 |
 |
 |
|
| The following summary minutes have not been approved by Simpsonville City Council. An official copy of the minutes will be available after adopted by City Council at City Hall 118 NE Main St. Simpsonville. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, notice of this meeting date, time, place and Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall and faxed to the newspapers, radio stations, television stations and any concerned citizens. |
|
 |
SIMPSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL Special Business & Workshop Session November 18, 2008 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers – 118 N.E. Main St .
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor: I call the one and only meeting of Simpsonville City Council during the month of November to order and I'd like to welcome all of you here tonight.
ROLL CALL: Ms Zeller would you call the roll please?
Ms Zeller: Councilmember Bridges: Here Councilmember Garrett: Here Councilmember Sanders: Here Councilmember Bagwell: Here Councilmember Curtis: Here Councilmember Larson: Here Mayor Waldrop: Here
Mayor: Thank you.
INVOCATION:
Mayor: Is there anyone here who would like to ask blessings upon this meeting in your own personal way? Alright Mr. Bridges would you ask blessings on this meeting in your own personal way please?
Mr. Bridges: I have asked Reverend Dennis to do that for me and he graciously agreed to do it for me.
Mayor: Great if we just keep passing it around and I bet he will do it.
Mr. Bridges: Much better than I will.
Mayor: Reverend Dennis.
Reverend Dennis: Right here fine.
Mayor: That will be fine. Thank you. Before I ask you to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag we have a special treat tonight. We have Mr. Daniel Habermann who is a student at Greenville Tech Charter School and Daniel has a special project to honor our Veterans and since this is kind of the week of Veterans Day we have invited him tonight. His project is his goal to raise awareness in the Community about the Missing Man Table and I'll let him tell you about that and we will call him up now so Daniel Habbermann welcome to Simpsonville City Council and the floor is yours.
Mr. Habbermann: Good evening my name is Daniel Habbermann and assisting me with the ceremony is tonight is Mr. Daniel White. I would like to thank you all for coming your attendance and attention to this ceremony means so much to me and to all the men, women and families in service to our Country. The origins of the Missing Man Table are sketchy but the meanings always been clear. The tradition began by having a glass overturned to honor a lost comrade. During the Vietnam War various groups added a place setting to make an arrangement. The Red River Valley Fighter Pilots Association affectionately known as the River Rats were the first to set a formal table which resembles the one used here today. The traditional Missing Man Table is set for six with five of the places representing each of the five Armed Services the sixth place being set to honor civilians. Many groups have now adopted the table tradition and set their own version of the table however the meaning is the still the same whether it is set for six or set for one. My first exposure to the ceremony came when I was helping to prepare for (inaudible) Elementary School a South Carolina Author by the name of (inaudible) Raven had written a book entitled America's White Table in which he described a family setting a table within their own home. It is her dream as well as mine that we encourage Americans to set their own Missing Man Table within their white homes as a thank you and as a tribute to all of our Armed Service Personnel. The Table is especially meaningful on Veterans Day, Memorial Day, National Remembrance Day and on any occasion where groups gather together to celebrate a holiday. The ceremony symbolizes that the fallen, the missing, those imprisoned, those currently in service and retired are still here with us in spirit today. We must never forget the brave men and women who have answered the call of duty. Please stand for the ceremony followed by a brief moment of silence. I would now like to explain the meaning of the items being placed on this very special table. If you all would please join my assistant in saying remember after each item is placed on the table that would be wonderful. The table is round to show an everlasting concern for our missing men. The tablecloth is white to symbolize the purity of their motives when answering the call of duty. The black napkin represents the sorrow of captivity. The single red rose displayed in a vase reminds us of the life of each of the missing and their loved ones and friends of those Americans who keep the faith awaiting answers. The vase is tied with a red ribbon to symbolize our continued determination to account for our missing men. A slice of lemon on the plate is to remind us of the bitter fate of those captured and imprisoned in a foreign land. A pinch of salt symbolizes the tears shed by those missing and their families who still seek answers. The Bible represents the strength gained through faith and its power to sustain those who are lost from our Country which was founded as one Nation under God. The glass is inverted to symbolize their inability to partake in this meal. The white candle stands for peace. The chair is empty to represent those missing from this time together. Now may we please share a moment of silence? Thank you. I encourage you all to set a table within your own home and to share the information about those represented here today as well as the ceremony. If you would please at least tell two other people this outreach can grow in proportion to the depth of gratitude we owe to all of our Armed Service Personnel and their families who serve this Country everyday. Thank you and please always remember.
Mayor: Daniel thank you so much for reminding us again about our Veterans and thank you for this good work you are doing. I think it is entirely appropriate now to ask you to lead all of us in the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag. Would you do that please? Or your Dad?
Mr. Habberman: My Dad is a Veteran of the Vietnam War so
Mayor: Thank you for your service and thanks to Dad and Mom for helping Daniel with this so if you will lead us.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor: Thank you and for those of you who may not have heard Mr. Habbermann is a Veteran of the Vietnam War so thank you Mr. Habbermann.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mayor: Okay Council members you have in your packets the minutes of September 9th, September 23rd, October 13th, October 28th and November 5th meetings so I'm sure you all have carefully reviewed those and I'll entertain a motion in that regard at this time. Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: Mr. Mayor I make a motion that we pass the minutes or approve the minutes for that you just (inaudible)
Mayor: Alright thank you Mr. Curtis. Do I hear a second? Mr. Bridges: Second
Mayor: Mr. Seconds. Thank you Mr. Bridges. Any discussion, corrections, additions, comments? Mr. Larson
Mr. Larson: I was trying to remember was there a reason why we kind of got backed up on the minutes being presented in a timely manner?
Mayor: I think Mr. Hawes has explained that to us but explain it Mr. Hawes if you will please.
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir Mayor and Council we had a change in our Municipal Clerk position and in training for other aspects of that position some of the Municipal Clerking duties were delayed I guess because she is a Human Resources Director as well and in order to make sure that the Human Resources needs were met for the City those aspects basically came first and we wanted to make sure that the minutes were accurate before they were adopted Mr. Curtis pointed that out at the prior meeting and we believe that we have an accurate set of minutes now and we will be on a timely basis from here on in.
Mr. Larson: And are these on the website now also? Mr. Hawes: Not until City Council approves them.
Mr. Larson: They will be in a few days?
Mr. Hawes: I would expect by Friday they will be on there.
Mr. Larson: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor: Okay anyone else? Alright hearing no further discussion I'll call for the vote all in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, aye's have it. It is unanimous those minutes are approved and will appear very soon.
REVIEW OF MONTHLY REPORTS:
Mayor: You all have your monthly reports and as always thank you Department Heads for preparing those for us and letting us know what is going on. We appreciate that and we appreciate everything that you do. Does anyone have any comments about those monthly reports or questions or anything? Alright hearing none I'll move on. Thank you Department Heads.
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
Mayor: Alright this is the portion of our program where we invite citizen comment this meeting is our business meeting and we don't usually interact with folks but we are happy to hear what you've got to say to us and perhaps after everybody has spoken because I see several people on the same subject perhaps someone will have a comment to make but during your presentation we'll just listen carefully. If you called ahead and asked to be placed on the agenda we will give you four minutes to speak since we have so many people to speak tonight I'm going to kind of stick to that and I would ask you if you are speaking on the same subject as someone that has spoken prior to you please try not to be repetitive we will usually get it the first time but just give us as much new information as you can. So this first group of folks will have four minutes each and I will time that and your time will begin after you give me your address for the record. First is Mr. Gene Norris so Mr. Norris if you will give us your address for the record your time will begin.
