HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 04/20/2015 - MINS 04 20 15 WS (Migrated from Optiview)Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 20 , 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page I of 12
This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff It is not the
intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice.
Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited
presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form . This is an official record of the Milton
City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded.
The Work Session of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on April 20, 2015 at
6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood, presiding.
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Bill Lusk,
Councilmember Matt Kunz, Councilmember Burt Hewitt, Councilmember Joe Longoria, and
Councilmember Rick Mohrig .
Mayor Joe Lockwood:
• Work Sessions are an informal setting to update Council on business items.
• No votes will be taken during these sessions.
• There are nine (9) items on our Agenda tonight.
• Public comment is allowed that is germane to an Agenda Item.
• If you wish to speak you are required to fill out a comment card and turn it into the City Clerk
staff.
• Public comment will be allowed for a total of 10 minutes per agenda item and no more than 2
minutes per person.
• Public comment will be heard at the beginning of each Item.
• Once the item is called, no other comment cards will be accepted.
Agenda Item #1 was read.
1. Proclamation Recognizing Patriots Day.
(Counci/m emb er Bill Lusk)
Agenda Item #2 was read.
2. Discussion ofRZ15-02-Chapter 64 , Article XX, Deerfield Form Based Code , to Amend the
Standards and Increase the Geographical Area to Include Areas Within the Highway 9 North
Visioning Study.
(Kathle en Fi eld, Community Developm ent Dir ector)
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April20, 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 2 of 12
Kathy Field, Community Development Director
I would like to discuss Agenda Item #2 and #4 jointly. After using both of these Form Based Codes for
a couple of years , we have found certain areas that we wanted to modify. Both codes have very similar
language. If we propose changes in one then we really need to propose those same changes in the other.
Agenda Item #3 was read.
3. Discussion ofRZlS-04-Chapter 64 , Article VII , Division 5, State Route 9 Overlay District, to
Amend the State Route 9 Overlay District Map.
(Kathleen Fi eld, Community Developm ent Dir ector)
Kathy Field, Community Development Director
This is a simple map amendment. The purpose of this map change is to make the SR 9 Overlay District
Map to be consistent after the expanded Deerfield Form Based Code is expanded north of Bethany
Bend. Concurrently , the Overlay Map will then reflect that portion of the Overlay that converts over to
the Deerfield Form Based Code.
Agenda Item #4 was read.
4. Discussion ofRZlS-03-Chapter 64 , Article XIX , Crabapple Form Based Code , to Amend and
Add Standards Within the Code.
(Kathlee n Fi eld, Community Development Director)
Kathy Field, Community Development Director
In addition to minor language changes in both those codes , we also are proposing to amend the Deerfield
Code to include the area north of Bethany Bend along Route 9 to reflect the findings of our visionary
study that has been undertaken and completed during the last year and a half. This will be a major
amendment and will be discussed as part of this discussion this evening. So with that , I would like to
introduce our consultant to you tonight , Alex Fite-Wassilak , with the firm ofTSW. He will present the
changes in both of the codes , as well as , the major amendments to the Deerfield to include the Route 9
north area.
Alex Fite-Wassilak, TSW Planners, Architects and Landscape Architects
We want to take this opportunity to go over some of the Form Based Codes that are already in existence
and have been around for a couple of years. We have two SmartCodes to discuss. A SmartCode is a
national standard that is calibrated for local jurisdictions. The first one that was done by TSW was in
2012 , which is the Crabapple Form Based Code . The second one is the Deerfield/Highway 9 Code ,
which was adopted in 2013. Staff and developers have had a couple of years to figure out the Form
Based Code and overall , everything is working well. There are a few changes that we would like to
implement that we feel can make things work even better. We organized this presentation into some of
the common revisions for both (administrative) and then some that are site specific to each one.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 20, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 3 of 12
The following items are addressed in both the Deerfield and Crabapple Form Based Codes:
• Block Size and Connectivity Requirements -We have included how to handle dead-end
streets, which was not included in the first revision , with this amendment they would be limited
to 150 ft. Also clarify maximum block size requirements where stub streets are provided. I did
want to point out that anything that is underlined in the presentation is suggestions made by the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission suggested for these stub out or dead end
streets that curbing be provided at the end of that stub out.
