Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-1999 Regular Meeting Page 1 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS October 19, 1999 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 19, 1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, and Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE DR. COY HINTON. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. Mayor Young: Our sound system is not working today, so as we get into discussion of the issues and you come up to the podium to speak, we’re going to ask you to please speak up today so we can all hear you. Clerk: Under our delegations, we will hear from Mr. Tom Watkins regarding rezoning; Mr. William Mundell, president of the Olde Town Neighborhood Association. There is a five- minute time limit per delegation. Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, would you go ahead and call Agenda Item 50 and let’s incorporate all this into this one discussion. Gentlemen, we’ll go ahead and consider this item since the delegations are here with respect to that item. Clerk: Item 50: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Edward Heffernan, on behalf of Knox Community Service Center Owners Association, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and also requesting approval to utilize the Peter S. Knox Conference Center for banquets, receptions, etc. by resolution per Section 21-1(d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Greene Street, 300.42 feet northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Third Street and Greene Street (326 Greene Street). Mayor Young: Mr. Patty, would you come forward, please, and address the Commission with respect to the Planning Page 2 Commission’s position on this and then we’ll hear from the delegations? Mr. Patty: There are four things that happened to create the situation we’ve got today, and that is basically the property as used being out of zoning compliance. It was built in the early 1980’s, so under a section of the zoning ordinance, Section 17-1(c), it allowed commercial enterprises which were incidental to hotels and motels in multi-family residential zones, which was picked up by the professional zoning. This property is zoned professional. It was built legally under the zoning that was in place in the early 1980’s. In February, 1993 the zoning ordinance was changed because of some problems we had with other similar uses in other areas of Richmond County. We had one in particular that was allowed in a multi-family zone that became a real problem and because of that, we checked. The zoning ordinance was changed, so to speak. Hotels were not allowed in multi-family residential zones, nor were the incidental uses such as this conference center. So at that point, the conference center became a non-conforming use because it couldn’t stay, it couldn’t remain forever as it was zoned and as it was used. In 1996, the Knox Foundation made the charitable gift of the Telfair Inn to the United Way, so the ownership changed, and it was no longer used as an incidental attached to the Telfair Inn. I think the Telfair Inn actually ceased to exist at that time as a hotel or hotel office. So you could argue at that point it lost its non-conforming use but we feel, in conference with Mr. Wall, we decided that it definitely lost its non-conforming rights in August of 1998 when the conference center was opened again and at that point it was no longer just a meeting room for spillover from the hotel but rather it was a room that was for rent basically for any purpose, weddings, parties, conferences, things of that nature. So the ownership changed, the use changed, and members of the community brought this to our attention. We researched it and we felt that a zoning change was needed. We approached the owners in August and they agreed to apply for rezoning. They did, in fact, apply for rezoning, but they pulled the application prior to our September meeting, which was their right, and put it in again immediately. It came before the Planning Commission on October 4 of this year. To answer your question, there was considerable debate. A lot of consideration was given to this at the pre-meeting of the Planning Commission. There was discussion of approval with conditions. Both sides, the neighborhood interests and the interests of the United Way, were expressed. Both were legitimate interests. It was very hard decision to make and the Planning Commission voted to approve it without Page 3 conditions. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Patty. Yes, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: George, I’m not sure I’m clear. What was the staff recommendation? Mr. Patty: Staff recommended it be approved with several conditions. Mr. Kuhlke: What were those conditions? Mr. Patty: I think my exact comment was I can only recommend it to you with the following conditions: (1) That the only commercial use of the property shall be a conference center as presently used and no other commercial business shall occupy any portion of the property, and if the conference center ceases to operate, then the zoning classification shall immediately and automatically revert to C-1; (2) that all events end not later than midnight and all persons depart not later than 12:30 a.m.; (3) alcohol not to be sold on the premises, but an open bar would be permitted; (4) no alcoholic beverage is to be taken from the building; (5) a Richmond County deputy is to be present at all event; (6) if amplified entertainment is present, it shall not be audible outside the building; and (7) this zoning classification shall automatically revert to P-1 January 1, 2001 unless further rezoning action is taken. And the reason for the last one was to give them an opportunity to show that they can control use of the property as it was suggested they can. Mr. Kuhlke: And what was the reaction to the petitioner in regard to your conditions? Mr. Patty: The petitioner was agreeable to all but the last condition, I believe. Mr. Kuhlke: How about the property surrounding the center? Mr. Patty: There was no indication of that from the neighborhood. Mr. Kuhlke: No indication? Mr. Patty: That they were agreeable to that. Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you. Page 4 Mayor Young: We had two people signed up in advance who wanted to speak to this zoning issue today, Mr. Tom Watkins. Tom, are you here? Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir. Mayor Young: Tom, if you would come up and under the rules of the Commission, as a delegation you have five minutes. Please give us your name and address. Mr. Watkins: My name is Tom Watkins, 310 Green Street. Can I yield my time to Terry Leiden? Mayor Young: As long as you don’t exceed five minutes. Mr. Watkins: Terry: Mayor Young: Please state your name and address for the record. Mr. Leiden: My name is Terry Leiden. I’m the property owner at 330 Telfair Street. That’s the law office directly across the street from the rezoning. I speak in opposition to this rezoning. The area of the 300 block of Telfair Street is occupied by many agencies of the United Way. They are residential home providers, they provide social and educational agencies. The CSRA Economic Opportunity provides social and financial advice. The American Association for Retired People has an office there, and it provides educational counseling for the senior citizens. At 343 Telfair Street is the Georgia Youth Advocacy Program. It performs legal and social services. In short, from 317 Telfair all the way up to the 400 block, services are provided by religious, educational, senior citizens. This is obviously a professional area. It’s what it’s zoned for and it’s appropriate. However, the problem is the Peter S. Knox Center. As they indicated and as Mr. Patty put in, he put in restrictions about the dispensing of liquor, about the dispensing of alcoholic beverages, about the use of amplified music. There are plenty of places downtown, the Government House, the Medical College of Georgia, which provide these services. Right in the middle of this residential area and professional, directly across the street from Houghton School, they want to have a place where they can come in and have parties, dispense liquor, as long as it’s free or even perhaps with a cash bar, and they’re going to require the use---in fact, one of the requirements was that there will be a deputy on the premises at all times. Well, we don’t need a deputy Page 5 down there if there’s no parties and liquor and bands playing. And the concept that the United Way needs to dispense liquor for purposes of making a profit to support its agencies is hypocritical to me. I don’t see how that makes sense. We have no problems with the professional use and the agencies across the street, but I do request that you seriously consider this and turn down this use, as it’s detrimental to the neighborhood. And I’d like to point out to you that about That Darn Can three years ago, they filmed the movie and they used the 200 and 300 block of Telfair Street as the background because of all the Victorian homes they had there and the uses of it. Now it seems inconsistent to me that we’re spending th half a million dollars to renovate the Wilson house at 6 and Telfair and yet we’re doing something that is obviously going to degenerate the neighborhood in the 300 block of Telfair Street. I ask you to seriously consider this because I sometimes get a little upset about charities and charitable- related activities that somehow seem to buttressed upon the fact that they must dispense beer, wine, and other alcoholic beverages in order to maintain their existence in our community. Thank you. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Leiden. Mr. William Mundell, the president of the Olde Town Neighborhood Association, has also asked to speak today. Mr. Mundell, as you come to the microphone, let me pass on to the Clerk a couple of communications I’ve gotten from you so we can include these in the record. The first is a letter dated October 12, 1999 expressing your opposition and attached to it is a copy of the Olde Town Neighborhood plan, and a subsequent communication restating your position dated October 18, 1999. We’ll include those in the record. Mr. Mundell, you have five minutes. Please state your name and address. Mr. Mundell: I’m William Mundell, president of the Olde Town Neighborhood Association. I reside at 459 Greene Street. Our opposition to this rezoning has two major reasons. Firstly, the present use. There’s been a noise problem. There have been numerous complaints about the noise. The conference facility is approximately ten feet from the nearest house. There is a condo complex right around that building. It’s probably 100 feet, if not less, from the facility so the location is clearly a problem when it comes to noise. The second issue has to do with the B-1 zoning. Olde Town is an historic neighborhood. Many of you worked to help to save this neighborhood. We have a tenuous situation in Olde Town. We have very few people who own their own homes and live down here. It just happens that the Conference Center is located Page 6 right beside two of the very few owner-occupied homes in Olde Town, two grand mansions which are right beside the center. We believe that an important part of historic preservation of Olde Town is to retain the residential nature of Olde Town. 80 percent of the buildings in Olde Town are rented, of the houses in Olde Town are rented. We would like to encourage people to buy down here and I believe the Conference Center will drive people away. We’re not trying to put anybody out of business. We’re not trying to put down the United Way and we have met with the Knox family and met with the [inaudible] office to try to reach a compromise. I simply believe that there has certainly been enough time for us to do so. We’re not ogres, we’re trying to protect an historic neighborhood from noise and from B-1 zoning. I might add that we believe that if this B-1 zoning goes through, then several other properties which are out of zoning or which have in the past applied for B-1 zoning will have a precedent to point to. And then we’re going to look to several other B-1 properties emerging in our neighborhood to the detriment of the residential nature of Olde Town. Thank you. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mundell. Mr. Pat Rice has indicated he would like to speak on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Rice, please come to the podium and state your name and your address. Mr. Rice: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m Pat Rice and my address is 3126 Montpelier Drive in Augusta, Georgia. Mr. Mayor, I want to cover a lot of ground and I’m going to do so as quickly as I can. I want to correct a couple of matters on the record. There are no cash bars that are operated at the Conference Center and there are no sales of liquor by the United Way or any of the other agencies. We do allow people who are having a private function there to have an open bar for their guests. The other thing I would like to correct is the use that we are proposing for this property is exactly the same use which this property was allowed to use throughout the early, middle 80’s through the middle 90’s. It’s exactly the same use that the Telfair Inn put this property to, for conferences, for seminars, for meetings, and sessions where liquor was served at those functions as well. So we are really not asking for a tremendous change to the neighborhood but for a continuation of what was allowed before. Now I’m here today representing some of Augusta’s most worthy charitable service organizations. These people are taking care of the poor and downtrodden in this community. They are taking care of the people who can’t take care of themselves. They are offering services to the youth of our community, to the senior citizens of our community, to the people who have Page 7 no jobs, who need training, who need counseling, who need education, and who are suffering from incurable diseases. As we all know, these agencies themselves exist on a shoestring. Now the purpose of this zoning request, and it’s not for the entire service center there, gentleman, it is for one building, the building with the red awning which was the reception center for the old Telfair Inn and the conference center, which is immediately behind it. I’m sure everyone in this room has been in there at one time or another. It’s not for all the dwellings and buildings in that area. Now the problem is this, ladies and gentlemen, that these agencies can’t support themselves. These agencies were given these buildings by the United Way. They need some additional income in order to keep up these properties and to maintain them. In the last few months since we’ve opened this conference center, we’ve put $150,000 into this larger service center. We have committed for $250,000 over the next five years for the entire service center to upgrade it in every respect. Now how are we doing that today? We are doing that today through the income we’re getting from the conference center through dues we charge these agency members and through the generosity of the Knox Foundation. Now gentlemen, we wouldn’t have Olde Town today, I submit to you as honestly and as sincerely as I can, we would not have Olde Town as we know it today if it had not been for Mr. Peter Seymour Knox. Mr. Peter Seymour Knox has given this great asset back to the community in order that the community may serve those that this community needs to serve the most. I think it’s the least that we can do, is to allow this group of agencies to support themselves, to maintain those properties, to continue to carry out their functions. The Knox family should not be charged with responsibility of carrying on this load by themselves. It’s not fair. They’ve done enough for this community. They give to 60 separate charitable organizations in this community and maintain any number of other ones, all by themselves. They’ve given us the Sacred Heart Cultural Center. They’ve given us all of the facilities used by the Hale House and other facilities of that nature in our community. I merely ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to allow them to continue what they have done for this community and let the community given a little something back in the honor and the memory of Mr. Seymour Knox. Now let me say one other thing, Mr. Mayor. One of the services we want to provide is that one of our member agencies wants to take those kids from Houghton School, bring them across the street, and teach them computer literacy. These are children that don’t have computers in their homes. That’s the type of service that we want to render, and that’s the type of service, if you will allow this zoning, that will continue. I have a letter here I don’t know if you’ve seen from the Page 8 Sheriff that they’ve had no complaints about this property. That’s from the Sheriff’s office, signed by Mr. Sid Hatfield. We have agreed to all of the terms and the conditions mentioned by Mr. Patty except the one that we do not want to have to come back before you in a year or a year-and-a-half and have to go through this process all over again. We think that’s unreasonable. Everything else is written into our contract. We have asked these people to join one of our boards, to be an advisory board to tell us how to run this place better. Mr. Mayor, thank you for your time. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Rice. If we could, let’s have a show of hands of the Commission. Those who are in favor of the petition here today, if you’d raise your hands, if you’re in favor of the rezoning. The Clerk: 23, okay. Mayor Young: If you’re in favor of the rezoning, raise your hand. Now if we could have a show of hands of those who oppose the rezoning. The Clerk: 21. Mayor Young: Is there anyone else who would like to speak with respect to this? If you would come up to the podium please and give us your name and your address. Ms. Lofton: My name is Yvonne Lofton. Mayor Young: Would you speak up, please? Ms. Lofton: Yes, my name is Yvonne Lofton. I’m a realtor and I own property in the 300 block of Greene Street, right across from or near Mr. Leiden’s office, which I rent and I’m spending a lot of money on my building right now to upgrade it for my tenants. Actually to me that is kind of like a business for me, but I have always been interested in Olde Town for about 18, 19 years that I have owned this building. And Mr. Rice is talking about the Knox family and how they give and give and give and they’ve given Olde Town to us. The Knox family has taken a lot from Olde Town, also. I’m not saying anything bad about the Knox family, but knowing what I know and having the years of experience in real estate that I have and having done the research that I’ve done on the tax records, they’ve gotten plenty of tax breaks, they’ve gotten government money, they’ve gotten all kinds of benefits for themselves in return for what they’ve given. So I think the community, the taxpayers, have given a lot to the Knox Page 9 family as well. So they’ve gleaned a lot of benefits out of the Olde Town area themselves and out of their participation in the Olde Town area. And I simply believe that the organizations that are there, they may work on a shoe string, but my understanding is that the reason they want to have this center open is to get at least $50,000 income so that they can maintain their buildings. They were given these buildings free. If somebody gives me a $165,000 building or a $180,000 building, I believe I can pay $280 fee to maintain it. That’s all that these companies are having to pay. 280 bucks a month is what they’re having to pay into the association to maintain these buildings. It costs me a lot more than $280 a month to maintain my building, and I feel like they’re getting something for free. There is no free lunch anymore, and if these organizations, if they can’t stand on their own feet, they don’t need to be standing. They need to go ahead and sell the building, put the money into their projects, and do something else with it. But I don’t think that it’s right to destroy the neighborhood down there and the nature of one of the best neighborhoods that we have in Augusta, some of the most beautiful, some of the most gorgeous buildings you have ever seen are down there. Many of you haven’t been in some of them, but they’re truly remarkable. They’re works of art. And for them to destroy the nature of the neighborhood to save 280 bucks a month seems kind of petty to me, and that’s basically what they say they’re doing this, putting all this effort into it, to get $50,000. Cause when they say they’ve put $150,000, they put all this other money into the building itself and do these upgrades, for what? To get $50,000? That doesn’t make sense to me. The whole thing doesn’t make sense to me and I think there must be some other reason that they’re doing that. Maybe they want the B-1 zoning. I don’t know exactly what they’re planning down there but I don’t like it and I think it’s going to be bad for the whole neighborhood and that’s all I wanted to say. Thank you. Mayor Young: Thank you, Ms. Lofton. Let’s see if the Commissioners--let’s see, Mr. Bridges, you have your hand up? Mr. Bridges: For those that support the rezoning, would you show your hands if you live in Olde Town? The Clerk: If you live in Olde Town. Mr. Bridges: Those that support the rezoning, those that raised your hand in support of rezoning, could I see the hands of those people that live in Olde Town? Okay, thank you. Mayor Young: If you’d like to speak, come up to the Page 10 podium and advise us who you are and your address and speak up so we can all hear you. Ms. Knox: I hadn’t planned to say anything. I’m Pat Knox and I hate controversy, but I just wanted to say of all people, my father-in-law was Peter S. Knox. My husband was Peter S. Knox, III and my son is Peter S. Knox, IV so of all people, I don’t want that place to have a bad name. I want it to just do good for the community. And that’s really the goal. And I would be willing to come down and police the parties or anything I can to help the agencies still stay there and not have it turn back into places that are not well kept, because they’re going to be well kept. And also I wanted to point out that I am committed to downtown, because downtown means so much to me, that I, too, would like to be a citizens of this town. So that’s all I wanted to say. Mayor Young: Thank you, Ms. Knox. Mr. Kuhlke, you wanted to address? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we approve the rezoning subject to the conditions set forth by the staff of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’ll second that to get it on the floor for discussion. Mayor Young: All right, Mr. Bridges. Any discussion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me ask this question first of both Mr. Wall and Mr. Patty. I think this is one of the classic cases where many times you get zoning where there are good intentions on both sides. I think the main thing that we have to be concerned about is getting back to this original issue, what’s on the agenda, is a zoning change. And what comes about with any zoning change, whether it’s in this neighborhood or any other neighborhood. What I’m a little disturbed about, and I guess in our modern day situation, Mr. Mayor, where everything gets to be so sensitive, and I’m kind of one of those advocates of a lot of things not being broken, why fix it? And I think you probably would not have a situation with the neighborhood nor with people from the center if it had been one of those things to be allowed to stay in its non-conforming status. Now there are conditions that are there, and I realize they’re in Mr. Kuhlke’s motion, but one of the conditions that is not in his motion, and I think that’s the crux of where the argument is. You said that Page 11 the petitioners agree to what those conditions are, but the other side has not agreed to what those conditions are. So what it means is that you basically can put them in or leave them out. It’s not a real thing in there with the neighborhood. The choice--I know we routinely change and we update and I made this situation clear when we voted on that lady that had the beauty salon a few weeks ago. I said I wasn’t going to be hypocritical and I’m not. She had a hardship situation. We allowed her to stay and continue that over into next year, Mr. Mayor. But you’re talking about now a zoning change. You change zoning regardless of all good intentions in the world. Many times, the petitioner of that good intention is not the person who upsets any balance of zoning in an area. It is what you open up when you change the zoning, whether it be from residential to professional or whether it be from professional to business. You have a change that you set precedence on. Now what I would have hoped to happen and maybe this is one of those things, Mr. Mayor, that it’s not so ethically safe. But this is one of those that probably would have been better left in its non- conforming state, allowed it to exist, you wouldn’t have the uproar cause you wouldn’t be going to a B-1 zoning. I’m wondering if there is somewhere in there, George, with some of these situations that we’re looking at, and I expressed this thing, and I know you can’t change or make laws in the middle of the case. But I was wondering if today we might not do anything and look at the status where some of this zoning exists. The beauty salon, for instance. Sure, I’m sure the young lady has walk-ins that come in. But Mr. Wall, Mr. Leiden, Mr. Rice, they also have some walk-ins, too. And what I expressed at that time was that maybe we need a softer zoning with some of the items that are there when you have a mixture of different things going on, particularly in an old neighborhood. And maybe that’s something that we need to look at on the drawing board of whether some of those things are first outdated, Mr. Mayor, as opposed to trying to bring some things into conformity that may in turn disrupt the rest of the neighborhood, not by the passage of what you’re doing with the Knox Center. I don’t think you necessarily have that problem, but you set a precedence when you do things. We’ve got unwritten buffers, as you know, Mr. Patty. I mean Summerville, around St. Joseph Hospital, where we’ve even had certain alleyways that were the border lines of where we put in certain types of zoning. I’ve been here long enough to remember that we did some things in Olde Town the same way. And we said that we would not go beyond those certain boundaries. Now while this is a very worthwhile organization and organizations, to deal with that zoning, we still set some artificial boundaries in place. Now are we at a certain point Page 12 in our history where we throw those away? Or while we’re making changes, are we looking too much at trying to bring into conformity as opposed to allow them to exist so that you don’t invite other changes that may come under B-1 that would not be as wholesome as what would go into the center. That’s my question to zoning and to legal counsel, and if it stays like it is, I cannot be hypocritical and I cannot support a zoning change, no matter how worthwhile the organization’s intent is. You still have a change of zoning and I remind other Commissioners where we sat here, and organizations that have been nowhere near worthwhile as what we’re talking about today, in terms of the Knoxes’ situation and those buildings, that we have turned down zoning, we have turned down other forms of licenses that if the folk had enough money to probably go to court and get them a good lawyer, they could overturn that because we had no basis probably to hold them up. But yet we haggle with these in these semi-residential areas and now upset that apple cart and that balance. I think they can co-exist. I just think you all need to find a creative legal way of doing it. Mayor Young: Mr. Patty, did you want to say anything? It looked like you were ready to pounce on the microphone. Mr. Patty: I was going to respond that we didn’t go out and seek this out, believe me. I mean, the neighbors, some of the neighbors objected to it, they raised the issues. When we reviewed those issues, we felt that it was out of zoning under present zoning. Now the only other solution I can think of, and I hesitate to throw this out now to confuse the issue. You could--we don’t have anything between professional zoning and commercial zoning. It’s possible that we could rewrite some sections of the ordinance to allow some sort of soft transitional zone where there would be strict control over commercial and that sort of thing. Other than that, now that this issue has been raised, I think you’ve got to zone it or not zone it. If you zone it with conditions, the precedent is not nearly as dangerous as to zone it without conditions. Zoning something that has been in the neighborhood for 15 years or more with conditions would certainly not have broad application to other properties that somebody might want to establish for commercial use where it’s never been before. Mr. Mays: My only problem with that, Mr. Patty, is that, and I’ve followed your advice cause you give some pretty good advice and we agree most of the time. But it bothers me if I’m going to hear that where we refer to one particular incident or at some point we may get another request down the road and we turn it down based on the precedent that it’s Page 13 setting in the particular neighborhood. Now I don’t thing the Commission can have a situation of Dorothy following the yellow brick road both ways. If we’re going to talk about precedent and what it sets in the neighborhood, I don’t ever want to hear precedent brought before me as a Commissioner to say this is what it’s going to affect in an area. Either it needs to be agreed up and will stay that course and deal with it, or we try to deal with some creative that you have. I asked the question a little while ago about the difference between the law firm. They may make a little more money. But we were going to have to change that salon to a neighborhood business to get it in, when she probably was not going to get any more clients than a law firm would. That’s why I’m saying that if you are going to get about changing, and obviously somebody want to change this, which came first, the chicken or the egg? I don’t really care whether they approached you or you approached them. That’s not the issue. You’ve got to still deal with a zoning matter. And if we’re going to vote it down, then I’m prepared to vote that way and I probably will get whipped on it. But that won’t be the first time, either, Mr. Mayor, I usually get whipped a bunch of times, get up on count two, but I just want to remind the Commission you’re going to see precedent brought forth from the same agency out of our zoning, about what it’s going to do when we change it, when we get to some other areas in this city and what it’s going to change. And I’m going to be the loud dog that’s going to remind you of it. Mayor Young: Thank you very much, Mr. Mays. We’ll go down the line here. First, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Beard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to ask Mr. Patty if he knew of the Sheriff’s records did not indicate previous problems with this location as to amplified sound, as to late parties, as to trash from parties, this kind of thing. Do you have that in your commission’s record? Mr. Patty: I think Mr. Hatfield is in the meeting. I saw him earlier. Mr. Rice has got a letter in his hand that I’ve got in a file. It says basically there have been no incidents. I’ll read it to you, if you like. Mr. Shepard: If you would just summarize it for us. Mr. Patty: It says, it is from Sid Hatfield. It says he and Mr. Strength have spoken with supervisors who are knowledge with the location, and it is their understanding that there is a substation open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with constant in-and-out traffic, and consulting with the Page 14 supervisor in charge of special duty events and has been assured that a deputy has been employed for functions at the conference city. We have not been made aware of any complaints or problems at this location. Sid Hatfield. October 1. Mr. Shepard: The second question is to the petitioners, if they would also respond as to what complaints they’re aware of, and also what, if any, of these comprise conditions could be accepted by them. I think there are seven of them. If Mr. Mundell is speaking--not Mr. Rice, but the neighborhood. Mr. Mundell, Mr. Leiden, whoever would like to respond, I would appreciate knowing that. Mr. Mundell: Yes, I think that there is a compromise that we tried to approach them with on several occasions, that Mr. Patty seems to think will work, and the time with the center, they don’t like that. We’re willing to leave it as a P and stop the parties at ten o’clock. Keep it that simple. There have been incidents. The [inaudible] have had incidents. Tony’s had incident. Gwen Pollard had four incidents. I personally have had at least four incidents of calling the police on noise. These parties go on past 12, one, two o’clock in the morning. There’s a lot of disturbance in the neighborhood. We’ve spent a lot of money investing and paying our mortgage for 15, 20 years and we just feel like we should be allowed to live peacefully as you would next door to your home, and you wouldn’t allow parties for 150 to 200 people every weekend or every other weekend. But if they would leave this a P and stop at ten o’clock, I’d go over there and help them paint the places myself and volunteer for it. Mayor Young: Thank you. Would someone from--Mr. Rice, do you want to respond to Mr. Shepard’s questions? Mr. Rice: Mr. Mayor, we agree to all those conditions except we would just ask not to be brought back through this whole process again in another year-and-a-half or whatever it would be. I can tell Mr. Shepard that there’s a fulltime, 24 hour-a-day police substation in this property. And they’re in and out all day long as the letter said. I would also submit that since we met with the neighbors back in spring and early summer, that these two o’clock parties or whatever have not occurred because we have a rule that it’s over at 12. All those problems long pre-date recent times when we’ve conversed with the neighbors. Mayor Young: Could the petitioner accept the proposal Page 15 from the neighborhood to keep the P zoning and stop the parties at ten? Mr. Rice: I don’t think that that is economically feasible. Most of the parties, Mr. Mayor, we also have seminars and conferences. The parties we have are primarily wedding receptions, people getting married at seven o’clock at night and tell them they’ve got to finish at ten is probably unfair to them. We’re willing to try to find a compromise, but we’ve compromised already to 12, which we understood was the original request. Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I ask the attorney and possibly Mr. Patty, but we said a couple months ago or a month or so ago that we were having another coming when we were dealing with the beauty salon, and I just want to know what is the difference here between what we did a month ago, if you can recall that. I know it’s probably putting you on the spot. I just want to know what’s the difference here. Because I supported that then for the rezoning, but now I’m hearing that--and that was voted down, that was voted down. And here we come up with the same thing and it might go farther. So what is the difference? It’s kind of confusing when you have two cases coming up in the same neighborhood and are we doing the same thing here today that we did back then or are we giving see leeway here today? I really would like to know that. Mr. Wall: Well, no, you’re not doing the same thing. Mr. Patty reminds me that it was turned down but was allowing the business owner to stay in the business until the end of December. There you had a new business. Here with the condition, the motion that is being made would extend it out for approximately 16 months, 18 months, where they would have to come back before you sometime in the fall of the year 2000, if they wanted to continue that same function activity within that and seek a rezoning, possibly with the same extension, same condition, or with different conditions, or be turned down and cease to use it at that point. So it’s a longer period of time that they’d be given an opportunity to use it. In the situation with the beauty salon, it was to the end of the year and it was turned down. Mayor Young: Wasn’t the beauty salon zoned for multi- family, I think? Multi-family, something like that? Mr. Patty: It was zoned professional. Page 16 Mayor Young: Professional? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, just on the that’s on the floor that has the parties ending at 12 o’clock. I’ve heard what Tom had to say. Is that--and I’m asking the residents of Olde Town. Are y’all in agreement with Tom and the ten o’clock or would this compromise be something that ends at 12, would that be something y’all could live with? I’m seeing no--unless somebody responds. Mayor Young: Would you come up to the microphone so we can get you on record? Speaker: When I spoke to the people who live near--I live a couple of blocks away so the noise doesn’t affect me. I said to them, we are saying 10. That’s the number they came up with. The center is saying 12. To me, the middle line is 11. And I’m not sure that that was acceptable to them. To me, that’s a compromise. It’s a little more reasonable than 10 and certainly the parties should end at 11. In my mind, any party which goes beyond midnight, there are other places to go, other places not very far from it. I think perhaps 11 is a little better than 12. 12 generally means 12:30 that people are still going to be on the property. And that’s a problem when it’s ten feet from your house. Mr. Bridges: George, a question I’ve got, too, is presently as it’s zoned now, are they having parties here that are to 12 o’clock and serve alcohol and they’re allowed to that, they’re not required to have a policeman? What’s the purpose of these restrictions? I mean are they able to do this now? Mr. Patty: Now, it’s our position that they’re out of compliance with the zoning at the present time, and these are conditions that would soften up the zoning classification to make it fit in the neighborhood as best as possible. Mayor Young: Mr. Jerry Brigham and then Mr. Handy. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Patty, I’ve got a couple of questions for you and maybe Mr. Wall at the same time. My concern is the B-1 zoning and the precedent that it’s going to be setting. I’m kind of like Mr. Beard. I didn’t vote for a compromise the last time, I voted against it. But I have a concern why would the planning staff be opposed to a B-1 zoning that’s going from Professional to B-1 on one side of the street and be in support of a B-1, going from Professional Page 17 to B-1 on the opposite side of the street? I do not understand this. Mr. Patty: I’ve got two answers for that. One is that the neighborhood plan for this area actually shows the center of this block in the current land use commercial and the future land use pattern being commercial. It does not show that on the side where the other zoning application was last month or two months ago. The second reason I would say that is, is once again you’ve got a use that’s been in place for 15 years. There’s been a slight change in situation that we felt justified rezoning with conditions. I submit to you with the conditions, you’re not setting the precedent that would allow someone else to come in next to the property and argue before a court of law that you did this for us, you’ve got to give us carte blanche for B-1 zoning to put a gas station or shop or you name it in here. That just isn’t the way it works. Mr. Wall: And for the record, I agree with Mr. Patty on that. Mr. Patty: All you’re doing is setting a precedent for similar zoning or similar conditions, and I just don’t see tremendous danger in that. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Patty, you said that the original, the beginning this was done to correct the situation. That’s the way I’m understanding you; is that correct? Mr. Patty: That’s correct. Mr. J. Brigham: Now what happens ten years from now when these people aren’t here and there’s another B-1 zoning case and the question comes up to precedent. Does the argument there’s B-1 zoning next door and we have forgotten about this meeting and faces up here have changed completely? Mr. Patty: I don’t think we’ll forget about it. If this is approved with conditions, there will be deed restrictions put on the property with things and conditions. And anybody that pulls that title will know that. Mr. J. Brigham: The other question I have is if somebody was to come in in the same situation that has a previous zoning that was non-conforming and the use is stopped, are we going to recommend the proper zoning for every non-conforming when the owners change? Mr. Patty: Well, I can tell you this was one of the Page 18 toughest decisions you have to make in zoning. You get somebody that comes in with a current market that’s obviously a commercial building that’s not suitable for residential use. Its two years have expired, it’s no longer got its commercial zoning. That’s a tough decision, to tell them to shut it down and they can’t use the property or give them zoning that might not be compatible with the neighborhood. I don’t think there’s any pat answer to that. I think in certain cases you have to give them. I think in certain cases you have to not do it. Mr. J. Brigham: Mayor Young I make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor? The way I’m going to make the substitute motion is that we acknowledge the non-conforming use of this zoning, allow it to operate as it has historically operated in a non- conforming use. Mr. Wall, I may need some guidance. I’m willing to accept on any restrictions that you think need to be placed even as to closing time, and I’m willing to compromise on a closing time at 11 o’clock and accept the other restrictions that the tradition has accepted, too, without bringing it back in 18 months. Mayor Young: Do we have a second for the substitute motion? Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: Mr. Handy wanted to speak. Mr. Patty, Mr. Handy wanted to ask you something. Mr. Handy? Mr. Handy: George, we have two motions on the floor. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Handy, before you get started, our legal advisor advised me that I can’t make that motion. The Clerk: Are you withdrawing it? Mr. J. Brigham: Yes. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Handy: What I’d like to know, George, is what are they doing different today than they were doing in the past? Is the extension of term going to open it to [inaudible]? Mr. Patty: Let me answer that question, and it’s going to contradict what my good friend Mr. Rice said. During my discussions with several people about this property, I Page 19 expressed to them, on the petitioner’s side, I expressed to them that what the neighborhood had told me as far as usage change, it had gone from being a conference center where I’m sure there was an occasional wedding there, but it gone from basically a conference center that was kind of [inaudible] in the neighborhood to a building that was rented for essentially any purpose after the change in ownership, after ’98, and it became a place where there were a lot more parties, a lot more weddings, lot more things that you couldn’t say were incidental to what had formally been the hotel use. So between the change in ownership and the change in the use, we felt that there was definitely a change in zoning needed. Mr. Handy: So you’re saying that prior to the change, you have more traffic now than we had before the change in ’98? Mr. Patty: I suppose so, if now you’ve got more weddings and more parties versus more conferences and things of that nature. Mr. Handy: But the same conditions, same things going on now, today, that was in ’98, as far as parties and things? Mr. Patty: Well, August ’98 is when the Knox community service center owners association opened the Knox community center. Our position is that the use changed when the ownership changed. Collectively that resulted in the need for a zoning change. Mr. Handy: That’s not what I am asking you. What I’m saying is whether or not there was parties or whether or not it was rent the building out to have the same type functions prior to ’98 and today? Mr. Patty: Okay, it was submitted to me by the people I talked to in the neighborhood that there was a change. I discussed that with various people on the petitioner’s side. I discussed it with them several times and no one told me that that wasn’t the case. Nobody submitted that wasn’t the case. Now Mr. Rice has testified that the use didn’t change, and all I’m telling you is this is the first time I’ve heard that. Mr. Wall: Let me see if I can make a comparison. In my mind, the way it was explained to me. Before if you had a hotel or something that had a conference room, then that conference room would be used incidental to the operation of that place of lodging. Yes, you might have an occasional outside group rent that room, use that room for the occasional Page 20 party, reception, whatever. Now you do not have that incidental use. This building is being used, as I understand it, solely to be rented out to organizations to host functions there. And that’s the difference in the use. Mayor Young: But the activity that goes on in the building is the same activity that went on when the property was part of the Telfair Inn; is that not correct? Mr. Wall: Still receptions, from that vantage point, yes, it is. Mayor Young: Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: I guess for clarification, we have a motion on the floor since Mr. Brigham withdrew his motion. But could I hear the additions one more time. And if we could hear those conditions, then I’m going to call for the order. Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, if you would read those conditions. The Clerk: The conditions are: The only commercial use of the property shall be a conference center as presently used, no other commercial business will occupy any portion of the property, and that if the conference center ceases to operate then the zoning classification shall immediately and automatically revert to P-1. All events end not later than midnight and all persons depart not later than 12:30 a.m. Alcohol not to be sold on the premises. Open bar is permitted. No alcoholic beverage is to be taken from the building. Richmond County deputy to be present at all events. If amplified entertainment is present, it shall not be audible outside the building. This zoning classification shall automatically revert to P-1 on January 1, 2001 unless further rezoning action is taken. Mr. H. Brigham: And that’s basically Mr. Kuhlke’s motion? The Clerk: Yes, sir. To approve with these conditions. Mr. H. Brigham: But Mr. Rice and those are saying they don’t want to come back. We have to reach that compromise. That may be something we may need to look at. I don’t know. But your motion was to include the come back. Mayor Young: Mr. Brigham has called the question. So we’re going to go ahead and vote on the original motion. All Page 21 in favor of the motion to rezone with those stipulations, please vote aye. The Chair has a question. The Chair doesn’t hesitate to vote, but the Chair does have a question. And that is, the Chair is a member of the Board of Directors of the United Way, and I need to find out if the United Way is in any way involved as a petitioner in this action. If it is, that would be a conflict and I would have to remove myself. Mr. Wall: The United Way owns the property. I think you’ve got a conflict. Mr. Rice: The United Way does not own the property. The property is owned by the individual agencies and it’s in common area that is owned by the property owners association. The United Way, in order for us to continue their [inaudible] has a vote. A vote. But they are not an owner of the property. They have one vote. Mr. Wall: In the use of the property? Mr. Rice: Yes. Mr. Wall: I still advise you not to vote. Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, in the spirit of keeping things moving forward without a big delay, I’d like to change my vote to an abstention. Mayor Young: I was going to offer something else, Mr. Powell. I was going to offer to resign from the Board of the United Way if that would make a difference, and then I would go ahead and vote. Is that acceptable, Mr. Wall? It brings a resolution to this and so these people don’t have to keep coming back. Mr. Powell, on the advise of counsel, we will allow you to change to abstention. Mr. Powell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE YES. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. COLCLOUGH & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. Mr. Handy: So it stays as it is? Page 22 Mr. Wall: There is no action. There is no action so it will have to come back at the next meeting. Mr. Handy: And so they continue on what they’ve been doing? Mr. Wall: Yes, in essence. Mr. Bridges: But they would have to conform to the existing zoning? Mr. Wall: We have allowed them to continue to operate pending a decision about the rezoning. Mr. Handy: But if they never get a decision, then they still going to go on like that. Mr. Wall: But not forever. I mean I think we bring it back in two weeks and see what happens and then make a decision. Mayor Young: I think in two week we’ll have eleven potential votes. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can you encourage the two groups to see if they can’t find a compromise? Mayor Young: Yes, sir, Mr. Brigham. I would encourage the two sides to use the next two weeks to see if they can indeed reach a compromise. It will be back on the next agenda. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Could we also, since we didn’t change the law to make an existing situation work, while we may be sending them off to compromise, is there some way that since we have some existing, non-conforming situations, that this Commission has voted on and put itself into being, that we might not find a way that that be brought back as one of the decisions, too? To at least have a chance to think about that? Mayor Young: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: In reference to where some of these that are falling under professional status versus B-1 because if anything is our case, I don’t think it’s bringing some of this Page 23 st into the 21 century. I think it’s the fact that some were named years and years ago, and that’s the problem. I think these people have good intention. Nothing’s wrong with what’s in there but one question I wanted to ask, and it doesn’t make any difference now, it’s not the property that’s being rezoned. What happens if an existing piece that’s residential or P-1 burns down, gets torn down, that existing property, if B-1 has been set in the same block, can be changed, that petitioner can go to any Superior Court judge in this town. Precedent has been set and in five minutes will so order this Commission to change that zoning to B-1, too. And I think that the attorney or somebody needs to explain that. It doesn’t matter what happens to the one that’s on record that we’re dealing with. It’s the one where you set the precedent and what it leads to. And we know we’ll get our butts kicked in Court if we deal with it that we. We open that Pandora’s box and we have no way of closing it. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. All right, Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead with the order of the day. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, our addendum agenda, we’re requesting to delete: Deletion Agenda: Item 43: Motion to approve a request by Daniel Coombs for a gameroom license to be used in connection with R Pizza Restaurant located at 3254 Wrightsboro Road. Item 44: Motion to approve a request by Daniel Coombs for a consumption on premise beer license to be used in connection with R Pizza Restaurant located at 3254 Wrightsboro Road. There will be Sunday sales. Item 46: Motion to approve a request by Michael Williams for a consumption on premise liquor license to be used in connection with Awaji Sushi Bar & Japanese Restaurant located at 2701 Washington Road, Suite 20. There will be Sunday sales. Addendum Agenda: Item 3: Request Board of Education to include a full gymnasium in the proposed Sue Reynolds School Project and authorize Administrator to identify possible funding sources for the shared construction of the gymnasium. Item 4: Authorize the Department of Public Works and Engineering Department to review and to approve the site plans for Hartich Road and BarSim Road if all requirements are met. Mr. Handy: So move. Page 24 Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Is there any objection? If there is no objection, these items are added to the agenda. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Clerk: Under the consent agenda, Items 1 through 49, with the exception of those items deleted, which are Item 43, 44, and 46. PLANNING: 1. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the condition ‘That a fifty (50) foot undisturbed natural buffer be retained along the west property line’ a petition from Rev. Donald r. Jordan, on behalf of Leo Ghitter, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church with day care and preschool as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the south right-of-way line of Glenn Hills Drive, 345.0 feet east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Breeze Hill Drive and Glenn Hills Drive. 2. Pulled from consent agenda. 3. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Aloisia Timblin requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Olive Road, 188.0 feet northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of Barnes Road intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Olive Road (2061 Olive Road). 4. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Reginald D. Simmons, on behalf of Nellie G. Boone, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 1,117 feet, more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Dixon Airline Road and Mike Padgett Highway. 5. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Joseph Jones, on behalf of Mary H. Stone, requesting a change of zoning Page 25 from Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) and Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road, 175.0 feet east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Kratha Drive and Milledgeville Road (2310 Milledgeville Road). 6. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from William Hooker requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residence) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Wade Road, 823 feet, more or less, east of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Wade Road intersects the southeast right-of-way line of McDuffie Road. 7. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition ‘That all parking shall be in improved areas of rear yards and that ingress/egress shall be via shared driveways. A site plan showing such shall be prepared by a civil engineer and submitted to the Planning Commission. Upon approval, the site plan will be sent to the Public Works Department for inspection. When the improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of Public Works, then a Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued. If a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within six months, then the zoning shall automatically revert to R-2’ a petition from Dennis Killips, on behalf of Brothersville Development, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the north right-of- way line of Lumpkin Road, 585 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Wells Drive and Lumpkin Road 2433-37 Lumpkin Road). 8. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition ‘That the rear yard provisions of the Augusta Tree Ordinance be applied to the north property line subject to the variance granted by the Augusta Tree Commission on August 16, 1999’ a petition from Alvin L. Coleman requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Lumpkin Road and Fleming Drive (2819 Fleming Drive). 9. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Eugene T. Kirkland, on behalf of J.B. Powell, Jr., requesting a change of zoning from L1 (Light Industry) to Zone A (Agriculture) Page 26 on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Braswell Road, 2,185 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 88 and Braswell Road (4005 Braswell Road). 10. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Kimbel W. Stokes, on behalf of Reeves Construction Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road, 1,254 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Georgetown Drive and Deans Bridge Road. 11. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition ‘That the existing one-hundred (100) percent visual buffer be maintained along the western property line at all times to visually screen the propane gas tank storage from adjacent residents; and in the event the existing buffer is removed, that the rear buffer yard provisions of the Augusta Tree Ordinance be applied to the western side of the subject property’ a petition from Ferrell Gas requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence), Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of the Georgia & Florida Railroad line and Lumpkin Road (1806 Lumpkin Road). 12. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Robert L. Herrington, Jr., on behalf of Southern Specialty Development Corp., requesting Final Plat Approval of Walton Hills, Phase IIA and Phase IIB Roadways. These phases are an extension of Deerchase Lane and Sandstone Lane, adjacent to Walton Hills, Phase I. Phase IIA contains 16 lots and Phase IIB is future development and contains 2 lots. 13. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Robert L. Herrington, Jr., on behalf of Southern Specialty Development Corp., requesting Final Plat Approval of Walton Hills, Phase III (Roadways). This phase is an extension of Brookstone Road, adjacent to Walton Hills, Phase I, is future development, and contains 2 lots. 14. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Southern Partners, Page 27 Inc., on behalf of ATC Development Company, requesting Final Plat Approval of St. George Townhouses, Phase One, Section One. This phase is located on West Wheeler. FINANCE: 15. Motion to approve a request to abate 1999 taxes Map 54; Parcel 62.09. 16. Motion to approve abatement of 1999 taxes on Map 36-3; Parcels 193 & 194 and Map 72-2; Parcels 446. 17. Motion to approve grant agreement with the Department of Community Affairs to establish museum at Augusta Cotton Exchange and hold funds until June 30, 2000 or until an overall plan is established for the Cotton Exchange. Should no long range plan be developed by June 30, 2000 return grant monies to the State. 18. Motion to approve refund of 1996, 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of $73.45 to Albert Thomas for overpayment of taxes on Account 2029650. 19. Motion to authorize Fleet Management to sell two (2) excess Police vehicles to the City of Louisville in the amount of $5,500. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 20. Motion to approve proposed 2000 LARP Program List. 21. Motion to approve proposed list of streets for resurfacing by County forces to be forwarded to Georgia Department of Transportation for approval. 22. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Number 323-04- 299823069 in the amount of $1,350,000 for the 1999 Resurfacing Various Roads, Phase IV Project and approved to let for bid. Funds to be allocated from Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III and Phase II Recapture. 23. Motion to approve conveyance of 0.19 acres to Don A. Grantham and Carol W. Grantham for the sum of $3,000.00 24. Motion to approve payment of $8,401.95 to DOT for water and sewer line relocation during bridge replacement on County Road 200/Wheeless Road at Rocky Creek. (Funded by Account No. 507043410-5425110/89900180-5425110.) 25. Pulled from consent agenda. 26. Motion to authority Attorney and Administrator to development payment plan for Alternate Energy Resources in accordance with collection policy regarding their remaining balance. 27. Motion to accept proposal for engineering services by Swift for design of the relocation of water mains and appurtenances at the Tobacco Road/US Highway 1 Page 28 intersection. 28. Motion to approve Change Order Number One in the amount of $24,457.00 for the Richmond Hill Road drainage Improvement Project (CPB #323-04-296823523) to be funded from the project construction account of this Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. 29. Motion to approve contract with GPM Environmental, Inc. in the amount of $86,958.00 to provide complete replacement rotating elements for the two Peerless Pumps at Raw Water Pump Station Number 1. (Funded by Account No. 507043410-5425110/89644260-5425110.) 30. Motion to approve Change Order #5 to the contract for Lock Replacement at the JLEC on 401 Walton Way. 31. Motion to approve Change Order #6 to the contract for Lock Replacement at the JLEC on 401 Walton Way. 32. Motion to approve Change Proposal #10 *will be Change Order #7) to the contract for Lock Replacement at the JLEC on 401 Walton Way. PUBLIC SAFETY: 33. Pulled from consent agenda. 34. Motion to approve for the Augusta Richmond County Fire Department to be the primary emergency agency for extrication services within Augusta Richmond County. 35. Motion to approve any cellular phone revenues over $350,000 to the Fire Department for 911 services up to the extent of eligibility. 36. Motion to approve hiring of one (1) Administration Assistant for the Fire Department Training Division with the beginning salary to be $22,202.00 funded by extrication fees. 37. Pulled from consent agenda. 38. Motion to approve an expenditure of $23,800 for providing data communications and computer equipment to the Fire Department Training Division on Reynolds Street. 39. Motion to approve Change Order #5 to the contract for Lock Replacement at the JLEC on 401 Walton Way. 40. Motion to approve Change Order #6 to the contract for Lock Replacement at the JLEC on 401 Walton Way. 41. Motion to approve Change Proposal #10 (will be Change Order #7) to the contract for Lock Replacement at the JLEC on 401 Walton Way. PUBLIC SERVICES: 42. Motion to approve first amendment to agreement between The Church of the Good Shepherd of Augusta, Augusta, the Page 29 Augusta Richmond County Public Library and the Scott B and Annie P. Appleby Trust. 43. Deleted from consent agenda. 44. Deleted from consent agenda. 45. Motion to approve a request by Bhagwandas P. Patel for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Raceway Convenience Store located at 1236 Gordon Highway. District 1. Super District 9. 46. Deleted from consent agenda. 47. Motion to approve a request by James Fedor for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Milledgeville Convenience Store located at 2517 Milledgeville Road, District 5. Super District 9. 48. Motion to approve a request by Chong Suk Christenson for a consumption on premise liquor & beer license to be used in connection with Chongs Lounge located at 3663 Deans Bridge Road. District 4. Super District 9. used in connection with Pak-N-Go Convenience Store located at 1649 Olive Road. District 5. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 49. Motion to approve the minutes of Commission October 5 regular meeting. APPOINTMENTS: 49A. Motion to appoint Mr. Otis A. Smith to the Animal Control board - District 5. Mr. Shepard: I move approval on the consent agenda. Mr. Handy: Second. The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors, can I identify those zoning areas? Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, can I pull item 33? I don’t think I have any problems with it but I do have some questions. Mayor Young: Yes, sir, we can pull that. Madame Clerk, if you’ll go ahead with the alcoholic beverage items. The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors to the zoning petition or alcohol license requests, Item 1, for a change of zoning to establish a church at the intersection of Page 30 Breeze Hill and Glenn Hills Drive; 2, approve a petition for change of zoning from a Zone A, agriculture to Zone B-1 for property located at the intersection of Boykin Road and Windsor Spring Road; and 3 is to approve a petition for a change of zoning from Zone R-1A, one-family, to a Zone B-1, neighborhood business, for property located at 2061 Olive Road; item four is to approve a petition for a change of zoning from Zone A, agriculture, to Zone B-1, neighborhood business, for property at the intersection of Dixon Airline Road and Mike Padgett Highway; five is to approve a petition for a change of zoning from Zone R-3-C, multiple family residence) and Zone B-2, general business, into Zone B-2, general business, for property located at Kratha Drive and Milledgeville Road; item 6 is [tape blank for period]; nine is to approve a petition for a change of zoning from a light industry to Zone A, agriculture, to property located at the intersection of Highway 88 and Braswell Road. Ten is a petition for a change of zoning from R-1-A, one family residence, and Zone B-2, general business, to Zone B-2, general business, for property located at the intersection of Georgetown Drive and Deans Bridge Road. Item 11 is to approve a petition for a change of zoning from Zone R-1-A, one family residence, to a Zone B-1, neighborhood business, and B-1, neighborhood business, to Zone B-2, general business, on property located at 1806 Lumpkin Road. Are there any objectors to those rezoning issues? Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson: I need to ask something about the second one. Mr. Powell: I was going to pull item no. 2. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Powell is going to pull that item out, Mr. Johnson. Mayor Young: We’ll go ahead and pull Item 2. Mr. Colclough: Pull Item 37. Mayor Young: 37? All right. The Clerk: These are the alcohol request applications. Are there any objectors? Please signify by raising your hand, please. A request for retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Raceway Convenience Store located at 1236 Gordon Highway. A motion to approve a request for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Milledgeville Convenience Store, 2517 Milledgeville Road. And Item 28, for an on-premise consumption beer and wine Page 31 license to be used in connection with Chongs Lounge located at 3663 Deans Bridge Road. Are there any objectors to these alcohol requests. None noted, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I would like to pull Item 25. Mayor Young: Any others? Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with the consent agenda? Mr. Shepard: Move for approval. Mr. Handy: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. All in favor, please vote aye. MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN. [ITEM 1] MOTION CARRIES 8-2 [ITEM 1] MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. [ITEMS 2-49A] MOTION CARRIES 9-1 [ITEMS 2-49A] The Clerk: Item 2: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Patricia S. Scott requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the east right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road, 514 feet more or less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Boykin Road and Windsor Spring Road (4254 Windsor Spring Road). Mayor Young: Mr. Powell? Mr. Powell: I have no problem with the rezoning portion of this. What the problem is that we’re having is a parking problem. We’re creating some traffic problems there. I’m having a numerous bunch of complaints there. I have no problem with the approval of it, but I’d like to put a stipulation on there that we get some adequate parking there, because it is creating quite a problem on Windsor Spring Road at times. And I make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Bridges: Second. Page 32 Mayor Young: Motion and second. Mr. Oliver? Mr. Oliver: I think the zoning ordinance--Mr. Patty’s here and he can speak to this. Because the definition of adequate parking in varying people’s minds is different. I think that the zoning regulations provide that certain types of zoning or certain types of businesses mandates so much parking and that that is part of the permitting process when they go to draw the permit. Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: Okay, if you approve the zoning, she will have to give us a site plan showing that she conforms to all of our ordinances and that would include the provision of adequate parking. She’s got a plan here that shows the potential for substantial parking. Mayor Young: Could you bring that up to Mr. Powell here? Mr. Powell: Mr. Patty, this approved plan, is this addition, additional zoning, or are we just doing it on that section or are we adding? Ms. (inaudible): This is a whole new site plan. Mayor Young: All right, we’ve got a motion and a second. Mr. Oliver: Does that address your concern, Mr. Powell? Mr. Powell: Yes. The only question I had was with the adequate parking, the complaints that we had. Mr. Oliver: Depending upon the use, we would require differing number of spaces. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second on Item 2. Motion to approve. All in favor, vote aye. MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. The Clerk: Item 25: Motion to approve concept for Augusta Commons Project subject to the property owners north of Reynolds Street becoming consistent with the plan and discussion with the property owner south of Broad Street. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: What I basically wanted to know was whether Page 33 there was anyone that was going to address on 25 and my question, I guess what it was, was they going to look at the plan as well as sitting in on Engineering Services Committee, have all the parties been talked to, and particularly the one I had reference to on the southern side of the project? Mr. Oliver: I don’t know if Mr. Murphy or Mr. Goins are here, and maybe Drew can say more than I can. I know that at a Main Street meeting, I think it was asked Wednesday, at that meeting, Mr. Robertson had set up an appointment with that particular individual and she was supposed to be at that meeting. However, for whatever reason she was unable to attend and I cannot answer whether those conversations have taken place, but I know that the effort has been made, according to Mr. Robertson’s account. Do you know, Drew? Mr. Goins: I know that they had rescheduled that meeting but I don’t know if the meeting took place. Mr. Oliver: As it relates to the north side, I cannot answer that. We don’t plan to proceed with the detailed design until there’s a formal agreement north of Reynolds and until we’re assure that at least those conversations have occurred. Mr. Mays: Not being sarcastic, but if we’re not sure whether they’ve talked about it on the south side and we’re not sure whether they’ve talked about it on the north side, and we are approving it based on what the motion was out of committee that they have the conversation and if we don’t know whether they talked, why are we voting on it? Mr. Oliver: We can bring it back after those conversations occur. That’s a decision that you all need to make. We can’t recommend proceeding until the negotiations on the north side are completed, and based on the committee’s direction and the conversations occurs with the property owners on the south side, but we would be more than willing to bring this back at the point that those conversations occur. We would note that that may have some impact on project schedule. Mayor Young: Would you like to make a motion to send it back to committee? Mr. Mays: I so move. And it’s a several million dollar project that we’re involved in and I just think when we’ve got seven figures of money out there on something, we ought to Page 34 know who is talking to who. Mr. Beard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second to send it back to committee. All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, sir, Mr. Handy? Mr. Handy: Why not just add in that motion to have whoever is involved to be here at the meeting where we’ll get that straight? Mr. Oliver: Personally I don’t think that it’s a good idea to have those discussions in the public arena. I think it makes it much harder on all the parties because you put the property owner, either one of them, in a position that they may have to discuss plans that they don’t want to make public at that particular point. Mr. Handy: Okay, then why are we holding up our meeting to see what they’re going to do then? I mean we can’t do anything until they have a decision, but yet still they don’t be involved with us to make that decision, so what do we have to do with whether they want to participate or not? Mr. Oliver: Well north of Reynolds, and I don’t recall-- was this in your committee, Mr. Handy? Okay, north, because of the potential that if that property does not develop in a method consistent with the plan, it will have a dramatic adverse impact upon this particular project. We believe that it’s critical that there be a written understanding between the parties as it relates to that development. As it relates south of the property, south of the project, the property south of the project is not critical to the proper development of the project, however I do believe that the responsible thing is that the property owner should know what is happening so that they can best use that property. Cause the property south could potentially be, this project could be extended alternatively as we discussed in our meeting. There may be a desire to put another anchor building at the end of the commons because it would create a nice effect. So there are multiple uses for that particular property, and that largely depends upon whether that property owner may have a vision to do with that property. Page 35 Mr. Handy: Okay, instead of having it in public, why can’t you and Mr. Wall get together with those two particular property owners and then come back to us with the answer? What’s wrong with that? Mr. Oliver: We can do that. Mr. Handy: Okay. Thank you. That’s okay, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I don’t have any problem with the physical presence here, Mr. Handy, or not, but I do have a problem when we’re spending in conjunction with this project, we’re in the middle of it. We’re talking about seven figure money and folks’ property, and I sit here and I’m going to say the same thing I said in that presentation. When I sit down I look at an artist’s rendition, it’s got somebody’s property on it that looks a different way because it’s already being included. And discussion has not been held with the property owner. Now maybe it’s held by now or maybe it’s being talked about while we speak, but the administrator does not have that in his confines, nor does the attorney have it in his, to say to us that that’s been talked about and agreed up. And I just have a problem when folks go around putting other folks’ property in pictures, in drawings, and co-mingle that with public money. I just left two Grand Juries that I could have been doing something else, somewhere else on the same minor stuff where we’re dealing with public money. I do have a problem with where that exists. We may not have anything to do with what they do with private property, but we have a public situation that we’re committing in the middle of it and when we go around agreeing to these concepts, they always prove to be bad business further down the road, because we accept the concept before we know where the full concept is going. Then we get a commitment and we have to turn around then and either condemn folks’ property or end up spending other money. And that’s my concern. So I don’t have a problem accepting an amendment to it, but I think it needs to go back and some information needs to be further shared with the Administrator inasmuch as that’s property, y’all can deal with that, but I think we need to know something on both sides of the issue that we’re committing millions of dollars into a green space here. And we’ve got some folks here in this county concerned about water. We know to know where this concept is going. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, we will try to move forward and get the answers to these concerns you have at our next meeting, if it’s the desire of the board to send it back to the committee. Mr. Kuhlke? Page 36 Mr. Kuhlke: No. Mr. Handy: I just want to close with something. That is why I asked that. We pay Jim. We do not pay Tom Robertson. We need them to go out and find out. Mayor Young: I think we’re paying him about $91,000. Mr. Handy: I don’t mean--he doesn’t work directly for us. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: The only thing I want to say is if I recall correctly, we approved the concept subject to Mr. Robertson coming back to us with some information. And I assume that’s what’s being asked for today, but I have no problems with Mr. Mays’ motion. Mr. Oliver: You are correct. Mayor Young: All in favor, then, of moving this back to the committee, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. The Clerk: Item 33: Motion to approve agreement to deputize members of the Richmond County Board of Education Police Force. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Handy: I second it. Mr. Bridges: I kind of got something, I guess handed to me through the back door. A question handed to me through the back door and see if maybe you can respond to this. If this goes through, does that mean that the school board investigating review or police or whatever will be doing the transporting and paperwork and that kind of thing, or will that still be the responsibility of Richmond County? Chief Deputy Hatfield: Basically it will remain the responsibility of the Sheriff’s Department. However, in all honesty to your question, there would be times, depending upon the incident and what the circumstance are, there would be, Page 37 that’s a possibility. Let me just comment for all of you and let you be aware, maybe just to bring you up to date. This is a request coming to the Sheriff’s Department from the Board of Education, specifically through Maj. Mike Farrell through the Board of Education and Dr. Larke. They have their own police agency, if you will, known to all of us as the Richmond County Board of Education police. Its authority is within and on school properties or 500 yards [inaudible]. Very similar to MCG, the Medical College of Georgia. Their own police agency, th on Medical College of Georgia property, be it the 15 Street area or be it some of the homes [end of tape] MR. COLCLOUGH ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. The Clerk: Item 37: Motion to approve a 30 month lease at $450 per month to purchase 10 ea. 8.8GB disk drives needed for HP VII. (Approved by Public Safety Committee October 11, 1999) Mr. Handy: I so move. Mr. Powell: Second. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. The Clerk: Item 51: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a petition from Paul Perdue requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-MH (manufactured Home Residence) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Patrick Avenue, 636.7 feet east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Windsor Spring Road and Patrick Avenue (2415 and 2417 Patrick Avenue). (This picks up on discussion of Item 51.) (Mayor Young is out of room; Mr. Handy serving as Chair). Mr. Mays: [beginning of tape] --parliamentary because you had a motion and a substitute. Can we go ahead and do one in there to deal with sending it back? I so move. Mr. Powell: I’ll second the motion to send it back and let him go through the process with the new-- Mr. Beard: Thank you. Page 38 Mr. Powell: And I withdraw the original motion. Mr. Beard: We have a motion on the floor to send this back to the committee, the planning commission. All in favor, let us be known by voting. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Beard: Yes, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: Could I just make a comment? On issues like this, Mr. Patty might want to make a note of this. I don’t think people ought to be allowed--they can withdraw, but I don’t think they ought to be allowed to come before this body and change their request and we have to make, I think they ought to automatically go back to the Planning Commission and I’d like to see us adopt a policy along those lines at some point. It just takes up time. Mr. Beard: And I agree with you, Mr. Kuhlke. That is the basis of my voting no on this, because I really didn’t think that we were filing the correct procedure. The vote has been taken. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1-1. (Mayor Young returns to meeting.) The Clerk: Item 52: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Gerald Havens, on behalf of Theresa Avant, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the southeast right-of- way line of Peach Orchard Road, 300.0 feet north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Elizabeth Drive and Peach Orchard Road (3412 Peach Orchard Road). Mayor Young: Are there any objectors present? Mr. Patty: This is one of the properties that sits up on the hillside, east side of Peach Orchard Road. I guess that last section of Peach Orchard Road that’s not commercial. It’s a very similar situation to Washington Road and still appears to be pride of ownership in that area and there is some zoning of course. Satcher Boulevard and Peach Orchard but there’s no spot zoning in that inner block area, and we recommend it be Page 39 denied. There were no objectors. Spot zone like that would result in the entire block being zoned. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we concur with the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. The Clerk: Item 53: Approve the purchase of four computers with the appropriate software and a HP LaserJet 8100DN Printer in the estimated amount of $30,400.00. (The HP 8100DN Printer has dual trays, can be networked, and will eliminate the need for multiple printers and provide the staff with the option of choosing either plan paper or letterhead for printing.) Mr. Colclough: So move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? I guess I address this to Clifford. From the information that you got up and sent to us, Clifford, my understanding is there’s no other department that might be more critical than this one, say emergency management or anything like that that’s in need of computers before this department gets is; is that correct? Mr. Rushton: What I sent to you was a list of letters concerning the Y2K for each department. The EMA has three that have to be replaced by year end which will be an agenda item coming to you. As far as-- Mr. Bridges: Will this one conflict with that one? In other words, if we go and give them four computers, is it going to put us in a tight with EMA department? Mr. Rushton: The money is coming from contingency. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: As I understand the material, the capital outlay contingency account has $250,000 in it. Do I Page 40 understand this correctly, Randy? Mr. Oliver: [inaudible] Mayor Young: Motion and second. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. The Clerk: Item 54: Award low bid to Blair Construction, Inc., who submitted a low bid of $2,653,710.88 regarding Rae’s Creek Sanitary Sewer Replacement Phase II & III. Funded by Account #508043420-5425210. Mr. Powell: So move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Beard: It has been moved and properly seconded. Do we approve this? Are there any questions or discussion? Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] Mr. Beard: I’m sorry, Mr. Colclough, we can’t hear you. Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] Mr. Beard: This is a motion. Mr. Oliver: On a project, when you do this type of project, it is the low bid, but any time you do this type of project with in-ground utility work, you are going to come across some site conditions. Any contractor you go with, there is always the potential for change order, particularly if there’s in-ground work because you could hit conditions that are unexpected. Mr. Colclough: So if you run into a problem you won’t have to come back? Mr. (inaudible): Even with those bids, if you’ve got a changed condition, they’d want to have a change order. Mr. Beard: Any other questions? No more discussion? All in favor--Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: I just wanted to know [inaudible]. Page 41 Mr. Beard: Okay. No other questions? Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote for it. I just want to know whether they’re--was there not a quorum or something on that day? No recommendation. Mr. Handy: The reason why we brought it back was became Mr. Hicks didn’t have his backup information in the book with him and that’s why I didn’t vote on it. But he sent it now. There was no information on it. Mr. Mays: I just always get concerned when--you know, I’m a poor fellow. When numbers come up in seven figures and y’all come out of there with nothing, it get me to thinking, so I just wanted to know what y’all were thinking about that. Mr. Beard: All in favor, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. The Clerk: Item 55: Approve the addition of Skinner Mill Road Culvert Extension Project to the construction work program and approve construction project budget number 322-04- 299822391 in the amount of $153,100.00 to be funded from Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase II Recapture. Also authorize engineering services with Godefroy & Associates in the amount of $10,000.00 and approve to let. Mr. J. Brigham: So move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: All in favor. Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Go ahead, Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, I voted against this in Committee. I really don’t have a problem with is but I think that on these recaptured funds we need to prioritize some things and make sure that there isn’t some projects and drainage projects and stuff that isn’t more crucial and this one may be the most crucial one on the list, but I just wanted to pull it out and say that and now we can go ahead. Page 42 Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, most of this money that’s been prioritized came off of this creek to start with and therefore I think it would be very appropriate to finish the project. Mayor Young: Please vote now. Mr. Powell: Your comments were duly noted, Mr. Brigham, and reflected on my vote. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. The Clerk: Item 56: Motion to approve change order number one in the amount of $25,835 to Mabus Brothers Construction Co., Inc. and Construction Project Budget Number 321-04299821662 amendment number two in the amount of $25,835 on the International Boulevard Project to be funded form Augusta Utilities account number 507043410-5425110/89900140- 5425110. Mr. Handy: So move. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: Discussion? Mr. Powell? Mr. Powell: Yes, Mr. Mayor. One item for discussion. We had a conflict on this International Boulevard Project. Was it resolved? Mr. Oliver: That is on the add-on items. The engineers have gotten together, the property owners have gotten together, and they resolved that we believe. Mr. Powell: We believe? Whoa. Mr. Oliver: They met Friday. I was not in the conversation. Mr. Murphy was with Mr. Cheeks, and they can attest to that better. And what we’re asking for is subject to them getting the final drawings. When we do that, and we’re prepared to either talk about that now or when you consider the addendum items. Mayor Young: Mr. Murphy may want to address. Mr. Murphy: We met Friday. The consulting engineers worked all weekend to design what we expected to see. And I have seen the drawings and they conform to what we can Page 43 approve. Mr. Powell: Okay. That’s good enough. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? MR. COLCLOUGH VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. The Clerk: Our addendum agenda. Item 3: Request Board of Education to include a full gymnasium in the proposed Sue Reynolds Project and authorize Administrator to identify possible funding sources for the shared construction of the gymnasium. Mr. Oliver: That would be from Phase II [inaudible] funding for recreation. Mr. Beard: I second it. Mr. J. Brigham: I would ask Mr. Shepard to change that Public Services Committee to the since they deal with recreation. Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry. I stand corrected, Mr. Brigham, and I thank you. Mayor Young: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. The Clerk: Addendum Agenda: Item 4: Authorize the Department of Public Works and Engineering Department to review and to approve the site plans for Hartich Road and Bar Sim Road if all requirements are met. Mr. Handy: So move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: Any discussion? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like Jack to comment on it. My understanding is that all parties involved have reached an agreement on these roads. Page 44 Mr. Oliver: What we want to do is, so you know, is make certain that BarSim Road takes passenger car traffic back to the site of Bill’s Dollar Store and that all the truck traffic goes down Hartich Road, and that is our principal goal. The properties’ owners have worked with us in that regard. Mr. Murphy can provide the details. Mr. Murphy: Everybody agrees with what--they worked on the weekend and brought back. We made some suggestions that we keep heavy truck traffic off of BarSim and make it come over to International Boulevard, which we can go on it now if you like. But there’s no way those trucks can go around the elbow to go on BarSim Road. We don’t want them on it. Mr. Bridges: So BarSim is one close to the railroad track? Mr. Murphy: Yes, sir. Mr. Bridges: And then the heavy trucks will be going on the one that’s further away? Mr. Murphy: Hartich to International and then out to Tobacco Road. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Oliver: And BarSim isn’t being constructed for truck traffic. Additionally, if truck traffic comes out there, we believe ultimately that it would impede traffic flow in that area. Mayor Young: Anyone else? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. The Clerk: Other business; is there any? Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, I had three items on the legal meeting. A personnel matter, possible settlement of Administrative Proceedings, and land transaction. There are actually two land transactions. And you will recall a couple of things that occurred in the last couple of days, if I could add an update on the sludge litigation as well. Page 45 Mr. Shepard: So move, as recommended by the Attorney. Mr. Powell: Second. Mayor Young: All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Beard: I have a question. In other words, there’s no other business? Mayor Young: After this? Mr. Beard: No, no, it says other business and then it went to legal meeting. Mayor Young: Well, we did. We called for other business and there was silence. And so we moved on. Mr. Beard: Oh, okay. I didn’t hear 58 called. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. (LEGAL MEETING, 4:05 - 5:03 P.M.) Mayor Young: We call ourselves back to order. Mr. Bridges: We need to sign the affidavit, Mr. Mayor. Item 59: Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act. Mr. Shepard: So move. Mr. Handy: Second. MR. POWELL OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mayor Young: We are adjourned without objection. (MEETING ADJOURNED) Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: Page 46 I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on October 19, 1999. Clerk of Commission