Mr. Norris: My address is 411 Tebblewood.
Mayor: Thank you Sir.
Mr. Norris: Sir I come before you tonight to speak about the six lots on Tebblewood Drive that the City Council gave away to the Housing Authority to build houses on there. The problem that I have with it I've been there 23 years I've seen two floods go through that area which one of them if you remember wiped out the bridge. The water on the first flood came up to the back of my house which was six foot from the door. Those lots are a floodplain they are also a garbage dump not only are there building material underneath the ground where Mr. Hendrix built that Westwood subdivision but there is household garbage there also and I had one of your Council Members out there to look at it you can smell the garbage. My contention is that those houses should not be built there because of the fact that it is a garbage dump, it is on a floodplain. The covenant says that they that it is in still control of those properties even though they were given to the City they were not given to you Mr. Mayor or this City Council they were given to the citizens of the City of Simpsonville . Those houses are still under the control; those lots are still under the control of the covenant which says you cannot build on a floodplain or a flood fringe. Now we had a meeting Ms Kennedy and she told us what she plans to do there. I also had a meeting with a gentleman that surveyed the property. When my four minutes is up please tell me.
Mayor: I will.
Mr. Norris: I know you will.
Mayor: Let me put my glasses back on.
Mr. Norris: (Inaudible) they are supposed to dig down to get solid ground and I talked to Mayor Hendrix who is opposed to building those houses there because he was not allowed to build houses on that property because its fill dirt and it's material underneath there is still rotten and there is holes in there. We sat one Saturday and watched the City pull a bulldozer out of the property that they brought in and sunk it down to treads so it is unsafe property. It is also a habitat for owls and hawks that live in that neighborhood and have been there for 23 years. I just don't see where you and this City Council can take property that don't belong to you and in one night deem it surplus and have somebody waiting in the wings to take it over to build houses on it. Now the taxes on those houses is not that great of amount of money we are only talking about $2,400.00 a year. So I would ask this City Council if there is any way that they can stop building these houses because we are going to do our level best to keep them from building them there. I'm done and I appreciate you listening to me.
Mayor: Okay
Mr. Norris: It is, like I said, it is a dump, it’s been a dump since 1974 when those houses were built there. There has been two floods in that major area. Okay. Thank you Sir.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Norris. Alright Kathy Bennett.
Ms Bennett: Hi I'm Katy Bennett I live at 10 (inaudible) Court and I am here to discuss the plans to build the four to five houses on Tebblewood that you so generously gave to Ms Kennedy and her Neighborhood Housing Corporation. First off I believe the City is in a financial straits and you had a fiduciary responsibility to get as much money for that property as you could. Secondly the manner in which it took place just doesn't pass the smell test in my opinion. In her own words Ms Kennedy stated that she is getting some help from some of the Staff people here. Exactly what is that about? Someone from City Hall is calling her to tell her to come to Council to request that she be given this property. She made sure to tell us at a meeting at The Senior Center that it was not someone from City Council. I'd like to know who made that call and why. It doesn't smell right when things don't smell right to me I need to know why and I need to follow my instincts. Our little corner of Westwood is tired of being the dumping ground for all favors due in my opinion. We see how well the Capewood property has fared. What have they built one, two, three houses? There are quite a number of houses for sale in Westwood on the (inaudible) and there is no telling how many for sale by owner. Westwood does not need anymore homes. You the Elected Officials are suppose to serve the interest of all the electors not just the builders, the realtors and the multiple property owners which of course is what most of your livelihoods are. Your combined ownership of 20 some plus buildings are not subject to the very real property devaluation should these homes flood and start to fall apart. The residences in the neighborhood of Tebblewood tract should have been A. notified B. consulted and allowed to voice their opinion on the matter instead we found out about it in a newspaper nearly a month later. And even then with growing concern and uncertainty you just ignored the situation just hoping it would go away. How is that serving the people and again I mean all of the people? I have only lived in Westwood for about five years and in that time I have seen some homes fall victim to this horrible mortgage meltdown that is a direct result of low to mid homes being forced on banks and in neighborhoods by very zealous opponents of such programs. I cannot understand what; I cannot understand the need to put all, to put ill prepared individuals into homes that they cannot afford. I'm all for giving someone a break but you need to prove that you are up for the responsibility and with no real financial stake in the property it is very easy to pull up and move on when times get tough. That is not fair to homeowners in the area who for some have saved for years to get their down payment. And you can bet that those people are going to work hard to make sure that what they have worked for is not lost and that they have a stake in the success of their house. Do I want the homes built on Tebblewood? No, I do not. I sure wish someone would have asked me. The reasons I don't want the homes built on Tebblewood are many the land is a former dump, do you really think it is fair to put homes on the top of a dump? There, that area is very much a floodplain Ms Kennedy said exactly that when she complemented you on everything she could think of during the meeting of 8/12. Those homes are going to be expensive to insure and they are going to get flooded. The strip on Tebblewood already has enough traffic to worry about, the blind corner in the bridge are enough and you put four or five more drivers immediately around that bend and (inaudible) from the bridge and it is an accident waiting to happen. And for what, what is the upturn to this an extra property taxes? If you would take some interest in Westwood rather than writing us off perhaps you could see an upturn in the value of homes in Westwood and with 1100 homes that could really make a difference in the generated revenue. And I suppose that sums up my thoughts.
Mayor: Thank you.
Ms Bennett: Thank you.
Mayor: Okay we are going to shift gears a little bit John Gordon. Mr. Gordon if you would give us your address for the record you may begin.
Mr. Gordon: 112 Scarsdale Street . I became interested in water and how it is managed here in the City back in March when Lockbridge Enterprises asked for a permit to build a commercial building right behind my property at 421 North Main Street . I came into the Planning and Zoning Commission that night to hear and I expressed my concern about storm water specifically how it runs off my property onto his property and how that would be impacted. We kind of looked at the layout that he had there and thought that it required he could probably put a small retention pond in but then it was also brought up that he had his DHEC permit so we were sure that it was all taken care of. I've watched with a little concern all year as the process has gone on and on and on and when he did his final grading for his parking lot and then came in and put his curbs in I was very concerned because basically within two to three feet from my fence line he has built a one foot tall dam. I thought well when he gets done with his landscaping he will grade it such that the water will drain off. He has come in finished the parking lot, put in his landscaping all of his brushes and trees in and he did none of that when they leveled the dirt they just pushed it back against the silt fence and some places it is actually pushed back to my fence some places the silt fence was not there and they just threw the dirt on top of it so now the dirt pile just comes down to my fence. And where I thought he might put some kind of drainage or retention pond he said the City required that he put a three or four foot high berm. So in essence what he has done is he has created a beautiful dam back behind my property so that now when it does rain I get eight to nine inches of standing water in about a quarter of my back yard. I did talk to Mr. Lockbridge and he said he did everything the City required of him and he said that DHEC didn't require anything from him but he is willing to work a little bit. My concern is tonight that maybe our ordinances are a little deficient in this area and that maybe we should kind of look at how commercial property is built up against residential property. I did contact John Cobb who is our local Engineer with DHEC he said he went to look for the Lockbridge permit and found out that since it was under an acre there was no DHEC requirement for a permit. He is exempt from it and that anything under an acre is exempt from that. Of course my concern is that the fact that he was very surprised when I brought this to his attention that anything would impact my property from what he did. We actually walked out there and I showed him that indeed the top of his curb and his landscaping now this is literally one foot higher than the grade. I would think that with some commercial development going on up against residential areas this might be a matter that you want to look at how that development and grading impacts the runoff the existing property so that we don't have this problem again. And that is my biggest concern. Thanks.