• Thoroughfare (i.e. Street Types)-Current codes provide too much flexibility. Developers just
want to build the minimum required. Revisions will define approved street types and incorporate
on-street parking for guests (0 .3 spaces per unit which may be off street). Now all the
thoroughfares include on street parking to handle the guest parking. The diagram shows four
separate streets showing the dimensions and what is located on each, trying to be very specific so
no one gets out of meeting the requirements for these streets .
• Bike Facilities -Staff wanted to make sure that Milton Trail Plan and the good work that was
done in regards to that was incorporated appropriately. There is some flexibility in terms of how
Staff can handle those requirements with regards to the Form Based Code.
• Public Frontages (Sidewalks)-The current code requires if you develop a site you would need
to build from scratch to meet our requirements . Basically , flexibility was added here to allow
staff to decide if what already exists , is adequate and meets the intent of the code, then it could
be adopted in without having to redo everything.
• Civic Spaces (i.e. parks and open spaces) -This item is expanded Civic Spaces to include
Pocket Parks . We had a minimum width of 60ft. which is the only way to make these sorts of
parks work. Larger parks over eight acres in size would be exempt.
• Common Mail Facility -The new USPS policy requires these to be included so we made that
part of the code.
• Functions and Uses -Updated codes to incorporate standard City of Milton terms and
regulations. Current code uses SmartCode terms.
• We updated the height table to show very clearly the buildings height and the number of stories
for each of the zones.
The following items were added for just the Crabapple Form Based Code:
• Function and Uses (Table 9)-Two new uses have been created in the Crabapple FBC for "Loft
Apartment" and "Neighborhood Apartment" which are permitted by right in T4 Open and T5
and by Use Permit for T4. The reason for this addition is to encourage vertical mixed use by
allowing apartments located in a building where the first story is used for non-residential
functions , residential lobbies , leasing offices , fitness centers , or multi-purpose rooms serving
Residential Functions for "Loft Apartment" and to encourage overall mixed use by allowing up
to 30 units in standalone buildings for "Neighborhood Apartment".
• Stormwater Facilities -Incorporated stormwater requirements developed for the Deerfield
Code that states that facilities must be improved for aesthetic appeal or placed out of view.
(Section 4.8)
• Pedestrian Light Standards-Certain lights and poles were chosen: The Washington Pole and
the Granville fixture on top were chosen.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 20, 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 4 of 12
The following items were added for just the Deerfield Form Based Code:
• State Route 9 Visioning Study -Study extended from Bethany Bend to the Forsyth County
Line along SR 9. New Zone -T4-Permissive -Has the same form as T4. It allows more
commercial uses than T4 but fewer than T4-0pen permits. It reflects the specific use restrictions
from the vision study.
• Five Acre Road Zone -The Plan developed a highly detailed and specific vision for the Five
Acres Road parcels. The area has additional commercial use restrictions, maximum commercial
density , and specific landscape requirements. These items are scattered throughout the code to
be consistent with the detailed plan for the Five Acre Road parcels.
• Radio and television station use standards -This use is proposed to be allowed with a Use
Permit in T4-0pen, TS and T6 but we have also incorporated development standards for the use.
(Section 4.15)
• Large Format Retailers (Big Box Retailers) -Incorporates only the applicable city-wide
standards that already exist pursuant to Sec. 64-98. It allows the form based code to prevail fi
there are conflicts. (Section 4.16)
Councilmember Lusk
With the television station item , are you talking about towers?
Kathleen Field
Yes, it includes all the accessories which would be towers.
Councilmember Lusk
How is this issue going to be further vetted?
Alex Fite-Wassilak
These are recommendations made by the Planning Commission and then it is up to the Council to decide
whether or not to adopt those particular recommendations .
Kathleen Field
We may want to do some more research in terms of what we can do to address the concerns of the
Planning Commission. They obviously felt like they want this particular use to be screened as much as
possible. We can talk to the arborist and find out what we can come back with as a possible plan (dense
and fast growing).
Councilmember Kunz
Can we have a review process for those towers with regards to giving instruction on a case by case basis
in front of the Planning Commission or Council? How can we give advice on something we are not sure
of?
