 |
 |
 |
|
| 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 Workshop and Special Voting Session September 23, 2008 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers – 118 N.E. Main St .
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor: Call the September Workshop Meeting and Special Voting Session of the Simpsonville City Council to order.
ROLL CALL: Ms Zeller who still doesn’t have a name plaque and I’m going to forget your name one night if we don’t get her a plaque 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. Welcome to all of you tonight glad to see fine crowd and I know you came to us.
INVOCATION: Mayor: Is there anyone here who would like to ask blessings on this meeting in your own personal way? Alright Ms Bagwell would you ask blessings on this meeting in your own personal way please?
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor: Will you all join us now in the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag please?
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
Mayor: Next item on the agenda this is the portion of our program where we invite citizen comments and we had no one placed on the agenda. Did anyone sign up to speak tonight Ms Zeller so no one signed up at the door so you don’t want to talk to us that is fine that’s great we love it.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Mayor: We have Council Members who always want to say things and this is the portion of the program where we invite Council Members to comment or say what is on their mind. Who wants to go first? Wow, oh Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: I just wanted to let everyone know that there were some citizens over on Tebblewood that had some questions about the GCRA development, the lots that they are going to put some new houses on over there and there is going to be a meeting Thursday at 7:00 o’clock at the Senior Center if anyone has any questions and wants to talk to those folks.
Mayor: Okay thank you for that information. Alright anyone else. Wow okay. We are moving right along and we are getting to the portion of the program that I’m going to enjoy the most. I understand that we have some celebrities here tonight. We have the State Champions of Baseball or Softball? Baseball alright. The Simpsonville 7/8 Boys 7/8 All Stars. Raise your hands if you are an All Star. Fantastic. Why don’t you come on up front? Chad did you have something you wanted to come up and say by way of introduction?
Mr. Foster: I wasn’t really prepared to speak but I will tell you I very fortunate this summer I got to spend some time with this group of fine young men. They won our district tournament here and went to Kingstree , South Carolina beautiful metropolis of and played for about a week there and I think they did lose one game but they beat the team that beat them. They represented us very well on and off the field it is a fine group and they won our State tournament there for Little League which is the highest you can go for their age group. This also is very special is the first Boys State Championship for Little League we have won in almost 20 years. I think the last time might have been in 1989 so it is a very historic group as well. They want to present Mayor and Council with their Championship Banner. So if you would hold this up and we could get some pictures because I know there might be some cameras in the house. One more interesting thing you might want to know kind of interesting about the 20 years Championship that I was telling you about Head Coach Scott Reid and I were members of the team that won the last one. Now we are going to take them back to the park and feed them some hotdogs, hamburgers and cake and we got some trophies and other stuff.
Mr. Mayor: That sounds like fun but let me say a few words. You know I’ve to tell you this is the second time we have done this in the past few weeks and we are beginning to think this is a lot of fun and as a matter of fact we are thinking about changing our signs at the entrance to the City to Simpsonville City of Champions. You guys and all you of people, you coaches and parents in our programs down there at Heritage Park have just done an awesome job. You are just a great bunch of guys and you have represented the City well and you make us so proud and now you’ve got this championship thing in your blood and know throughout the rest of your life you are going to strive to be champions everywhere. I want to thank all of you guys who are Coaches for all of the time you spend. I know if you are like most folks you probably have a job and other responsibilities too but you take time out of your lives to come out and teach these kids things and you probably know because when you were growing up I bet you had Coaches and I did too and I remember them as some of the greatest influences on my life more so than even parents sometimes and so you are doing a great thing for these kids and they will never forget you. We want to give you a very small token of our huge appreciation for all you guys do for us so we have a little certificate of accomplishment or appreciation here I guess. I’ll read one and I’ll just pass them out to the rest of you. The City of Simpsonville, Simpsonville, South Carolina this certificate this particular one is presented to Coach Todd Lumsden in appreciation of your valuable contribution to the City of Simpsonville Recreation Department for your Coaching and dedication to our Simpsonville 7/8 year Boys All Stars 2008 South Carolina State Champion Team our sincere gratitude is extended to you on this 23 rd day of September 2008. Now do that – applause. Okay Todd. Where is Todd? I’ll come to you. There you go thank you sir. Scott Reid, right here. Scott, thank you so much. These few little words really don’t express our or the amount of appreciation we have for you guys. Rob Wharton is that you, Rob? Thank you so much. You must be the last guy, James Harlan? Thank you James we appreciate it. Now lets’ give the coaches a hand. Alright now for the young gentlemen and theirs’ say pretty much the same thing so I’m just going to call your name and when I call your name if you will come down I’ll give you this we hope you will frame it and put it on your bedroom wall and think about this and keep adding to it every year. First is Trotter Harlan, Will Hensley, Matthew Lumsden, Bradley Reid, Kane Trujilo, Jared Danko, Caleb Wharton, Bruce Duncan, Nathan Jewell, Cody Halloran, Bryce Teodosio, Keegan O’Connell. Is that is did everybody get one? Who didn’t get one? Garrett, I’m so sorry. Garrett let me give you a personal congratulations and thank you for all the Championship stuff you do and we are going to get you one. What was your name again? Garrett Sayge.