Mayor: Okay thank you. Okay Kristie Stanton.
Mr. Stanton: Mayor my wife, Kristie, is on the agenda to speak but she is has got a little stage fright. So do I have your permission to speak in her step?
Mayor: Well you may, I'm glad you explained that caused I was a little concerned that your name was Kristie.
Mr. Stanton: I'm not really prepared for this so bare with me.
Mayor: That is okay.
Mr. Stanton: I'd also like to speak about the Tebblewood Drive situation. I live on Tebblewood Drive right across the street, 510.
Mayor: Would you give your address for the record please?
Mr. Stanton: 510 Tebblewood Drive .
Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Stanton: I live right across the street from the field that we have been talking about and one of the reasons when we bought our home that we bought the one that we did was because of that field the green space that is across the field. It has been there for a long time my wife grew up in Westwood played in that field all the kids in the neighborhood play in that field. Alder Park is right down from there it is a very busy place not a whole lot of place for the kids to do stuff like fly kites and stuff like that so it is always busy in that way. Now we watch out the window, our front window, we see across the field as Gene talked about the hawk there is an albino red tailed hawk that lives in the field across the street it has been there a long time hunts in that field and there is very little trees left around that area so I'm not exactly sure where that’s going. There is also other wildlife there deer, rabbits and that kind of thing and it is not a big area that we are talking about but for the people in Westwood it is an important area. I think the biggest concern that we have is more that we were never given an opportunity to have a voice in this. When it was brought up before the Council it was declared surplus and was given to the first person who asked for it without any community discussion. So we feel left out of the decision process. When we had a meeting with Ms Kennedy I personally was very offended by some of her comments as far as this goes. She told us that when we were discussing this that we needed to adjust our attitudes, that fighting this was going to happen and there was nothing we could do about it and it was very frustrating and it is very frustrating that we can't even have a civil conversation about this and now we are in the situation where the houses are going to be built and nobody in the area wants them. The housing itself isn't what I have a problem with or the people that are going to move there is the way that this came about and there is plenty of space left in Simpsonville that we can do this kind of thing. I don't think that it is necessary in the middle of a subdivision to take away this land and use it for this purpose. Thank you.
Mayor: Thank you. Okay Robert Dennis. Reverend Dennis if you would give your address for the record or I guess your Church's address for the record we will let you begin.
Reverend Dennis: My address is 628 New Harrison Bridge Road , Simpsonville. Church address is 206 Moore Street , Simpsonville. Mayor and City Administrator, Council Members, ladies and gentlemen of Simpsonville I am here tonight for two reasons. One I want to ask the Council and City Administrator and the City Attorney when will the City deed over the lot that is next to our Church that was contaminated back in we started with this project back in the early 80's. It was stated that it would be deeded as soon as it cleaned itself through natural attenuation. It has been several years now and we haven't heard anything from the City. We would like to know when will this process be completed. If you remember this project, this property went up for bids back in the 70's and we bided. And we worked on it, tried to get it clean and we worked we had several engineers to come out we spent a lot of money on that piece of property and the final decision was that the City would we could use it but when it cleaned itself the City would deed it to the Church. Second, about two weeks ago I received a telephone call from your City Code Officer he stated that the signs for the direction of our Church were in violation of the City Code Ordinance. Now before we put those signs up several, several years ago members of our Church brother Jerry Samuel came to this City and asked for the regulations for putting up signs and those signs were built to the specifications that Simpsonville City had ordered. The signs we have was okay they was okayed by the City and by the way there is only five signs that’s giving direction to our Church which is in a cul-de-sac which is Simpsonville's oldest Church. Which Simpsonville should help us to get this Church on the Historical Record it was organized before Simpsonville 1870. It is Simpsonville's oldest Church and we wonder what happened and why are we in violation. There are more signs there are many more signs for directions in this City and we want to know when did ordinance go into effect. We are located as I stated in the cul-de-sac back there down in the Ghetto very hard to find especially for new people moving to the area. I would like to ask that could not this be grand fathered in if this law passed after we put those signs up? Could not this be grandfathered in and allow our signs to remain where they are? They are not causing anybody to have a wreck, they are not causing any problems, they are nice, beautiful signs and I ask that you allow these signs to remain since they are not blocking the views and have not been a hazard to anyone. They have been there for a very long time and I would trust that you all would take us into consideration and allow us to continue having our signs and if this is new sign ordinance is in effect then there should not be any political signs during election time. If that is your rule there should not be provided any to anybody and we are going to be monitoring to see that these signs the sign ordinance be kept if it is a new sign ordinance we want to make sure that it is done properly. All we are asking for is just to be fair with us and because we I don't come up here unless I've got a problem.
Mayor: And we appreciate that.
Reverend Dennis: I'm kind of antique around here now. I've been around here about Pastoring 40 years same Church. So we would like for you to consider giving us an opportunity to leave those signs where they are. There is one here on the corner I guess Holy Cross will have to take theirs down, I guess First Presbyterian will have to take theirs down you know that’s you ought to want people to come to Church you know and find a Church. Signs, these signs as I said have not hadn't caused any accidents whatsoever.
Mayor: You've got 10 seconds.
Reverend Dennis: So please allow us to keep those signs where they are thank you very much.
Mayor: Okay now we will go to those of you who signed up when you came in tonight and we will give you two minutes to speak and again you can speak on any subject you like. I see that many of you are speaking on the same subject so I'm going to try to group you all together by subject if that is okay with everybody instead of the order in which you signed up. So we will start with Caroline Loy. Is that correct? Ms Loy if you will state your address for the record please m'am you may begin.
Ms Loy: Hi I am Caroline Loy and I live on 402 Tebblewood Drive in Simpsonville. I am very disturbed that without any previous notice low income housing will be built on Tebblewood Drive on flood zone land. With all the homes currently for sale or rent in Westwood why would you build on unstable land that will flood and destroy the homes you build and financially ruin the families in them? If you truly was concerned for low income families why would you allow them to be worried every time it’s raining? I don't speak a lot in front of people. Why would you want them to be worried every time it rains or storms that is flood zone land. And as far as beautify, I heard they wanted to beautify Westwood. Why would you want to beautify Westwood neighborhood? I choose Westwood 15 years ago because I enjoyed seeing all those beautiful trees surrounding those homes. The homes built now are just row houses and you destroy trees. That green property means so much to every family in Westwood. That is why we choose to live there we enjoy raising families there and take that into consideration. That is our home that is our neighborhood. And I also we went around and we have 67 names here of the families on Tebblewood and a couple of names on Chuckwood they are opposed to this, the neighborhood does not want those homes we want that green land. We want that and I don't understand why we are not even taken into consideration our feeling and what we think is right. That is our home that is our neighborhood. Please take that into consideration thank you.
Mayor: Thank you. Okay Danny Loy
Ms Loy: He is busy with the baby. Mayor: Okay well tell him that we owe him two minutes if he ever decides to come up and talk. Dayna Hill. If you would state your address for the record Ms Hill you may begin.
