpose had
been to examine the existing conditions within and adjacent to the West Village, and to
determine potential scenarios for development to enhance the emerging activity center and
create an identity for the West Village. It had been a significant undertaking. There were 10
public meetings, three presentations to Council, one to the Planning Commission, and a
technical review with the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) staff. Learnard read from the
summary, "it was important for the final plan to be in keeping with the existing character of
Peachtree City."
The entire west corridor had been studied. Learnard said transportation enhancements mainly
centered around cart paths. There were internal mobility requirements and connectivity of the
existing and proposed alternate transportation system. The goals and objectives emphasized
alternate transportation systems, consistency of land use and zoning patterns, and elements of
the plan integrated the multi-use path system with the rest of the City, as well as the
development of a secondary road system to assist in reducing traffic on SR 54. Learnard
continued the secondary road system would parallel SR 54 on the north and south sides of the
highway. Phase 1 of the secondary road south of SR 54 extend from the traffic signal at the
former Days Inn entrance to Planterra Way, with the property west of the Days Inn developed as
an assisted living facility or combined with the Days Inn property for a large retail/commercial
development. The study strongly recommended limiting vehicular access to SR 54 at major
intersections. There were four signals when the study was done - SR 54/SR 74, SR 54/The Avenue,
SR 54/Huddleston Road, SR 54/MdCDuff Parkway. A fifth signal had been approved for SR
54/Planterra Way. Learnard said the study strongly recommended another signal with full turning
movements for SR 54/Line Creek, which would provide access to the secondary road system.
The study strongly recommended a secondary road system on the north and south sides of SR
54. The master plan for the area showed signals at all of the intersections and secondary roads
on both sides of the highway, including a cut-over to Planterra Way. Learnard said she talked to
four of the 11 or 12 people who had been part of the study group. Everyone felt each
intersection should have a signal, but the focus had been more on the north side. Another
member said the secondary road should have gone to Huddleston, but Huddleston needed
upgrading, so it had not happened. One of the specific reasons cited for the secondary road
on the south side was to prevent a large retail development from happening on the tract
between Line Creek Drive and Planterra. They had not wanted to see a large single tenant on
that side of the highway. The access road was envisioned to provide secondary access to the
development and to subdivide the property into smaller tracts of land.
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 12
Dienhart asked if Emily Poole, the City's economic development coordinator who worked with
the Fayette County Development Authority (FCDA), had been involved in any of the current
plans for the area. He said Poole had been working on something else for the area, and she
had wondered why it had been difficult. Dienhart asked why Poole had not been included in
the planning for this development. Learnard said she would be glad for the three of them to
meet, saying it had not been intentional, just that everyone had busy schedules. She said that
was a great suggestion.
Learnard said she wanted to know the consequences of closing the median at Line Creek.
Dienhart said he had withdrawn that request, and he was now focused on the traffic light and
the cut-through to Planterra Way. He was willing to negotiate.
Learnard said there were requirements (warrants) for signal lights, and traffic lights were
intended for safety purposes. It was GDOT that determined whether a signal was warranted.
Any special use permit application would show a light if warranted. The developer would have
a traffic study done, and if the study showed the light was warranted, the request for the signal
would come from the City. If the City decided not to apply for the signal, the City carried the
liability. As for Council determining whether a light was needed, the factors were out of the
City's control. Dienhart said if no application was filed, then there was no signal.
Fleisch asked if the City was liable if a signal was warranted, and the City did not apply for one.
Meeker said the City could file an application, and the Georgia Department of Transportation
(GDOT) could say no. There was always the question of independent engineering judgment.
GDOT could put up the light whether the City applied for it or not.
Haddix said the original developer tried twice to have a light permitted at Line Creek, and the
warrants were not there so the request was denied. The light was not permitted by GDOT until
the City asked for it.
Dienhart said the developer had worked out a backroom deal with some members of Council,
who had not included the economic development coordinator, in the discussions, which
caused Poole to waste time and the money she was paid by the City to present options the
developer would not even consider due to what had been worked out in the backroom deal.
Fleisch said Poole's job title included business retention. The coordinator was placed with the
FCDA to keep the employee away from the political dysfunction. Fleisch said she limited her
involvement with Poole to whatever Poole presented. Fleisch added that Poole had been
exceedingly busy with the Industrial Park, noting that commercial real estate agents found
tenants for commercial developments. Poole was focused on business retention and staying out
of the political realm. Dienhart said Council should not go behind the back of someone they
employed to do a job, and Fleisch was only describing part of Poole's job. Learnard said she
called Poole twice a week on a regular basis, and she would call her and apologize.
Haddix said the discussion was descending into a pointless argument on both sides. He
disagreed that Poole should be involved in the development of the property. There was a lot of
nonsense flying around, and nothing was being accomplished. Haddix said he was the only one
on Council to take part in the discussions regarding the Line Creek development before 2010.