Coach: I want to say to City Council thank you for everything. I want to say we have the greatest Rec. Department there is in South Carolina by far. The parents will tell you. Chad was down there with us and it was just amazing the hospitality he gave us and coming to every game and the practices. Whenever we would go to the meetings it was amazing how much clout and prestige our Rec. Department carries just because of the people like Chad . As players and Coaches we just want to say thanks.
Mayor: You know you are right Chad we just take you and all of your guys down there for granted and we probably should be giving you some certificates too. I apologize for that but I hope you know we appreciate you and we are proud of you and brag about you all of the time we just don’t do it to your face because we’ve got to keep you humble. We think we have the greatest Rec. Department in the Upstate of South Carolina maybe in the State of South Carolina too so we are very proud. Thank you for saying that. Alright fellows thank you so much. Congratulations. Thank you parents too.
OLD BUSINESS: Mayor: Next item on the agenda is old business. Mr. Hawes you are going tell us about once again about the G.O. Bond for the rescue vehicle, refuse truck and the tub grinder please.
Mr. Hawes: Yes sir Mayor and Council before you for second reading is the G.O. Bond (Series 2008) to provide for the issuance and sale of a not exceeding $800,000 City of Simpsonville General Obligation Bond (Series 2008) to prescribe the purposes for which the proceeds shall expended and to provide for the payment thereof and other matters relating thereto. Now this bond is specifically to purchase the Cities portion of a fire rescue vehicle, heavy rescue also a refuse truck for the Public Works Department, tub grinder for Public Works Department and to refund a lease purchase on a prior purchase for the Fire Department. This ordinance past first reading at the prior meeting and we have a special voting session here because we actually receive a discount if we have the contract done on the fire rescue vehicle done by September 30 th and in order to have that contract done in that time frame we had to have second reading at this time.
Mayor: And just to reiterate this is just for our portion of that vehicle? County.
Mr. Hawes: That is correct, our portion.
Mayor: County pays bulk of that and
Mr. Hawes: Our portion being $187,500.
Mayor: And the tub grinder is expected to be not only an expense saver but a revenue producer by leasing it to other Cities.
Mr. Hawes: That is absolutely correct.
Mayor: Alright. Alright here I am talking and I don’t have a motion. I’ll entertain a motion in this regard. Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: That wasn’t what I was going to do but I’ll make a motion that we approve the General Obligation Bond (Series 2008) for the 2 nd reading.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Garrett: I’ll second.
Mayor: Mr. Garrett seconds. Now you want to say something else.
Mr. Bridges: Can we go ahead and add this to the Government Bail out?
Mayor: Wait, wait I have more to add to that list.
Mr. Hawes: That seems to be the matter of the day doesn’t it.
Mayor: Note that crowd approves. Alright anyone else.
Mr. Garrett: I’d just like it noted that it does say two pumper trucks is that correct?
Mr. Hawes: Actually, there are two pumper trucks being refunded with this particular
Mr. Garrett: Refinanced?