Ms Hill: I live at 103 Red Gum Court which is also in Westwood. I don't live on Tebblewood the rest of my family does my daughter, my son-in-law, my grandson, a lot of my friends I pass the property pretty much everyday if I have to go somewhere I go across the bridge which finally got built and I see this property. And there is no reason at all for houses to be built there not particularly the houses that are these people are set on building there. These are low class housings I went to all the little neighborhoods that they have built Brutontown all of them Sampson Village . I found every one of them and I think you guys need to go up there and look. If you want this in the middle of Simpsonville I don't want to be here with ya'll because it is scum (inaudible). I've been living there since 1975 in the same house I want my property values to stay what I have made them by improving my house and my yard. I don't want these people in there I don't want bringing all their little garbage houses in their and putting them up because they want to make money. I don't appreciate you giving away the land that shouldn't have been given away. You stated that it cost the City too much you haven't paid the storm water (inaudible) in 3 years and each one is only like $27.00 that is not too much for this City to pay for a piece of green space. I really don't appreciate that ya’ll who don't even live there I think Bruce over here is the closest neighbor we have and then of course Tammy is over there in Hunters Woods and I don't see the land over in Hunters Woods being developed into these little houses. We were the first subdivision down here. We built Simpsonville and now you are ready to get rid of us and that is what you will be doing if you let this woman over here keep it up and we all know what is going on so.
TAPE STOPPED AND RESUMED AS FOLLOWS: Mayor: Okay now. Mr. Hawes tells us about budget adjustments.
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir Mayor and Council the economic climate in which we find our City, State, businesses and Country in general is one of a shifting character that continues to shift downward. In light of this economy that we are in right now, it is imperative that the City evaluate its position in order to continue to provide the services that the citizens expect and we know are necessary to provide as a Municipality. In that light, I have been in constant analysis of our existing budget and the revenues that are brought in through the standard revenue streams that the City fines that City receives funds through. The State has addressed a number of aspects of their issues by basically cutting their budget which in turns cuts our budget because we receive State aide to subdivisions we see that aspect of revenue on a decline. We also have observed over the past nine months a severe drop in the amount development activity in the City both commercial and residential and it has caused us to have to take a very hard look at our current operating budget, our capital budget and our fund budgets. Through this analysis I have identified two options and this is a policy discussion that we are talking about here whether to enact a policy of adopting one option versus the other. I sent them to you earlier today I had to speak with Council and with our auditor prior to them being able to be provided to you all so I apologize for them being sent as late as today with the Council Meeting tonight. However, specific personal aspects of these options will be discussed in executive session such Council desire such. But on the policy side without being specific as to personnel implications what I have for you are two options one of which involves severe line item adjustments, some new adjustments to fees in the Recreation Department and fees in the Public Works Department particularly the trash can fee in order to strengthen the financial position of the City as we move forward through these trying economic times. Option number one involves a number of employee positions being frozen and shows specific actions with regard to vacant and elimination of positions. Option number two specifically does virtually the same thing as option number one but it does not eliminate any occupied positions at the City currently. It freezes open positions and severely adjusts line items and creates an adjustment to revenues through the same actions. Both of the proposals do what I would highly recommend City Council do in this situation and that is eliminating the curbside recycling program. The curbside recycling program was initiated as a result of an incentive from the County whereby Cities who had a curbside recycling program would not be charged a tipping fee. However, that incentive was removed this year and we now subsidize that program to the tune of over $200,000 with that knowledge and knowing the economy and the revenue streams that the City is experiencing that it is a service that the City has that it really can no longer afford. We want to be able to provide the Police, Fire, the necessary Public Works services that all the people of the City of Simpsonville certainly expect and pay for with their tax dollars. So in reviewing these policies options we took into account what services can be adjusted without impacting the core level and provision of necessary services in the City and the same things goes with regard to actual positions that are itemized in these options. As I said option number two specifically does not eliminated any current employee personnel from the City it will adjust the budget by $1.2 million it will lower expenses by $1.2 million. Option number one will lower expenses by $1.5 million or $1.48 million. What I would recommend City Council do is at a minimum this evening adopt one of these two proposals at this time I would recommend that you adopt proposal number two pending a meeting regarding specific personnel aspects that will be discussed in executive session at which time any change that proposal or that adoption could be done in open session following an policy discussion such as this.
Mayor: Okay well there is not much we can do about this right now then we need to wait until we get that information but I do have a couple of questions. The recycling as I recall when we first started the recycling program back in 1992, 1993 it was embraced by everybody in the City as I recall I think we tested it in Westwood and everybody else found out we had it and everybody demanded that we have it and at the time we were selling the recyclables and the program was paying for itself. I've been told in the last few years that we are actually having to well based on what you just said pay to put those in the dump because nobody is buying them anymore. Is that correct?
Mr. Hawes: Some of that is true.
Mayor: No one is buying aluminum cans and the plastic bottles and the milk jugs and all that sort of stuff like they use too, paper?
Mr. Hawes: Some of the types of recycling that is true we have had to dump it and pay.
Mayor: I guess the reason I ask that question what I'm leading up to so there is no way to make that a breakeven situation? I mean do you not see and I keep looking back at Joe Carter and looking at you I don't know who to ask.
Mr. Hawes: Under the constraints that we have right now no and one of those is that the County requires a tipping fee now. So no.
Mayor: Well you know I don't want to be a naysayer but if they are not putting their recyclables in the recycle bin and we are taking them out there and dumping and pay for it they are going to throw it in the trashcan and we are going to take it out there and dump it and pay for it right.
Mr. Hawes: That is true.
Mayor: So how
Mr. Hawes: But we want be operating all the extraneous work that involved in recycling.
Mayor: The extra truck, the extra
Mr. Hawes: Absolutely.
Mayor: I've got you. Okay Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: So are you saying that when we put our stuff for the recycle bins and set it out on the side of the road it gets picked up by that wagon that comes around and then it ends up at the dump anyway?
Mr. Hawes: Some of it ends up at the dump some of the time that is correct when we can't find a buyer for it.
Mr. Larson: What percentage ends up at the dump anyway?
Mr. Hawes: I couldn't say Joe Carter might be able to indicate.
Mr. Carter: We take it to a recycle facility and they pay us I think last year we got like $13,000 but they will pay us for it if the market is good if the market is not good we don't get anything. What they do with it to dispose of it I don't know. I understand that some of it gets carried and dumped because nobody wants it. It is extremely hard to get rid of the recyclables, aluminum cans they go good other stuff people don't want you can't get rid of them.
Mr. Larson: Would there be a way to keep say the part that brings a return rather than just throw the whole things out. I mean if aluminum cans are selling could the company that picks up the aluminum cans would they just do it without us subsidizing them?
Mr. Hawes: What we are looking to do here is to stop the curbside recycling we still could have a collection facility at Public Works for aluminum cans and if folks want to bring aluminum cans or something along those lines we could put a trailer at locations throughout the City. We have one a couple actually at the Fire Departments right now. Those types of things which are not A. labor intensive and B. expensive to the City and to the budget those are the types of things that we could continue but running a truck continually to pick up recyclables where there is virtually no benefit to the City in these economic times you know if it were a different situation and we could provide that service as we have previously we wouldn't be recommending to stop it but in the situation tough decisions have to be made and we are subsidizing that to a very high extent.
Mayor: Okay Ms Sanders.
Ms Sanders: Could you remind me how much we are paying the County tipping fee per ton?
Mr. Hawes: It is $4.00 per ton currently going to $8.00 going to $12.00 and going to $16.00 over the next 4 years over the 3 years.
Mayor: Is that it? This is a perfect time to point that out again because I have heard some criticism that we increased our fees just outrageously so we could gain revenue and what you just said is important for people to know that over that what we did was increase our fees to cover the next 4 -5 years as these numbers increase.