Kathleen Field
Robyn , can we make this a Use Permit? That would be the ideal thing to do and then it would be on a
case-by-case basis.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April20, 2015 at 6:00pm
Page 5 of 12
Robyn MacDonald
If there was a radio station that comes , they would have to come through a Use Permit, which would
have your review in it. We would have to create a Use Permit if you pursue this because there is not a
Use Permit for this specific use yet.
The following items were discussed by the Planning Commission at their March 25 , 2015 meeting
regarding both the Deerfield and Crabapple Form Based Codes. Within the codes , they are highlighted
in yellow.
• Stub-out streets 150 ft. in length or less shall terminate at a curb designed to be removed when
the adjacent site is developed and street is extended.
Section 2.2.8 Deerfield
Section 3.1.2 Crabapple
(Staff supports this amendment.)
• Incorporate the Milton Trail Plan and provide on or off street bicycle facilities not specified in
the regulating plans may be provided. When on street facilities are provided within new
thoroughfares , the width ofthe thoroughfare in Table 4 shall be increased.
Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.3 Deerfield
Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 Crabapple
(Staff does not support the second part of the amendment based on the fact that newly developed
subdivision streets would be increased in width unnecessarily. In addition , both the Form Based
Codes and the Milton Trail Plan pro vide future bicycle/multi-purpose trails.)
• The requirements of the City of Alpharetta along Windward Parkway will not apply.
Furthermore , the City of Milton may waive these requirements for any portion in the City of
Milton when unified and safe pedestrian facilities are provided.
Section 3.4.1.c.v. Deerfield
(Staff does support this amendment.)
• Required visitor parking may either be provided off-street in a common parking lot anywhere on
the site or on-street within 300 feet of the intended use , as measured along the direct improved
pedestrian route from the door of the building to the parking space.
Section 4.9.2.b. Deerfield
Section 4.9.2.b. Crabapple
(Staff does support these amendments.)
Councilmember Thurman
I do not understand the requirements of the City of Alpharetta along Windward Parkway. Would you
explain that one ?
Robyn MacDonald
The right of way of Windward actuall y belongs to the City of Alpharetta, so it is hard to tell developers
on Windward you have to do X per our code when Alpharetta has the right of way.
Agenda Item #5 was read.
5. Discussion of RZ15-05-Chapter 64 , Article XVII Development Standards , to Create
Standards and Penalties for the Request of Demolition Permits within the City of Milton.
(Kathleen Fie ld, Co mmunity Developm en t Director)
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 20 , 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 6 of 12
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
The proposed amendment was created based on the need to give more "teeth" to the demolition permit
review by the Design Review Board. As the Zoning Ordinance currently exists , the only requirement is
for all buildings that apply for a demolition permit shall be reviewed by the City of Milton Design
Review Board. Unless a structure has been designated a "historic building" by the City of Milton
Historic Preservation Commission, any building can be demolished. Currently there are only two
structures that are deemed historic which are the Thomas Byrd , Sr. House, formally known as the
Hopewell House and the Chadwick General Store.
Both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board asked Staff to create criteria in which the
DRB can evaluate all proposed buildings applying for a demolition permit. The proposed criteria are
similar to the criteria for evaluating demolition applications for historically designated structures .
The proposed text amendment also includes the proposed penalties for the unlawful demolition of a
building.
The Planning Commission at its March 25 , 2015 meeting recommended approval ofthe proposed
standards and penalties for the Request of Demolition Permits with the following additions: 1) Within
Sec. 64-2425 (a.) include the addition of the "Georgia 's Natural , Archaeological and Historic Resources
Geographic Information System" in the list of considerations to approve or deny a demolition permit.
This is an inventory of existing historic resources within the City that was conducted in 1996 ; 2) The
Planning Commission was also concerned with the condition of a site after a structure is removed .
Therefore , they recommended in Sec. 64-2426 (c .)(4) that where determined by the Design Review
Board, landscaping shall be installed as approved by the City Arborist. These recommendations of the
Planning Commission will be highlighted in yellow in the ordinance.
Councilmember Lusk
What legal standing do we have to enforce that ordinance?
Paul Frickey, City Attorney
You can enforce it through your police powers.