Mr. Hawes: Refunded is what it is called the least purchase is refunded and put into a bond. There is one being done through this bond and one being done by the County so there are two pumper trucks being refunded but one is being taken care of by the County because it is it services the outside the a fire I mean within the fire district outside the City limits so the County is refunding that one in their bond issuance.
Mayor: Okay. Alright anyone else? Alright hearing no more discussion I’ll remind Council this is second and final reading and I’ll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying AYE, opposed NO. AYE’S have it. It is unanimous. Alright.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Mayor: Mr. Dyrhaug you are going to talk to us about this long awaited Design Review Ordinance and we are just going to discuss it tonight. You are just going to give us all the information.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Just discussing tonight. Just to remind you this is in regards to the Design Review Ordinance. This was something that you probably recall from earlier this year it was something that was recommended by the Planning Commission and was actually reviewed by City Council at first reading on May 13 th and was voted for approval at that reading and when we got to second reading we wanted to take a little more time to go back through it so I just wanted to pick the ball back up on this a little bit and go through it a little bit more with you. What I presented to you tonight you will see an alternative A and an alternative B. Well let me back up before I get into all of that just to remind you this ordinance is primarily has the affect and intent of applying some of the emerging themes from our strategies of the future. So now getting back to alternative A and alternative B we got alternative A which is the original ordinance you reviewed at first reading. Now the reason I’m calling it alternative is because I’ve come up with a second alternative that largely resembles the first but has some differences and I didn’t know if these might be more from my understanding in some of the conversations I’ve had with Council Members isolated I think that there alternative B and the intent of it is to make it a little more palpable for adoption and something that will be more easily applied to new development and so I just wanted to run through the differences real quick with you and they are up on the wall here. In the original alternative that you reviewed it had maximum setbacks or another words build to lines those have been taken out and instead what we are going to do is encourage that there are consistent setbacks applied along the streets. So where the buildings that are currently existing maybe on a block are located we are going to encourage new develop that they kind of follow that theme and so instead of requiring them to build up so close to the road we are just going to have them kind of build somewhere along the lines of where what’s out there right now. The second was the second difference is that in the first original alternative ordinance we had a lot of regulations on driveways. I’ve stripped all of those out and instead we are going to rely on SCDOT to regulate that and they have just come out with a new manual that does that I’m fairly confident that it will improve some of the driveway locations throughout the City. I think it will be a better move for us just to rely on SCDOT to take the ball on that one.
Mayor: Excuse me for interrupting
Mr. Dyrhaug: Sure
Mayor: Even on streets that are City streets?
Mr. Dyrhaug: The one thing in the ordinance that I’ve written on there is that we will encourage the application of that manual and the SCDOT regulation on City streets. There probably be too many that would apply to but in the case that there might be we’ll encourage that they’ll adhere those guidelines. The third difference is that in the original alternative there was a lot of language that required or encouraged all the parking to be in the rear and that has also since been eased up on instead of requiring developments to put all of their parking behind their building we are just going to give them an incentive for doing that and the incentive is that their minimum parking requirements can be reduced. So that I think will be a little bit easier for a lot of developers where they don’t necessarily have to do that but they know that we would encourage them to do that and there is some incentive for them still to do that. The fourth difference is that we had some landscaping standards for parking lots in the original ordinance those have been removed and we are just going to continue to rely on the parking lot landscaping standards that we currently have in our zoning ordinance and if we feel we need to address those down the road we can come back and amend that portion of the zoning ordinance. The fifth difference is that we had some setbacks that were required from residential properties and again in the new alternative that has been taken out and we are just going to continue to rely on our existing zoning regulations for that and if we see a need to change those as we go along we can come back and amend that. The six difference is that in the original alternative there was requirements for different types of pedestrian amenities and instead of requiring those we are just going to encourage developers to do that but we are not going to tell them that they necessarily have to put in things like benches and garbage cans and things like that we will leave that up to them but we will still encourage them to do that. The seventh difference between these alternatives is that in the first original ordinance you reviewed there was two types of procedures it talked about and it talked about that talked about there is also two sets of standards. There were some that were required and some that were optional and if the developer met all of the optional standards they could go through and just be reviewed by the Planning Staff and get approval that way and if they couldn’t meet the optional standards they could go through Planning Commission and get reviewed that way. That seemed to get a little bit complicated and a little complex and so we just simplified it and we said that all the standard in this ordinance will be required and then going into the last difference that they will just all qualify for that streamlined review and approval process which will be through City Staff instead of getting to choose between going through City Staff or Planning Commission. We are just going to make it all consistent and the same for everyone and make it easy to understand and follow that way. So those are the differences, the primary differences, between these two alternatives of these ordinances. Again, alternative A is the one you originally reviewed and B is with some modifications. I’m open for your discussion and your recommendations if you find that these are good changes or if you find that maybe they are not hitting the mark and you want to go a different direction or maybe you like the original alternative but I’m open for your discussion on this item.