Mr. Hawes: That is correct the County is doing a phase in basically increasing the fee by $4.00 per ton so basically they are doubling the fee next year from $4.00 and their 50% and then 25% no 33% thereafter so it is going from
Mayor: So while we are making out like a bandit this year as the next two or three years pass everything is going to go back the other way and it will equal out is that
Mr. Hawes: I would characterize it as making out like a bandit because our Public Works Department in a full cost disclosure report that was printed in The Tribune Times and The Greenville News in September of this year indicated that it cost us $88.00 per household to run Public Works we are talking about a fee of $24.00 per household.
Mayor: Well I didn't
Mr. Hawes: And that is on the year.
Mayor: I didn't mean to offend I was just using a popular colloquialism that has been used by others describing that program so I hope that I will not be quoted in the press as saying making out like a bandit but I probably will be I know anyhow.
Mr. Hawes: I just wouldn't characterize it as that.
Mayor: Well thank you for pointing that out I am not very politically astute. Alright anyone else. I'm going to get you a string or something Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: Well I was going to ask you a minute ago and then you started talking so what about the recycling containers like in the old Bi-Lo parking lot and there is a couple other spots around town who operators those?
Mr. Hawes: Those are Greenville County I believe.
Mr. Larson: So what do they do with what they are collecting with at those recycling sites?
Mr. Hawes: Well they are not paying their own tipping fees we know that.
Mayor: Well let’s go dump everything in those.
Mr. Hawes: Well that is the thing I mean certainly any citizen in the City can use those as they do now I'm sure or people outside the City.
Mr. Larson: Okay
Mayor: Alright anything else Mr. Larson?
Mr. Larson: I'll try to hold off.
Mayor: Okay anyone else? Alright so well does anyone have surely we have more questions about this? Garbage can fee are we just trying to get back to net zero on that?
Mr. Hawes: That is correct so
Mayor: We are raising it so we are not subsidizing?
Mr. Hawes: We are putting it at the cost of what the garbage cans are which is appropriate.
Mayor: Okay and just to be clear we provide the first trashcan for every citizen and then when that gets torn up or when they want it replaced they pay for it is that our policy?
Mr. Hawes: Joe Carter might be able to
Mayor: I can't get anything right tonight. What?
Mr. Hawes: Joe the policy on garbage cans for a new citizen do they buy their own garbage cans?
Mr. Carter: Yes
Mr. Hawes: That is what I thought we don't provide it they buy their garbage cans.
Mayor: I'm not having a good night. Alright well thank you for pointing that out to me Ms Bagwell.
Ms Bagwell: What is that fee going to as we know that it is currently $75.00?
Mr. Hawes: It is going to be $75.00 but it is for the replacement will go from $35.00 to $75.00 because that is the actual replacement cost.
Ms Bagwell: Okay that is what that was my question.
Mayor: Okay Mr. Garrett.
Mr. Garrett: Are the blue ones still guaranteed for 5 years if they are damaged by
Mayor: Ten years
Mr. Garrett: Ten years
Mr. Hawes: I believe it is ten.
Mayor: Guaranteed not to be stolen by somebody who just tore theirs up that is a real big problem around town you know. Alright anyone else? Well okay I guess we will come back and talk about this a little later in the meeting then so until then we will move on.
ACTION ITEMS:
Mayor: Action items set December meeting date.
Mr. Hawes: Mayor and Council typically City Council will not have a workshop meeting in December because in the case of this upcoming December that meeting would be two days before Christmas. Typically we don't meet on the week before Christmas so I would recommend that we just have a business meeting in December which is scheduled for December 9 th .
Mayor: The second Tuesday?
Mr. Hawes: That is correct.
Mayor: Like always?
Mr. Hawes: Always
Mayor: Okay we are not juggling meetings around anymore?
Mr. Hawes: No
Mayor: Okay. Alright Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: Mr. Hawes do you with your crystal ball do you see anything on the horizon that would be adversely affected by us not having that second meeting?
Mr. Hawes: I do not see that at this time.
Mr. Curtis: Okay.
Mayor: Okay except for ya’ll bringing my Christmas gift. Anyone else? Well then I will need a motion to set that meeting then. Mr. Garrett.
Mr. Garrett: I make a motion we set the business meeting Simpsonville City Council on December 7 th
Mr. Holmes: Mr. Mayor can we get a motion to wave the second workshop meeting in December?
Mr. Garrett: You want a separate motion or can I
Mr. Holmes: No Sir the meeting on December 9 th is already set and that is in your ordinances the only thing that we need you to do is to do away or cancel your workshop meeting in December.
Mr. Garrett: I misunderstood can I change my motion?
Mayor: You can go in the front door or you can come in the back door just whichever.
Mr. Garrett: I make a motion that we wave the workshop meeting for December.
Mayor: Alright do I hear a second?
Ms Bagwell: Second
Ms Bagwell: Ms Bagwell seconds thank you Ms Bagwell. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, ayes have it. It is unanimous we will meet the second Tuesday in December and not again in December.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mayor: Okay now we are going to move on to old business and Mr. Dyrhaug has been waiting patiently or maybe impatiently I don't know to talk to us about the Design Review Ordinance.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Thank you Mayor and Council we have talked about this several times before so there is probably not a whole lot more to be said here so mostly tonight I'm just going to make myself available for questions but I will add three points. The first is that we did take this back to the Planning Commission because we talked about a new draft, Draft B, which modified the initial or original Draft that you had reviewed and the Planning Commission voted unanimously four to zero to recommend approval of the modified Draft B. The second point I want to bring up is that we had discussed at our workshop meeting a landscape ordinance that was is indirectly related to this in our conversations about this design review ordinance there was some concerns about landscaping that came up so we have been working on a separate ordinance to address those and that is currently under review by the Planning Commission and it is hopeful that it will come your way perhaps in December to formally review. The third point I just want to bring up about this is that all throughout this process I've been sharing these drafts of this Design Review Ordinance with Developers who have approached me about other projects and I've gotten fairly positive feedback especially on this second draft. There were some who had concerns about the original draft on some of the items that have since been addressed with this redraft and so it has been positive feedback from some of the developers I've been working with.
Mayor: Okay thank you Mr. Dyrhaug what was the nature of the Planning Commissions concerns about the landscape portion of it?
Mr. Dyrhaug: They just wanted some more time to come to become familiar with it and to study it out more. I don't know they felt they had sufficient time yet to really get to know it well so they just wanted to take an extra bit of time to become more familiar with what is proposed in it.
Mayor: Okay. Alright well I'll entertain a motion in this regard so that we can discuss it some. Mr. Curtis. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Attorney please bear with me I move that we adopt a modified version of Article 7 Design Standards, with those modifications being as follows; under section 7:6.3, Vehicular Access and Design, strike “ Drive-thru service windows and queuing lanes shall not be located between the front facade of the building and the right-of –way”, under 7:6.7 Streetscape Design, strike “and shelter, shade, and/or weather protection”, also “next to”, also “through the use of shade trees, awnings, arcades, balconies, overhangs, etc” leaving this section to read; Unobstructed pedestrian access shall be provided along the right-of-way and areas used by the public. Under 7:9.2 Parking Design, strike “Off-street parking shall not be located any closer to the right-of-way line than the principal structure.”, under 7:9.4 Open Space, change “twenty (20) percent” to ten (10) percent., under 7:10.2 Parking Design, strike “Off-street parking shall not be located any closer to the right-of-way line than the principal structure.”, under 7:10.4 Open Space, change “twenty (20) percent” to ten (10) percent., under 7:10.5 Architectural Design, change to read; Roof types shall be either flat, gable or hip. , under 7:11.2 Parking Design, strike the entire section, under 7:11.4 Open Space, change “twenty (20) percent” to ten (10) percent, under 7:12.2 Parking Design, strike the entire section, under 7:12.4 Open Space, change “twenty (20) percent” to ten (10) percent. That concludes my motion.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Curtis I think. Did you have anything to do with that?