Haddix referred to the Fayette County Comprehensive Transportation Plan, noting on page 18 of
Appendix A, that Line Creek Drive/Circle were intended to be part of a system that extended
N,.~llI~J;:'
~ 1
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 13
from Line Creek Circle to Huddleston Road to the east and MacDuff Crossing Shopping Center
to the west. The light was never intended to be stand alone; but as part of a system.
Haddix continued with the proposed projects concerning the intersection of SR 54/SR 74, which
was Appendix C of the Fayette County Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Option 1 proposed
conventional intersection widening and adding additional lanes, which was an issue due to
insufficient space for additional turn lanes. Option 2 focused on enhancing the existing street
network to provide an option for local trips that did not need to use State Roads 54 or 74 for
internal circulation. Option 3 was for a grade-separated interchange; however, this option
would close off access to the shopping centers surrounding the intersection.
Haddix continued that transportation plans had to be updated every 10 years, so the work on
the 2020 plan would start in 2017 or 2018. Under this process, the federal government paid 80%
of the cost. The ARC and GDOT were looking at another entrance to 1-85 in Coweta County,
which Haddix said would help with the traffic on SR 54 West by eliminating traffic before it got to
the City. He said a GDOT study would be a waste of time. What was there was already known,
and there was nothing to be gained. Another traffic light would add to the delays and
congestion on the road, and there was no room for more lanes. He had always been opposed
to another light and he kept his promises.
Facts were being distorted, Haddjx said, and he had signed documents as proof, including
meeting minutes and the approval of the traffic light from GDOT in 2009. His pet peeve was
people saying a Kohl's would have been built but not one store had been named in any of the
documents. He asked the Council Members if they were willing to put a light in at Line Creek
and an access road to Planterra Way. He and Dienhart were not willing to do that and the
others were flip-flopping. If one of the three would keep their promise, the discussion would end.
Fleisch clarified that in 2010 Council had been asked to consider an increase in the size of the
big box, agreeing that the members had campaigned against a light at Line Creek. They also
knew that denying the increase would stop the project. The development agreement and the
permit for the light expired shortly after the January 2010 meeting.
Haddix said the request from the developer was to modify the size of the big box from 50,000
square feet to 65,000 square feet. .,t did not kill the development agreement. The light permit
was still in force. The abandonment of Line Creek was still in full force. Learnard said she knew if
she voted against the change it would kill the light. and it had.
Meeker clarified that the development agreement was still in place. The Special Use Permit had
still been in place, but it was getting toward the end of the time period for the Special Use
Permit. which would have expired qt some point in 2010. It was originally approved in 2008, and
there was a two-year time periOd in the Special Use Permit ordinance. Haddix added that when
the Special Use Permit had run outGDOT contacted him and asked if the City wanted the light
permit withdrawn, and Haddix told them yes.
Dienhart said this was an opportunity for Council to keep its promises and to buy back some
credibility. He urged the members to do what they had promised.
Fleisch said her item on the traffic study could be voted on, and she asked City Engineer Dave
Borkowski if he had any information. Borkowski said he had asked the engineering firm that had
worked on the Fayette Forward plan (2010 County Transportation Plan) if there were any
"-~~~~"lj;1.1
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 14
engineering drawings or backup data available, and was told there were only concept
drawings and no engineering data.
Fleisch read a draft letter to GDOT asking them to conduct a traffic study on the entire corridor,
which would be sent under the Mayor's signature. The draft letter, addressed to District Engineer
David Millen, read:
The City Council of Peachtree City has asked me to convey to DOT concerns relative to
traffic conditions on SR 54, specifically west of its intersection with SR 74 in Peachtree City. As
I am sure you are aware, traffic has become increasingly congested since the widening of
SR 54 was completed in 2006. Congestion during peak hours routinely backs up from
MacDuff Parkway east to Willowbend Road and often to Lake Peachtree.
We understand the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) has made efforts to
mitigate this through synchronization of the traffic signals in this area, and timing adjustments.
This effort is greatly appreciated by the City; however, we feel that it is not as effective as
hoped given the increased traffic.
We would like to request that DOT study this corridor in its entirety to determine if there area
workable alternatives for mitigating traffic congestion.
~
Our staff stands ready to work with the DOT to look at these alternatives and decide which
might be best suited for possible future projects. If there is anything else we need to do to
request this work, please don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Fleisch said the cost of the study had been tweaked, increasing from $39,000 to $43,000. Fleisch
said this was something tangible that Council could set in motion.
Haddix said the earlier study for the County's plan had been done under the auspices of the
ARC, had been 80% federally funded, and had been done in cooperation with the City and
County.