Mayor: Okay Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: On the first one when you said consistency, I guess that means the first person that builds is going to set whatever is going to be on there. Is that right?
Mr. Dyrhaug: Well, a lot of our blocks in the City already have buildings on them so I’m fairly certain that there is already setbacks established on most blocks throughout the City where this ordinance would apply. And so what will we just be doing is encouraging that they kind of follow that same general guideline so that there is consistent form to the street and it helps to give character to the street. This will be on your places like Main Street and Fairview Road and some of those places.
Mayor: I apologize what were you talking about, setbacks, is that what you were talking about?
Mr. Dyrhaug: Yes we were talking about setbacks.
Mayor: And what was your answer. I’m sorry I was doing paperwork.
Mr. Dyrhaug: The question was if what we would do in cases where there is no buildings on a block and maybe does the first person on there kind of set the standard. My response was that most places if not all places that this will apply to will already have structures on them that we would just kind of build off of to establish a consistent form on that street.
Mayor: Well, I think Ron is probably thinking the same thing that I’m thinking I was going to ask that question. I remember back when we did these things before and when we did strategies for the future the goal was to have our particularly our buildings in the Gold Overlay District which is the Downtown if there were any new buildings built to have them up against the sidewalks with parking in the rear. That was the old downtown style we were trying to replicate so I guess the question is and maybe the two of you covered this and I apologize but what happens if it is kind of like what you asked if there is an existing building that is a very old building but it is sitting way back and so someone comes in to build a new building and we allow them to back up and meet that and somebody tears the old building down. Now we have sort of gone against what we were trying to establish to begin with. Is that kind of what you were thinking? So do we have any way of I mean I guess the question is are we still on board with trying to get our commercial buildings at least in the Main Street core Downtown area up on the sidewalk so that it is walk able.
Mr. Dyrhaug: That is kind of a consistent setback that has been established in the Downtown is that buildings will be built to the property line so there should be no problem in applying that in the Downtown area because it is fairly standard in the Downtown with almost the exception of this block that we are sitting on right now that all the building are built up to the property line. If you would like further clarification or specification to that effect we can always add that in there to make that very clear and that would not be a problem to do that.
Mayor: Well I think that we are all still interested in that concept so if we could I don’t know if you need to include well I guess you do because we may not always be here but somehow if you could establish that is our aim and our goal.
Mr. Dyrhaug: I’ll certainly do that.
Mayor: Mr. Curtis. Sorry, I didn’t see your pencil there for a few minutes.
Mr. Curtis: Well, I wanted to comment with regard to the setbacks I think it is a far better idea to encourage people to conform to what is there as opposed to setting stringent rules that may stifle growth. I have looked over draft A and B extensively since I received them Friday. Although all regulations have potential to be overbearing at times, I accept and understand the need for some regulation on structures and this type of thing in the City. I applaud you on draft B I think you addressed most of the major issues I had with it. I’d like to comment about the SCDOT driveway regulations. I read the SCDOT driveway regulations and find that they are probably more stringent than the regulations that were originally written into alternative A but as they are the new standard for the State I have no problem with that as far as a consistent standard for us to adhere to I think that it is very likely that we will see that in more Cities so I’m not opposed to that either. I’m happy with draft B as it stands. Does that mean that I think that it may not constrain people a little bit? Yes, I think it is going to constrain people a little bit but I also understand that I have to give a little on that as well. I wanted to commend you on that and that is what I had as comments.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Let me add one thing, one of the advantages I’ve had in waiting as long as I have to pick the ball back up on this is that I’ve presented it to some of the developers who have come in wanting permits and said hey take a look at this and maybe as you are designing your site layouts see if you can follow these. So that is where some of these things were kind of ironed out largely based on their response that we can do X,Y and Z but A, B and C are really hard for us to do so those are some of the things that were worked out on here.