Mr. Holmes: No Sir.
Mayor: Okay. That has to be the record for the longest motion we have ever had and I appreciate that. Okay do I hear a second? Exactly like the motion.
Mr. Bridges: I'll second it.
Mayor: Second what?
Mr. Bridges: That motion I'm not going to repeat it.
Mr. Holmes: Mr. Mayor for the benefit of the clerk I hope that Mr. Curtis' motion is in writing and he can submit that to the clerk for inclusion in the minutes.
Mr. Curtis: I fully intend to do that.
Mr. Holmes: Thank you.
Mayor: Okay and that is the reason I was a little hesitant I'm sure you are going to provide us all a copy of that so we can kind of go through
Mr. Curtis: Actually I was hoping to pick up on this in discussion and we can go over some of these issues.
Mayor: Tonight?
Mr. Curtis: Tonight.
Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Curtis: Or tomorrow morning whichever it turns into.
Mayor: Okay do you have a copy of that for us now?
Mr. Curtis: I do not.
Mayor: Might I suggest if I may that we vote on your motion tonight because this requires two readings
Mr. Dyrhaug: This is second reading.
Mayor: So may I suggest that we don't vote on your motion at all. This is the first reading on Draft B is it not?
Mr. Dyrhaug: In consultation with our Attorney
Mr. Holmes: You have voted through an ordinance and you always have the liberty to modify the changes so you have already voted on first reading and I think when you voted you actually had Draft B by that time so and this has come up several other times and given the details of the changes that Mr. Curtis has proposed that I am assuming from the feedback I'm getting from Council none of the other members of Council have yet seen it would normally be appropriate that you might not want to vote on this tonight to give the rest of you an opportunity to look at the changes that are being proposed so that you would be able to vote on it and maybe do that in December.
Mayor: I think that would be easier and preferable would that be a problem for you Mr. Curtis?
Mr. Curtis: Mr. Mayor as we have a motion and a second I would like to move on to discussion before we vote on that so that I might clear up some of these issues and it might become more clear to all Council Members exactly the intent here so that we can possibly get this resolved. If Council chooses not to vote on it until later after the discussion we can always do that but I would like to proceed into discussion.
Mayor: Okay Mr. Curtis why don't you lead us through your list there. Does everybody have your draft out?
Mr. Curtis: Well if we are in discussion
Mayor: We are - I have a motion and a second and you have the floor.
Mr. Curtis: The reason I made these changes is because we have been dealing with this issue for quite some time now. It has been before us, we went back and reviewed it, it is a substantial change to the ordinances there is quite a bit of what I consider to be a good ordinance here but there are handful of things which I feel like are overreaching and in speaking with some of my other Council members I think that there is some agreement with that. So what I am proposing is to get this Article in place so that we can start implementing some of the pieces that we all agree are useful, beneficial, we passed it on first reading unanimously but hold off on some of these pieces which I consider to be overreaching and we could always go back and modify those sections in the future if it turns out that Council deems that these things need to be readdressed. But this would get something in place we have been operating now for six months without this in place and it would give us the ability to put it in place and then move on. I can go through these section by section and give you my reason as to why I want to strike or change them which I will be glad to do.
Mayor: I would like that.
Mr. Curtis: Okay, if you will turn to 7:6.3 okay that refers to vehicle access I'm sorry it refers to vehicle drive-through(s) and it refers to drive-through(s) not being between the building and the street that it is on. Well in Simpsonville I can think of three coffee shops that exist, two of which do not comply with this ordinance one of which does the one that does is closed they didn't survive. The other two are out here off of Fairview Road and the one down off Main Street and I do not believe that the orientation of their drive-thru for a coffee kiosk building is inappropriate. I think that there also may be other places where that would cause businesses to look elsewhere or be inappropriately encumbered so I would like to change that so it does not preclude cue lanes it still says that we need to have pedestrian access pay attention to pedestrian access through those areas so that is not a problem.
Mayor: So read your language again that you are proposing
Mr. Curtis: 7:6.3 the motion is vehicular access and parking design, strike drive-thru service windows and cueing lanes shall not be located between the front facade of the building and the right-of-way.
Mayor: Okay drive-thru service on this, got you.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Now is part of your motion is to keep the remainder of that sentence?
Mr. Curtis: It is.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Okay
Mayor: Between the front facade of the building that is all you are scratching right?
Mr. Curtis: That is right; I'm just striking that portion which I have outlined.
Mayor: Alright, I've got it. Anybody have any questions about that? Comments? Alright move forward.
Mr. Curtis: Okay under 7:6.7 which should be page 12 this one is a little more complicated but this section requires putting trees in the right-of-way. I think that this is destructive to the sidewalk and the street, it makes lighting less effective, it interferes with power lines utility companies will come through and trim these trees that we plant they'll butcher them quite nicely for us and leave them in a condition which I do not believe is aesthetically pleasing for Simpsonville so I'm saying to remove a good portion of what they have here simply so we can not be requiring trees in the right-of-way. I think the trees in the right-of-way produce present a hazard for motorist it's just something that I'm not comfortable with in this particular
Mayor: Well then how about the awnings, arcades, balconies and overhangs?
Mr. Curtis: It that is something that I think we could address at a future time but there is in my mind that is a bigger issue and I would rather see that restructured by Staff as opposed to having me go in and try to restructure it to indicate the same thing simply removing the trees and the right-of-way.
Mayor: Okay so we are just taking out we are just
Mr. Curtis: We are removing a large portion of that in order to leave that section reading un-obstructing pedestrian access shall be provided along the right-of-way and area used by the public. It also leaves that section in which means it is subject to modification in the future if we deem necessary.
Mayor: But I ask again based on what you just said we are scratching shade trees, awnings, arcades, balconies and overhang scratching all of that?
Mr. Curtis: We are actually in that section we are going to strike the shelter, shade and other weather protection then the words next to then the words through the use of shade trees awnings, arcades, balconies, overhangs, etc. I've already read what it leaves it saying.
Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Larson: So I have a quick question about that. If I'm reading that paragraph correctly isn't that what makes Main Street Greenville Main Street Greenville is the trees, the awnings the pedestrian shelters, the balconies
Mr. Curtis: This section applies to all of the City it does not apply to one particular zone and I feel like it is an overreaching section if this were applied to one particular area I might be
Mr. Larson: But I thought that was our long range plan was to encourage all new development to be pedestrian friendly and environmentally friendly encourage the use of
Mr. Curtis: I'm not opposed to being
Mr. Larson: shrubbery, bushes, trees
Mr. Curtis: pedestrian friendly and things of that nature but planting trees and it specifically says putting trees that shades trees will be provided in the right-of-way so I'm saying that I wouldn't want
Mr. Larson: But it says for the use of shade trees, awnings or it is like one of your choices it not that you have to use a tree you could use an awning or arcade or an overhang.
Mr. Curtis: Any place that the building is set back from the street which will be a huge percentage of places in the City overall shade trees are the only reasonable option that you are requiring to be planted again in the right-of-way which is exactly where overhead power lines are. We have done a nice job Downtown of removing overhead power lines that is not the case for most of this City. I can take you to many places in the City where we matter of fact I believe we back here on North Maple there is a nice example of what the power company will do to nice, great trees that happen to interfere with their lines they came through and butchered a large section of them in there that are quite unsightly.
