|
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 1 February 5, 2007 Harlem City Hall
The Planning & Zoning commission met for a meeting at City Hall on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Bobby Culpepper presiding.
Present: COMMISSION: Chairman Bobby Culpepper, Commissioner Dale Arnold, Commissioner Tim Farr, and Commissioner Franklin Jennings; STAFF: City Manager Jean R. Dove, City Clerk Debra E. Moore, City Attorney Barry Fleming and Planning & Zoning Department Head Dee Tapley; ABSENT: Commissioner Donnie Head; VISITORS: Phil Turner, Edee & Ken Sweatman, Bo Slaughter, Don & Lonnie Foley, James Thomas, Jr., Jonathan Starrett and Duane Starrenburg.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Culpepper at 7:00 p.m.
The Invocation was given by Commissioner Arnold.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Culpepper.
Approval of January 2, 2007 Minutes: Chairman Culpepper called for a motion to approve the Minutes of the January 2, 2007 meeting; that motion was made by Commissioner Jennings; 2nd by Commissioner Farr. Discussion: Chairman Culpepper asked that they receive the information for the meeting prior to the meeting in order for everyone to have time to look it over. Motion carried; all in favor.
Review of January 25, 2007 Administrative Committee Meeting Notes: Ms. Tapley gave an overview of the notes taken at the January 25, 2007 Administrative Committee Meeting. There were changes brought before the City that amended the original approved plat (Phase I). The changes pertained to there being 22 lots that were accessible from Harlem-Grovetown Road; these were the larger lots (20,000 sq. ft.). The change would extend the road and the 45 smaller lots (12,000 sq. ft.) would be accessible from Harlem-Grovetown Road as well. They were originally accessible from a different area. There were five lots that did not meet the requirements in this area and they were asked to reconfigure them; they were changed to four lots and met the requirements. The road off of Harlem-Grovetown Road was extended from the entrance all the way through to the smaller lots. Due to there being no representation from the developer/builder at the January 2 Planning & Zoning meeting to answer any questions or concerns of the Commission they chose at that time to deny the request for the changes. There were concerns with the increased traffic flow, as well as the lay out of the plan going from larger lots to smaller lots, and that they felt the plan was not in conformance with what the City was trying to do. The recommendation was taken to the January 18, 2007 Council meeting; Council approved the recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission. The issues were turned over to the Administrative Committee for the City to see what information could be found out and what the City could live with. The Committee met on January 25 with the builder/developer and the engineer for the project Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 February 5, 2007
Administrative Meeting Notes Review (cont’d): in attendance. There was discussion concerning issues (public comments) that were brought up at the January 2 Planning & Zoning meeting by residents that live in the area. This included the input of a deceleration lane at the Harlem-Grovetown Road entrance. There was a recommendation to update their plans showing this. There was discussion on putting in a driveway entrance from the new road side to Mr. Sweatman’s property so that he would have access from there; this would be shown on the plans. There was discussion and agreement on taking out the entrance that was shown from the Douglas Road/McArthur Drive area. It was explained to the Committee that the extension of the road was due to the lift station and getting utilities to it.
Chairman Culpepper turned the meeting over to City Attorney Fleming to address the issues and if he had any legal concerns. City Attorney Fleming asked if the right of ways had been acquired for the deceleration lane; there will be no need, there is enough area already. A construction easement would be needed from Mr. Sweatman; would swap out the driveway; this has not been negotiated as yet. The contractor had a conversation with them about the driveway and told Mr. Slaughter. A construction easement would also be needed from the Foleys. Mr. Fleming asked if approved and they are unable to get the construction easements, what would be their next step; it would become a legal matter. He would rather try to work things out. Mr. Fleming asked if the deceleration lane would go into town; it would not. It would be in front of the Sweatman’s and cross the entrance and there would be a small excel lane on the other side. There were some questions on the wetlands in the development. The Town homes are located on some wetlands, but they have already been mitigated. The other wetlands are located behind the properties and will have no impact; they will be greenspace and no building will be done on them. Mr. Fleming asked if the wetlands issue was the catalyst for the changes; Mr. Slaughter responded it was, as well as the separation of the multi-family homes from the detached homes.