Mayor: Fantastic. Mr. Larson
Mr. Larson: I just maybe I’m not quite clear on exactly what some of these are going to require I mean when we were talking about some of the strategies for the future and to make Downtown more pedestrian friendly and we did the streetscape and I thought that was part of that overall plan to have the parking in the rear only, the maximum setbacks in the street and then the pedestrians amenities required by new business owners maybe I’m just not clear on restrictive that is going to be or is that going to change our initial outlook on how we want Downtown to look.
Mr. Dyrhaug: In Downtown area and you are talking about mainly about parking, right in Downtown area right?
Mr. Larson: Parking and pedestrian amenities. When they were required what exactly was required? You mentioned an example about a bench and some landscaping.
Mr. Dyrhaug: When the pedestrian amenities were required in the first alternative or the first ordinance that you reviewed it primarily talked about in different districts there was a certain number of pedestrian amenities that were required depending on the district. For example, some districts might require three pedestrian amenities and some might require two and the types of amenities that are referred to in that original version of the ordinance were things like benches, trash receptacles, planters, fountains, public art or other types of design features that are usually at the scale of a pedestrian and so those four types of things required in this new alternative ordinance we have scaled back a little bit saying that we still encourage those things and we would like to see you do them but it isn’t an absolute requirement for the development and we have given them some guidelines for example if they put benches that they are sturdy and heavy enough that they are going to endure and things like that.
Mr. Larson: I just seem to remember and somebody can correct me if I don’t remember me correctly but it seems like I remember when Wal-Mart and some of those big stores were coming in on Fairview Road there was a lot of talk about landscaped medians between some of the parking rows and lots of tree plantings and groundcover to just to break up the massive asphalt parking lots and somehow that seemed to fall by the wayside and now we are looking at Georgia Road having maybe some similar development going out there and I didn’t know how this was going to preserve that planned development image that we want the City to have.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Things like landscaping the parking lots we do have requirements in the zoning ordinance that specifically the requirement is that five percent of the parking area needs to contain landscaped island or various landscaped areas so there is still that requirement. I don’t know how new that requirement is or if it applied to Wal-Mart or not I think or I seem to recall that Wal-Mart may have been built when it was still in the County. I’m not sure of that because I wasn’t here then.
Mr. Larson: I think you are right about that.
Mr. Dyrhaug: We do requirements that would require those types of things although it really doesn’t bear direct relation to this that is something that I’m reviewing to right now and perhaps amending that requirement so that it is a little more simpler to apply because right now it requires a lot of calculation.
Mr. Larson: I seem to remember I guess it was about three years ago we had a presentation where someone showed us some examples of the landscaped parking lots that were actually visually appealing where you pulled in and it was like pulling into a Heritage Park kind of setting were you just didn’t have a big expanse of asphalt and row after row of painted lines.
Mayor: I think that is what we referred to as our Hilton Head era when we were
Mr. Larson: Are we over that now?
Mayor: I think we have moved past that now and we agreed that a somewhat more reasonable approach would be somewhere in between the Hilton Head method and the
Mr. Larson: I would agree with that but still you can stand at one side of Lowes and look all the way to the other side of Lowes and there is not a single piece of vegetation.
Mayor: Well, I think you just said and I think at that time is when we just implemented the five percent you were just talking about so that we were assured that some island and landscaping so
Mr. Larson: I just wanted to make sure that those kinds of issues were being reflected in alternative B.
Mayor: Do you believe we have enough language in there to give us some
Mr. Dyrhaug: Yes, we have enough language right now in the Zoning Ordinance to require that.
Mr. Larson: It just seemed a little bit less restrictive.
Mr. Dyrhaug: You may see something else about it down the road if I feel compelled to modify it we may review that but I think right now it there is defiantly requirement for that.