Mr. Larson: Yes but it seems to me if somebody is willing to do a development and plant a tree knowing that ten years down the road it will be trimmed by Duke Power that should be their choice.
Mr. Curtis: I'm not saying not to plant them at all I'm simply saying get them out of the right-of-way. I'm not saying that we can't revisit this I'm simply saying that this particular piece would cause me not to vote for this at all. Mayor: And this wouldn't keep them from doing that if they choice to do that?
Mr. Curtis: Wouldn’t prevent them from doing it if they chose it is just saying not requiring it.
Mayor: Yes. I understand what you are saying there are places where this is inappropriate.
Mr. Curtis: Would you like me to move on? Or is there any more discussion?
Mayor: Well does anybody else have anything? Okay move on.
Mr. Curtis: 7:9.2 page 16 and this is a section dealing with parking design I believe it is inconsistent with the majority of what is already in District 3 the District to be created which would be District 3 these parking restrictions would preclude to many types of businesses which would fit in these areas. If you look at the map that shows section 3 you will see that it is outlined in green and that this is the entrances to the City to the core of the City but it is all of Main Street all the way out to the Park and all the way down to as close as we go to 385.
Mayor: Does Cryovac know that you have this much spare time?
Mr. Curtis: No comment.
Mayor: I couldn't resist that Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: This section was saying that you should not have parking any closer to the street than the main structure than the principal structure. What that is saying is that you can not park between the street and the principal structure. There is an enormous number of buildings already in that area that have parking oriented that way. I reiterate my desire not to reengineer Simpsonville to be something it never was we are suppose to be preserving what Simpsonville was and I think this is an overreach so again this is one of those things I think could be crafted, changed maybe done better but for the time being it's most expedient to get this passed to simply say get rid of that portion.
Mayor: Okay Mr. Dyrhaug you are unusually quiet during all of this and since this is kind of your baby do you have any thoughts as we go through this process? I'd like to hear what your thinking is.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Right now I'm open to what Mr. Curtis is suggesting. Most of the provisions here have been crafted towards the objected that Mr. Larson pointed out of obtaining pedestrian oriented environments and so these are provisions that maybe in Mr. Curtis' opinion as I'm gathering it maybe go a little too far to ensure that but certainly provisions that are geared towards creating that pedestrian oriented environment. Right now I'm just listening to the comments that Mr. Curtis has I'm welcome to hear him continue on.
Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Curtis: To comment on that to that end what I'm trying to do is get this, the majority of this, which would do exactly what he is saying, passed so.
Mayor: Alright
Mr. Curtis: So
Mayor: Just one more time, how do you want to change 7:9.2?
Mr. Curtis: 7:9.2 parking design, strike off street parking shall not be located any closer to the right-of-way line than the principal structure.
Mayor: Just the first sentence?
Mr. Curtis: That's what it is.
Mayor: Alright anyone else have any comments on that? Alright. Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: I was going to question if a business already has that then it would be grandfathered in and they wouldn't be required to change it but what the design of this policy was is to make that of an appealing unformed look where the buildings would in the front and the parking would be on the side or on the rear so like the little pawn shop on here on East Curtis you know they have got in front of the building parking but they are the only
Mr. Curtis: And they are not in that district
Mr. Larson: It doesn't matter what district they are in I'm just talking about if you are already parking in front of the building you could continue to do so but we are encouraging new development to have a more uniform street.
Mr. Curtis: Which is inconsistent with everything that is already out there. I feel like it is too much to ask of new businesses coming into the area to comply with that.
Mr. Larson: I think if everybody was going to be asked to comply with it then that would be something that they could decide if that was where they wanted to be if they wanted to conform to the look we were requiring to achieve. I think that has been a lot of the criticism of Fairview Road that some of the developers were letting themselves determine how they wanted it to look rather than how the City wanted it to look and I felt like this was why we were tying to work on this review is to make sure we are all on the same page when we go to work with the new development and the way we want that the West Georgia Road corridor any further growth out Harrison Bridge or continued growth on Fairview.
Mr. Curtis: As you mentioned most of this area is already developed what this is really going to address more than anything else is when these areas are extended or when some of these buildings that are currently there are removed is when changes would happen. This area is logically going to be extended down toward 385 and it is logically going to be extended toward Fountain Inn as the City limits grow and that's where new development is likely to come in and that's where you are really going to be making this change. You are putting restrictions on people out here that people closer into town don't comply with. I understand what you are saying I just happen to disagree that that is the right way to go.
Mr. Larson: To be honest with you I feel like you are proposed changes I would like to have a chance to look at those even sit down with Mr. Dyrhaug and you and discuss them all together rather than go this thing line item and X it out or not X it out here one line at a time. Since we haven't had a chance to look them over ahead of time. I would be happy if we would consider maybe postponing this until we all had a chance to work through it and look at these changes. I just feel like we are being asked to make changes that we haven't been able totally consider.
Mr. Curtis: Well, I'm asking you to pass a piece of work that has been worked on and held out here for a long time that has continued to change on us as we go forward which is something that I'm very uncomfortable with because that means in order to be knowledgeable we each have to go back through it line by line and understand exactly what it means. It takes a lot of our time which I don't have that much of.
Mayor: Well, I want tell anybody that. Mr. Curtis: But I would like to continue because I'm on a roll.
Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Curtis: Under 7:9.4, open space, we are now into section district 3 and beyond.
Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Curtis: The open space requirements for section 1 and 2. There is no open space requirement for section 1, open space requirement for section 2 is 10% as I said before God only requires 10% of us I think that requiring 20% of open space from people trying to develop their property is a bit unreasonable and I several of these items 7:9.4, 7:10.4, 7:11.4 and 7:12.4 all reduce the 20% requirement to 10%.
Mayor: Okay so that is simply that just change from 20% to 10%?
Mr. Curtis: That is correct.
Mayor: Anybody have any comments on that? Okay that is 7:9.4
Mr. Curtis: 7:10.4
Mayor: 7:10.4 and
Mr. Curtis: 7:11.4
Mayor: Okay
Mr. Curtis: 7:12.4
Mayor: Alright anybody got any comments? Alright move along please.
Mr. Curtis: Under 7:10.2, parking
Mayor: I thought we were getting toward
Mr. Curtis: Did I jump back
Mayor: We are backing up I thought we were getting toward the end.
Mr. Curtis: I'm sorry 7:10.5,
Mayor: I was encouraged.
Mr. Curtis: Architectural Design Change to read roof types shall be either flat, gable or hip. This is an area that includes where the current Bi-Lo, I'm sorry the old, Bi-Lo shopping center was I believe there is a Good Will store and some other things out there just to give people an idea of where I'm referring to. The ordinance did not allow for flat roofs so if for instances lets say a movie theater came in and decided we would love to take over this old Bi-LO building, tear some of it down and put in a nice movie theater here and rejuvenate this shopping center. Not allowed, flat roofs are not allowed and that would be what would be placed in that area so I'm simply adding flat roofs to that section as well as the other two.
Mayor: This ordinance is not going to apply to existing buildings?
Mr. Curtis: It will apply to any building that is changed over 75%.
Mayor: 75%
Mr. Curtis: Which means if you came in and tried to put a movie theater into the old Bi-Lo building and change it more than 75%
Mayor: Well I
Mr. Curtis: you would be precluded from doing that. Mayor: You'll have to forgive me but I remember when we went through the strategies for the future deal that required months and months and months and there was a lot of conversations about flat roofs and we wanted to rid, particularly the Downtown Area, of flat roofs encourage people to put false mansard type roofs on them or something. You could still use the flat roof but use a good example was across the street at what use to be the McDowell Building and is now the First Baptist Church building they used a actually a fake mansard style roof and put some railing around the air conditioner units and things like that.