Councilmember Lusk
Are there any penalties attached with this ?
Robyn MacDonald
On page two , there is a full list of penalty provisions , not just monetarily but also future development.
Councilmember Lusk
Have we reviewed all of these structures within the city , recently? Do we know how many on that list
exist and are they practical to preserve them , maintain them or bring them up to proper safety standards?
Kathleen Field
We have not reviewed the lists in terms of structural soundness. We would, case-by-case, pick them up
if a demolition permit came in and include it with the Staff Report. We would do an assessment and talk
to the Chief Building Official and then give a recommendation as to whether or not we thought it was
validity in demolishing it or not. In terms of the overall list we have not gone out and assessed each
case.
-------'
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 20, 2015 at 6 :00 pm
Page 7 of 12
Councilmember Lusk
How many are on the list?
Kathleen Field
Over 1 00 but that was several years back.
Councilmember Mohrig
Can we have an updated list created and a drive by to make sure the structure is still there?
Kathleen Field
Absolutely.
Councilmember Kunz
Are we saying that anyone who wants to demolish a building, and we deem it historical , we will not let
them do it ?
Kathleen Field
No . We are saying that is just one of the criteria that we will use but anyone who applies for a
demolition permit needs to get the approval of the DRB. One of the criteria that the DRB will use in
determining whether or not a particular structure should be demolished is whether it is on the historical
list.
Councilmember Lusk
Do the property owners of the structures on this list understand the y need a demolition permit?
Kathleen Field
We can certainly notify the people on the list of the need for a demolition permit prior to any demolition .
Agenda Item #6 was read.
6. Discussion of RZlS-06-Chapter 64-1609 , Swimming Pool , Private to Amend Standards for
Neighborhood Swimming Pools .
(Kathleen Fi eld, Co mm unity Developm ent Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
An observation from the staff that we were getting a lot of requests that were going on to the BZA from
subdivisions that when it came to the neighborhood swimming pool , they were asking for a reduction in
the setback. We felt because of the number of requests we have recei ved we should really look at
changing our setback requirement. We came up with changing the development standard from required
100 feet to 35 feet , which would include a 25 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback.
Also to add to that, we included a requirement that the neighborhood pools be located within the interior
of the subdivision and not be visible from the exterior street, where the subdivision is located . By
requiring this standard , it will help ensure that the rural view shed be preserved within the City of
Milton. The Planning Commission at its March 25 , 2015 meeting recommended that the proposed
amendments not be approved and therefore remain the same . This was based on their opinion that the
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April20, 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 8 of 12
100 foot setback should be preserved to protect the adjacent property owners from noise, light and
general activity related to a neighborhood swimming pool. In addition, the Planning Commission
believed that placing neighborhood swimming pools within the subdivision contributes to more crime
and vandalism of the amenity area since it would not be visible to the general public.
Councilmember Longoria
Do we have an idea of the number of pools that would not be in compliance with this if we pass this
ordinance? The reason I ask is , if a subdivision tries to upgrade their amenities , we would make sure
they stay in today 's compliance.
Kathleen Field
Wouldn 't the existing pools be grandfathered in ?
Robyn MacDonald
Yes , the existing pools would be grandfathered in and ifthey redeveloped their amenity area they still
will be grandfathered in as well. This is for the new developments.
Paul Frickey, City Attorney
To clarify, the concept of grandfathering really applies when you add more conditions or regulations to a
particular situation. In this case , we are lowering the restrictions , so I do not know if grandfathering of a
particular set of provisions is an appropriate term. If there are zoning conditions on a particular parcel ,
those would not go away with the adoption of any regulations. An existing neighborhood pool that was
constructed according to the previous regulations , with no zoning conditions attached to it , they could go
with the new standards as long as it was just based on code requirements.
Councilmember Longoria
My concern is we have a subdivis.ion with many amenities located up front. They demolish their
amenities because they want to rebuild. They are trying to get plans approved for their new amenities
and now their new amenities do not fit with what the ordinance now states. Now they have problems
putting back what they had before because of the change the ordinance has made it more difficult or
impossible.
Paul Frickey
My understanding is we are increasing their ability by reducing the setback.