Mayor: Okay Mr. Curtis. Have you been holding that pencil up for a long time?
Mr. Curtis: Yes, that is alright. With regard to some of the things that have been mentioned, I do not operate under the impression that there is a beach in Simpsonville. Hilton Head and Simpsonville are not equal venues. I think that some of the things that were required in draft A, alternative A, when it comes to plantings and things of that nature they were excessive. We were talking about one tree I believe it was for every five parking spaces and those trees had to be of substantial size which I would question if the requirements that we were looking at for parking lots would have violated the very requirements that SCDOT has now put forth in their regulations because the SCDOT regulations that you reference there are far more extensive than just for driveways they also go into tree plantings, site distances, cones of site and that type of thing, so I again want to express that I was not happy with A. Some of the things that were I feel were wrong with A is that the amenities had no standard for consistency. You said benches but every place out there can come in and put in different types of benches. Trash cans were mentioned but there was absolutely no mention of who would be responsible for collection of refuse from those trash cans nor what frequency that would be on there were a lot of things that were mentioned that were going to be required but then the details hadn’t been worked out. If we are going to require that type of thing, I’d like to see a more detail plan as to how those things will be managed once they are in place who will be responsible and that type of thing. I’ve probably said enough.
Mayor: Well good comments all I think I’d to see that too so maybe you could go back and add a little language to do that.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Probably what I will still do because it sounds like my feeling is that we still would only like to stay at the level where we are encouraging those things and not absolutely requiring them so what I can do try to work in some standards where if a developer does provide those things there is some consistency with what their neighbors are doing.
Mayor: Okay anyone else? This may or may not be the time to bring this up but speaking of consistency signage I would like to see some consistency with signs, directions on signs, street signs and that sort of things. We need to establish some sort of standard in our City I mean we’ve got the green or blue signs that Public Works does a good job but as far as directional signs that say City Hall this way and Baptist Church that way or something like that I like to see some sort of and we’ve been down this road before many times down through the years. We had a company that was going to come in and do a survey for us and make recommendations and do that absolutely free and then they got here and all of the sudden there was a cost involved and so we sort of waffled on that but since you have lots of time on your hands and don’t have much to do we think it would be great I think it would be great if you would go back and take a look at that too and maybe work it into this or do it separately but it was a thought that Mr. Curtis keyed with his comments.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Okay
Mayor: Alright Mr. Garrett.
Mr. Garrett: Yes, I’d like to make one comment. I know we had a few projects come into town where they clear cut everything and I am opposed to that and I certainly hope that do have enough language in here where we can not let that happen or either require them that they do some replanting on a large scale. Because if you go over Georgia Road bridge you see a lot of red clay and I’m tired of seeing red clay and I hate to disagree with my colleague down here but I’m for stopping cutting down some trees and stopping clear cutting and if we can’t do that then with what we’ve got then maybe we need to go back and look at it.
Mr. Dyrhaug: I think what we need to do for that one and I’m glad to do it is to go back and look at our tree ordinance and see how we can because that is a problem not only in these business areas that we are looking at but that is a problem in a lot of new subdivisions that we see going in.
Mr. Garrett: It’s not only in subdivisions I mean this commercial development we had especially over on Georgia road I mean they’ve had it in my understanding when we had that it wasn’t suppose to happen but it certainly did and on a large scale.
Mr. Dyrhaug: I’ll go back and take a look I’ll be more than glad to go back and take a look at our tree ordinance.
Mr. Garrett: Thank you.
Mayor: How strictly are we enforcing our tree ordinance? Is there any organized inspection when we issue a permit? Does anybody go out there and say oh no, you can’t cut that tree? I don’t mean to be overbearing with the developers but I know we established some standards in that tree ordinance is anybody really looking at that closely as these developers well I hate to keep using that term as people coming in start cutting trees or moving trees.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Right now we primarily rely on the tree surveys and that’s the tree ordinance is set up and we review tree surveys. The language of the tree ordinance is such that they don’t necessarily have to save a single tree on there as long as after they are done developing they have a certain level of tree density established on the lot so that is something we probably have to go back and revisit in that tree ordinance and see how we can do a better job on not going through these the long periods where they will go and grade but clear cut everything and then you don’t see the development a long time later.