Mr. Curtis: 7:10.5, Architectural Design, says roof types shall be either gable or hip.
Mayor: Correct.
Mr. Curtis: That is all that it allows I think that is too restrictive for the area.
Mayor: Well personally rather than add flat I would favor adding some language to that that says or a flat roof with some sort of false roof treatment that gives you do the words Mr.
Mr. Curtis: And that was exactly my point he can do the words after we get this passed but if we, we can go back and go over it again, we can drop it and let him change it and we can come back and go over it again but it is just it has taken us six months to get here and I don't know that we are going to make a whole lot of progress for not having another meeting
Mayor: Rome was not built in a day.
Mr. Curtis: True.
Mayor: Alright. Okay.
Mr. Larson: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor: Yes, Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: I'd in regards to what we are going over with respect to Mr. Curtis I'd just don't feel comfortable with these changes that we are being kind of forced to say yes or no to without having time to discuss them with Mr. Dyrhaug or with Mr. Curtis together and look back at where the original wording came from. Because that 7:10.5 I believe that's exactly what you said is that is when we were doing the long term strategies that was one of the things that was specifically stressed was you didn't want just the warehouse type flat roofed super building sitting out there.
Mayor: Well Mr. Curtis how many more of these do you have now are we close to the end?
Mr. Curtis: If I hit the next one I think we have pretty much covered it.
Mayor: Alright let’s hit the next one and then talk a little bit. What is the next one?
Mr. Curtis: Let me make sure I'm - 7:11.2 strike the entire section. 7:11.2 is
Mayor: That is pretty much what the other Mr. Curtis: Right, I'm saying that it is inconsistent with the other things that are currently in District 4.
Mayor: Okay what else you got?
Mr. Curtis: There are others but they are basically repeated we are repeating ourselves because this is a, they took a lot of these sections and cookie cutter them so it is the same thing over and over again.
Mayor: Well let me say this, first of all I admire you for taking the time to go through this thing as thoroughly as you have and I'll admit I haven't been as thorough as you and you are to be commended for that. Secondly, I do believe that what Mr. Larson says has some merit I understand what you are saying lets go ahead and get something done but at the same time I believe a lot of us would like to talk about these things a little more perhaps argue a little more and we have a lot of other business to cover tonight. So might I suggest to this Council that we consider the motion on the floor and we can either pass it and then come back and argue about these things later and change them if need be or another way of doing it is just not pass this, vote no, and we can delay this for another month and I
Mr. Curtis: Would that not be a no vote on the second reading?
Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian? You could withdraw your motion and the reason I say this, I know it seems like we are procrastinating and I know that is frustrating to you, I know you think we are dragging this out but this is not something that is critical I mean do we have developers lined up saying we are waiting on you to pass that before we can start.
Mr. Dyrhaug: The developers are going forward whether this passes or not I've been sharing this with developers all through this time so that they know this is what our intent is for future development in the City and they have been very gracious in trying to accommodate some of these standards in their plans.
Mayor: Well my point is, is the world going to come to an end if we don't if we delay this another month?
Mr. Dyrhaug: I don't see it, anything to that effect.
Mayor: Mr. Curtis I will commit to you to talk to everybody up here between now and our next meeting and make sure everybody has considered what you have done and that we will come to the next meeting fully prepared to either accept or modify your recommendation and suggestions if you will withdraw you motion.
Mr. Curtis: In light of the fact that we have two members of Council who have expressed concern and as I would like to certainly have everyone be comfortable with these changes then I will withdraw my motion.
Mayor: Thank you and again we'll all commit want we?
Mr. Curtis: I do hope that I do not have to read a motion of this length next time. If we are going to do it lets just change it so that I can just so that we can move forward.
Mayor: You are on the record, you've got the record and I don't ever expect it to be broken so that is good. I appreciate that and I think we all do and again I apologize for us being a little slow and I apologize to you Mr. Dyrhaug and to the Planning Commission but we will get there. Okay
Mr. Dyrhaug: I don't need an apology but thank you.
Mayor: Yes but we are just nice. We don't really like you that much but we are just nice people. Alright.
Mr. Dyrhaug: We will probably need a motion on this still to table it am I correct on that?
Mr. Holmes: No Sir, no you are not correct on that.
Mr. Dyrhaug: I'm not correct on that. Okay we will just wait then.
Mayor: Alright, thanks. Thank you Mr. Curtis. Alright, Mr. Hawes the ordinance regarding the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir Mayor and Council before you, you have second reading on an ordinance regarding the Planning Commission. This ordinance we have discussed previously it was at the request of City Council at a workshop that we discuss certain aspects of the existing ordinance with Planning Commission. The specifics here are regard qualification for office Council should consider the professional expertise and knowledge, knowledge of community and concerns of the future welfare of the City and its citizens with regard to applications for the Planning Commission. Of course there are ethical concerns outlined such as may not hold other elected or appointed public office. Also, there are stipulations regarding conduct on the Planning Commission and removal authority of City Council and it itemizes some specifics there. Also it outlines the functions, powers and duties of the Planning Commission a little clearer than our current ordinance and addresses those in a very concise way and you did pass this on first reading so this is second reading of this ordinance.
Mayor: Okay that you Mr. Hawes I'll entertain a motion. Ms Bagwell.
Ms Bagwell: I move we approve ordinance 2008-09 regarding the Planning Commission.
Mayor: Thank you Ms Bagwell, do I hear a second?
Mr. Larson: Second.
Mayor: Mr. Larson seconds thank you Mr. Larson. Any discussion? Hearing none I'll call for the vote all in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, ayes have it. It is unanimous. Alright we have a need for an executive session to discuss a legal matter relating to Administration and personnel matter relating to Administration I'll entertain a motion.
Ms Bagwell: I move we adjourn into executive session to discuss a legal matter concerning Administration and a personnel matter concerning Administration.
Mayor: Thank you Ms Bagwell, do I hear a second?
Mr. Garrett: Second.
Mayor: Mr. Garrett seconds thank you Mr. Garrett. All in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, aye's have it. It is unanimous we are in recess for ten minutes. Came out of executive session at 11:03 pm no action was taken. I'll entertain a motion. Ms Bagwell
Ms Bagwell: I move that we take the action, option two concerning Budget amendments in order to whereas we eliminate no positions and cut expenses for the budget.
Mayor: Alright, do I hear a second?
Mr. Larson: Second.
Mayor: Mr. Larson seconds. Any discussion? Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: I think it is important to point out that we have an option presented to us which will reduce cost for the City because we are in need of those cost reductions to be quite honest I don't know how to say much more about that without getting into things that I'm not supposed to talk about so I won't but that I'd love to share quite a bit of information about this I think the public has a right to know what is going on but we also have a responsibility to keep contractual matters secret and to keep personnel matters private and the publics right to know does not outweigh individuals right to privacy so based on that I have no further comment.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Curtis. Anyone else? Alright, hearing no further discussion I'll call for the vote all in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, aye's have it. It is unanimous. I'll entertain any other motion Ms Sanders.
Ms Sanders: I move we adjourn.
Mayor: Thank you Ms Sanders, do I hear a second?
Ms Bagwell: Second.
Mayor: Ms Bagwell seconds, thank you Ms Bagwell. All in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no, aye's have it. It is unanimous we are adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melinda Zeller City Clerk |
|
|
| 118 N E Main Street, Simpsonville, SC 29681 |
|