.~
Paul Lentz told Council he disagreed with some of the things that had been said. He noted that
in the ARC's June 2011 plan, it was predicted the traffic from central Coweta County and
central Fayette County would increase from the current approximately 32,000 a day to more
than 50,000 a day by 2040. The only route going east-west was SR 54. It did not include what
would be diverted if an entrance to 1-85 was built at Fischer Road. In the Fayette Forward Plan
(2010 plan), two of the eight worst roadway segments in the County were on SR 54 West
between MacDuff Parkway and SR 74. In the May 2006 Coweta County Plan, Coweta's failing
sections included SR 54 East from Fischer Road to the County line. There were several traffic
studies on the City's website that w~re similar, and two of them suggested a traffic signal at Line
Creek Drive could help. Lentz said real-time adaptive traffic signals were worth investigating,
and they had worked in other places. Council should not throw the idea out because there had
been a bad experience in Cobb County a few years ago when there were only 20 systems in
the nation. There were now several hundred. The highway was going to require significant
changes. A study was needed that incorporated all those changes, including Fischer Road/I-85,
and a new control system, which should be addressed immediately, and might be the only thing
that could be done in the short term.
~~."J(J
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 15
Tim Lydell said he had been involved in this discussion for five and one-half years. The discussion
had always been emotional, with very little factual information. People had worked hard to get
a good commercial development for SR 54 West in the past, and it had almost been there, but
had not made it for some reason. Now the property was being cut up into individual parcels,
and not much could go there. Lydell lived in the area and drove through it all the time at
different times of day, and he noted that most of the problems were during rush hour. Lydell
had attended the meeting Dienhart and Fleisch had facilitated, and he said the discussion had
been fruitful. but there was no redirection to a follow-up of the topics. Another meeting was not
scheduled; there was just a "thank you for attending." The discussion ended as all the others on
somewhat of an emotional stage. A very comprehensive study was needed. It was time to
tone down the rhetoric and take a business approach to the problem. When developers came
to the City with a plan, they should give money for a traffic study to the City, and the City should
find someone to do it. An independent comprehensive study by GDOT was needed; what the
City was doing was not working.
Steve Brown told Council he appreciated the dialogue on this subject. He had been part of the
committee that put the LCI plan together. The committee had wanted to maintain adequate
traffic flow on SR 54 West. The issues on the road dated to the 1980s. He noted the area had
originally been zoned for industrial, but through a series of planning mistakes over a few
decades, Planterra Ridge and Cardiff Park had been built where they did not belong, and the
area had been the City's Achilles heel ever since. He briefly discussed some of the plans from
the LCI. including an access road from a roundabout on Planterra Way to Huddleston Road,
which had been cost prohibitive. Something needed to be done that was profitable to the City
and the existing businesses. With the construction of Lake McIntosh, the home values in
Planterra Ridge had increased some. Brown said it made no sense to route commercial traffic
through Planterra. He encouraged Council to build something in scale with the corridor that did
not require a light or access roads.
Mike Lorber asked if the SR 54 West group created on May 9 was still working; he had wanted to
volunteer. Dienhart said they had met. and if the group needed to meet again, he would
include Lorber. Lorber asked what was discussed. Dienhart said they discussed the curb cut.
light, and the median. Lorber said the corridor needed to be looked at comprehensively, not
just the commercial development. Fleisch said the draft letter was about a comprehensive
study.
Haddix said he lived in the City for 26 years, which predated everything on the SR 54 West area.
The development kept coming, and there had been studies with miracle cures. Synching the
lights was supposed to help with the traffic that backed up to Lake Peachtree. The side roads
were all paying the penalty, and the vehicles on the side roads could not get onto SR 54
because it was full. He would not sign the draft letter to GDOT that Fleisch had read, since he
would be agreeing to statements he did not agree with. It would have to be rewritten or the
Mayor Pro-tem could sign it. He would not sign anything that portrayed his position falsely.
Dienhart said there could be no further damage to the road, but status quo had to be
maintained at a minimum. A decision on development needed to be made now.
f~
Fleisch said Dienhart was asking Council to vote on a proposal that had not been formally
submitted to the City. Dienhart said he wanted Council to honor their promise, adding they had
voted for an agreement that did not include a light or access to Planterra Way. Haddix said the
vote in 2008 for the development agreement included the light. In 2009, the light was approved
by GDOT. In February 2010, the permit for the light expired. Until then, the light was included as
'~~w:"...1 _111'i'
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 16
part of the development agreement. The meeting on January 7, 2010, was to vote on an
increase in the size of one box by 15,000 square feet.
Lydell said Council kept going back to the light. He asked why the City was in such a hurry. The
current developer had a plan that did not include a big box. If Council voted for a GDOT study,
there would be no information for two years. He urged Council to get a study done so they
would know what they were dealing with. If the developer proceeded with his plans, it was his
right; it was his land. He had the permits, and only had to conform to the current guidelines.