Mayor: Well Mr. Garrett is right we need to get ahead of the West Georgia Road corridor in particular and probably some others too the Harrison Bridge Road thing we just discussed and so there again that spare time you have left over after you did that other thing in your spare time then
Mr. Dyrhaug: No problem, you will see something soon.
Mayor: Mr. Garrett
Mr. Garrett: That was one thing in the draft A the parking lot landscape standards I didn’t really have a problem with that I mean you know maybe tighten up that a little bit and if they know that they are going to have to go back in there and plant trees for everyone they cut down on a large scale maybe they will watch what they cut down.
Mr. Dyrhaug: I think what I would like to do with that one perhaps is handle that as a separate text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance so that we have standards that would apply to the same to all.
Mayor: Mr. Larson
Mr. Larson: I want to say that I agree with Mr. Garrett that you know from where the old Ingles shopping center is all the way to the Bloom is just one big swath of red clay over there right clay right now where it use to be nice hardwood forest.
Mayor: Well, not to defend anyone but there was a big building torn down there which there were no trees there and then I know Steve Norvoro and the Furman Company wanted to preserve all the trees they could over there but they cut that hill down over there and it is kind of hard to cut down a hill and save the trees that were on top of it so when they started taking dirt out of there and leveling that big site which use to be the Givens Youth Center I guess it was just undoable.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Well then you also have examples like where the Georgia Road Commons project is where they were able to meet the tree ordinance by saving a cluster of trees off to one corner so that is probably something we have to go back and take a look at.
Mayor: Yes Sir Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: As I recall where the Givens property was there was also a significant amount of pasture type property there that there were some trees granted but there was also a large section where there were not trees. What we are seeing now is of course red clay exposed and yes that is unsightly I do agree with that. Was that I would question as to whether all of that property was actually in the City whether we had annexed it at the point and time when they did that work or not but there are certainly some compromises that can be made.
Mayor: Those folks who come in and complete that development over there will be required to meet this tree ordinance and put back or install trees that will give a certain density right? So once they begin the project we will have some vegetation over there.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Yes the problem is just how long do we have to wait?
Mayor: Well this looks like a business opportunity for somebody to come in and sell temporary trees you know maybe some of these green plastic things you stick up.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Go set up a temporary tree lot.
Mayor: Yeah there you go. Alright moving right along we didn’t mean to stop you. Well we did mean to stop you because
Mr. Dyrhaug: That’s I’m oh - that’s it unless you have anything else you wanted to say.
Mayor: That’s it that is way too simple.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Probably what I will need to do is get with our legal advice here and see how this will proceed next or if it will need to come back to you for second reading.
Mayor: He doesn’t know anything about trees
Mr. Dyrhaug: Or see if it will need to go back to Planning Commission.
Mayor: I’ve seen his lawn he doesn’t trim his shrubbery.
Mr. Hawes: We have the beauty of having the Chairman of the Greenville County Tree Commission here.
Mayor: That is exactly right how dare I say he didn’t know anything about trees? You are a regular tree expert aren’t you?
Mr. Dyrhaug: I can handle that off-line.
Mayor: Then you get with him in your spare time.
Mr. Dyrhaug: Alright Mayor: Alright then this will come before us in our next regular scheduled meeting and you will have all of that answered and straightened out for us by then I’m sure right?
NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Mayor: Alright next item on the agenda is new business. Mr. Hawes you are going to talk to us about our new policy or our proposed policy or the policy we asked you to put together for us on appointment to boards and commissions.