There was a question on the retention ponds; there will be four total; one for each area or phase. Per EPD regulations, you can no longer put the ponds in the bottom they have to be in the side.
Commissioner Arnold asked about the flow through from the larger lots to the smaller lots. The general consensus from the Administrative meeting was that it would flow well. The houses would generally be the same; the lots will be different (width). There will be no separation of the two areas.
Ken Sweatman expressed his concerns with the processes the City goes through in reference to the developments (P&Z and Administrative). He had concerns that there were no notices about the subdivision. He remarked that he did not want any favors done for him (driveway?).
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 February 5, 2007
He did express his concerns with the traffic (amount, etc.) and drainage. He recommends going back to the original plan.
Don Foley expressed his concerns with the drainage and the flow of the water run off and how it will affect his property.
Mr. Slaughter addressed their issues with the drainage as well as Chairman Culpepper’s. Mr. Slaughter stated that the issue of the driveway was misconstrued; the contractor told him he had had a conversation concerning the driveway and not him. He was willing to work something out if this is what was wanted.
Chairman Culpepper felt that additional issues have arisen since the last discussions. The original key issues concerned the additional traffic on the road and the shift in the size of the lots. He felt that nothing had been done to address the additional traffic.
The question of the extension of the road came up. The road is only as far as section number one; the sanitary sewer and sewer taps have been extended to the lift station. Yes, the sewer taps were done all the way down, but they would be used whether the plan is changed or stays as the original. The main reason for the change had to do with the separation of the areas. It was a natural separation. Commissioner Arnold asked if the change had been done solely to save money; Mr. Slaughter reiterated that it was not, that it was for the separation of the areas.
Chairman Culpepper asked Mr. Sweatman if he had any other items he would like to address at this time. Mr. Sweatman expressed that he did not want the deceleration lane. He did not understand several aspects of the plan and also asked for reconsiderations on the drainage issue. Chairman Culpepper Mr. Slaughter if the deceleration lane was not put in would the turn lane still help with the drainage. Mr. Slaughter did respond that it would. There would be some gutters (not across the driveways) and the tapers would help. The water would flow into their traps. There will be some piping.
Chairman Culpepper asked if there were any further questions. City Attorney Fleming questioned Mr. Slaughter as to who he worked for; Frank Askins is the developer. He asked how long he has been doing this; eighteen years; he has worked for Mr. Askins for three. City Attorney Fleming asked if Mr. Askins normal operating procedure is to contact the people in the area that will be affected by the new development. The original PUD hearing is where the communication started. He was questioned as the developer or engineer, do they normally contact those who might be affected; no they do not, only if there is some severity of the impact. As an engineer, they do the design and meet with planning and zoning. City Attorney Fleming stated that he had been on the County Commission for a couple of years. He formed an opinion on what was the right way and the wrong way for this to be done.
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 February 5, 2007
The right way had the developer/engineer contacting the people that the development would impact prior to going to the Council for approval of the development plan. This way you would be able to answer all questions up front and if the residents had problems they would be able to address them with the Council prior to approval of the plan. This would alleviate some of the problems they are having now. Because they did not, the Council has to deal with the citizens questions and concerns now.
There was an additional question concerning the utilities (Georgia Power) from Mr. Starrett. Mr. Slaughter responded that the lines are to be run underground; Mr. Starrett was told that the lines would be above ground. He has been approached for an easement.
Chairman Culpepper asked City Attorney Fleming if it would be out of order to table this matter until further information can be gotten. City Attorney Fleming responded that it would not. His advice to the Commission is that they could do one of three things: they could approve the request, disapprove the request or they could table the matter. Chairman Culpepper called for a motion from the Commission. Commissioner Jennings made the motion to table the matter until further information can be received. Commissioner Farr seconded that motion. Motion carried; all in favor.
Chairman Culpepper asked Ms. Tapley to set the next meeting and to make sure to inform the residents of said meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra E. Moore City Clerk |