Haddix said the Council Members had not said they were willing to move forward until a study
was done. Lydell said the study would be self-limiting. If Council told the developer they were
not going to do anything until the study was done, the developer could not come to Council to
ask for a big box. During those. two years, the big box stores would walk away from the
development. Learnard said they had lost the point of working together to find real solutions for
the City, saying she would like to move forward with solutions and some actionable items. She
would like to see more specifics in the letter.
Fleisch said the draft letter had been written by staff, after being advised to write a general
letter, then narrow the focus after the opening salvo to get the ball rolling.
Learnard reported that she had driven through Planterra during afternoon rush hour, and she
had looked at the vehicles stopped for the light. There were six speed cushions and a set of
railroad tracks between Kelly Drive and the light at SR 54/Planterra Way. They were cutting
through the subdivision because the alternative of the back-up on SR 74 was worse. All the
vehicles had either Coweta County tags or "In God We Trust" on their tags, and every single
vehicle stopped at the light had turned left onto SR 54. A traffic study took into account traffic
counts, turning movements, stacking, delays, accidents, and more. She understood the
medians were 40 feet, leaving room for two more lanes and a 15-foot median. Learnard said
she wanted Council to work together to make good decisions, and to let staff work with GDOT.
The options were plentiful. Dienhart said no one was arguing against a GDOT study. He did not
want to further damage the residents in the area, and no one else was willing to make that
decision.
Learnard agreed another light at Line Creek would make traffic worse, and if GDOT decided
one was needed, Council would have to work on that together. She supported getting a study
going. Haddix said he was seeing a double standard. Learnard talked about working together,
but she would not answer the question about saying no to the traffic light. Learnard agreed.
Fleisch asked City Manager Jim Pennington what he thought of sending the letter to GDOT,
starting with a more general letter to get things going. Pennington said they needed to get a
foot in the door first, then get to the point where staff and GDOT were having discussions. His
opinion was for Council to move forward with something general.
Fleisch proposed that staff talk with the companies in the Industrial Park to see if they were
interested in staggering the workday or doing something else to help with traffic, rather than
having everyone get off at 5:00 p.m. Pennington said he had seen that work in other cities and
it was workable. It was something that Poole could work on, and it was in her venue. The issue
was the same on SR 74 South at ROCkaway Road and at SR 85 South.
Dienhart said they were diverting the attention away from the light and the cut-through to
Planterra. The people did not want that. He did not understand why a simple question about
the light could not be answered. Haddix reiterated that he was not going to sign a document
'-",~~
,yo _y
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2013
Page 17
(letter) that said something he did not believe, especially when three Council Members refused
to answer the question on the light. Learnard said it was good there were three members of
Council that wanted to move forward with facts and data.
Josh Bloom said everyone wanted a traffic study, but did not want to pay for it. Everyone
needed to agree to the standards of the study. Fleisch said there had never been a study of the
entire corridor before, and that was the problem. The past studies had been impact studies on
Line Creek itself. Bloom said, whatever was done, someone would oppose it and say it was not
valid. Bloom added that. during the meeting with the developer, Oienhart had conceded on
the median cut. He added that the developer said he could make the same amount of money
without the light or the curb cut.
Haddix said he did not think GOOT would start a study this year, then have Council approve a
development with a light. All GOOT's work would have been for nothing. Learnard asked
Haddix to work with Pennington on a letter to GOOT
Fleisch moved to continue the letter asking GOOT for a study until the next meeting on June 20.
Learnard seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
Imker said he would vote on issues brought before Council with all the information, pros and
cons, provided by an unbiased staff and presented in the agenda packet. He would not vote
on issues pretending to be proclamations or motions he personally believed were to advance
one's political agendas.
Council/Staff Topics
Hot Topics Update
Pennington said the City had been notified that the two new projects in the southern part of the
City, Somerby and The Gates, would have a Senoia mailing address. Rast and Tyler had spoken
to the postmaster, and there was a strong possibility because of the nature of the City and the
value of its name that the post office might be able to change those addresses to Peachtree
City. Rast was putting a package together and would like to include a letter from the City
asking for the change to occur. The consensus was to send the letter since both projects were
inside the City limits.
Learnard moved to convene in executive session for the acquisition or disposal of real estate,
pending and threatened litigation, and personnel at 10:33 p.m. Oienhart seconded. Motion
carried unanimously.
Learned moved to reconvene in regular session at 10:50 p.m. Fleisch seconded. Motion carried
unanimously.
There being no further business to discuss, Oienhart moved to adjourn the meeting.
seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:51 p.m.
d)~4-
Don Haddix, Mayor
Learnard
..,~
I" """,,, I
I . LJtv<
, A....1, .,i.' ." ',',. ;
"#/i.!./~ Ut.(;l....-., ,'1-rLu~.
. i '
Pamela Dufresne, Depvty C)ty Clerk
t/