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir Mayor and Council what was requested of Staff was to create a more comprehensible and workable appointment procedure for boards and commissions. Currently there are deadlines and requirements in the appointment procedures that were adopted a few years ago that are not impossible to adhere too but circumstances can present themselves which can make them difficult to adhere too and they hamstring the City and the decision makers, City Council and the Mayor, in exactly how to review and appoint board and commission members. So what is proposed you have two different items here there is an ordinance regarding the planning commission specifically and a Council policy regarding appointments to boards and commissions. Now I’m going to touch on the ordinance first this would come before City Council for first reading at the first meeting of October which is October 13 th . This involves membership, terms of office, vacancy and removal as well as function powers and duties of the Planning Commission. It outlines quite specifically circumstances regarding the Planning Commission where action may be taken by City Council and regarding members, it outlines some of the powers and duties of the Planning Commission and discharge of its responsibilities and a number of other aspects and this is certainly a working document and it is presented before City Council at this time for your review and with the request that if you have recommendations for changes or concerns or better language please forward those to me between now and when it is presented as first reading and I’ll be glad to work with you individually and to determine the best way to shape this ordinance between now and October 13 th . Similarly regarding the appointments to boards and commissions there is a suggestion for a procedure here that involves a certain amount of time frame for advertising, deadline for filing an application, consideration of discretion of City Council regarding applications that may be received after a deadline and so forth also specifics regarding vacancies non expired terms and as I said advertising and time frames such that we can have an orderly process in appointing board and commission members. Again I request that you please review this and get back with me any concerns, thoughts, ideas as to how we can best shape this policy to meet the demands of Council in formulating it. And again this would come before you as an item in the October 13 th meeting.
Mayor: Okay thank you Mr. Hawes. Does anyone have any questions or comments about it now? Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: I would just like to say after looking over it briefly not studying it real carefully I think it is a good document.
Mayor: Okay thank you.
Mr. Larson: Good job.
Mayor: Okay thank you. Anyone else? Alright was that Ms Bagwell
Ms Bagwell: I’d to just let you know that I agree with Mr. Larson. I looked through the whole, both of these, earlier and they appear to be pretty much what I was hoping to see so thank you.
Mayor: Okay. Alright thank you folks. Alright Mr. Hawes now tell us about the annexation of City property on Howard Road .
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir Mayor and Council as you are aware the City purchased property on Howard Road right next to Heritage Park this is approximately 37 acres and just wanted to let you know we are looking at annexing this property so that we can assign zoning to it with the intent of placing the tub grinder at that location and that will be coming up at the next meeting as well.
Mayor: Okay does anybody have any questions about that comments? Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson: I just had a quick one
Mayor: You need to get a longer pencil or something so I don’t have to lean forward.
Mr. Larson: Trade places.
Mayor: Okay come on down.
Mr. Larson: No, is there a noise issues about where that location is going to be I’m trying to picture where in conjunction with those neighborhoods out there?
Mr. Hawes: Yes actually it is going to be pretty well buried within in the property and it’s going to have berms surrounding it separating it from residential areas and we are going to do everything we can to minimize any disturbance from noise created by the tub grinder. Primarily the operation would be midday type of operation closing down at 3:00 pm things along those lines.
Mr. Larson: Alright
Mayor: Okay anyone else. Alright and this to will be on our October meeting you just said that didn’t you?
Mr. Hawes: Yes Sir, it’s going before the Planning Commission. The reason it is here is that I wanted you to be aware that it is before the Planning Commission for review of the zoning not the annexation of course because the Planning Commission does not review annexations.
Mayor: Got you. Alright thank you Mr. Hawes. That concludes the new business portion of our program. We have a need for an executive session tonight to discuss a contractual matter regarding administration and two personal matters regarding administration so I’ll entertain a motion in that regard. Ms Bagwell
Ms Bagwell: So moved
Mayor: Alright do I hear a second? Ms Sanders
Ms Sanders: Second
Mayor: Thank you Ms Sanders. All in favor signify by saying aye, opposed no. Aye’s have it. It is unanimous. We are in recess we will be back in executive session as soon as you clear the room. Okay came out of executive session at 11:00 pm no action was taken. I’ll entertain a motion. Mr. Curtis
Mr. Curtis: Mr. Mayor I’d like to make a motion that we direct Mr. Hawes to take the personal action discussed in executive session.
Mayor: Thank you Mr. Curtis do I hear a second?
Mr. Bridges: Second
Mayor: Mr. Bridges seconds. Any discussion? Hearing none 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 a motion Ms Sanders.
Ms Sanders: I move we adjourn.
Mayor: Do I hear a second?
Ms Bagwell: Second
Mayor: Ms Bagwell seconds. 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 |
|