Robyn MacDonald
The one point of which Councilmember Longoria is speaking to is the location of it. You cannot
physically change the location of the amenity area, so would they have to get a variance for that
particular condition?
Councilmember Longoria
The grandfathering needs to include the location and not just the amenity itself.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April20, 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 9 of 12
Kathleen Field
We need to address the existing ones. I clearly understand what you are saying.
Councilmember Thurman
What exactly are the variance requests that we are seeing that brought this change on?
Robyn MacDonald
One of the circumstances that brought this forward was with the Highlands subdivision on Freemanville
Road. The original plans did not have an amenity area so they took one of the lots within the
subdivision, while it was being developed and before anyone moved in. The lot was very small for an
amenity area so they needed to reduce their setbacks dramatically to fit a pool and a cabana. Also, Blue
Valley got another variance for setbacks as well. Most of the variances have been pre-construction
before houses have been built, but we have seen a consistent request of going from 100 feet down to 35
feet.
Councilmember Thurman
Is there a way to word this in the ordinance about people choosing to live by the amenity package versus
a new amenity package being built next to a previously occupied lot?
Kathleen Field
You are talking about new development versus retro-fitted pools in existing neighborhoods. We will
work on that to make the distinction.
Councilmember Lusk
Can we anticipate this during the review process?
Robyn MacDonald
We do review it during LDP when they position in their amenity area. These developers are coming to
us requesting the least amount of setbacks so they have more acreage for more lots. We need a code to
keep developers meeting requirements but also allow them less setbacks to reduce the number of
variances we are issuing to obtain the same thing. We decided to change the code to match the need and
the BZA is on board with that as well.
Mayor Lockwood
If it is typically for new subdivisions , can we just change the code for just new facilities?
Councilmember Mohrig
When the variance becomes the norm then we really do not have a rule. The Planning Commission did
not recommend the idea of having the amenities in the back of the neighborhood, is that correct? If so , I
find that a little contradictory in regards to wanting to keep a rural view shed with these developments.
---------------------------------
Work Se ss ion of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 20, 2 015 at 6 :00 pm
Page 10 of 12
Councilmember Kunz
The thought process came from non-gated subdivisions with pools located in the back of the community
having more vandalism because there are not as many watchful eyes on the area as when it is located in
the front of the community .
Councilmember Mohrig
I think we should take in consideration the conservation aspect while looking at all of this .
Councilmember Thurman
I can see both sides . I see why it is important to have it easily seen from an interior street as well as
hidden from our main public roads , keeping the v iew shed. We may want to add an undisturbed buffer
adjacent to public exterior roads but still allow the amenities to be in the front of the subdivision.
Agenda Item #7 was read.
7. Discussion of RZlS-07-Chapter 64 , Article VI , Di vision 2 , AG-1 District to Amend the
Permitted Uses to Include Equine Garment Fabrication.
(Kathleen Fi eld, Co mm un ity Developm ent Dir ector)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
The following three text amendments (RZlS-07, RZlS-08 and RZlS-09) are interrelated:
RZlS-07-Text Amendment to Chapter 64 , Article VI , Division 2 , and AG-1 District to amend the
permitted uses to include Equine Garment Fabrication and associated development standards.
Staff has included equine garment fabrication within the approved uses in the AG-1 district and included
a maximum size (2 ,000 square feet ) for the building utilized for fabrication.
Agenda Item #8 was read.
8. Discussion of RZlS-08-Section 64-1811 , To Delete the "Equine Garment Fabrication" Use
Permit.
(Kathleen Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Dir ector)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
RZlS-08-Text Amendment to Section 64-1811 , To delete the "Equine Garment Fabrication" Use
Permit.
If the proposed amendment to include this use in the AG-1 district by right , there is no further need for
this Use Permit and therefore , Staffhas proposed to delete Section 64-1811. Currently, there are no
properties with this use permit approved within the City of Milton.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April20, 2015 at 6:00pm
Page II of 12
Agenda Item #9 was read.
9. Discussion of RZlS-09-Section 64-1, Definitions. To Create a Definition for "Equine
Garment Fabrication".
(Kathl ee n Fi eld, Co mmunity Dev elopm ent Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
RZlS-09-Text Amendment to Section 64-1 , Definitions . To create a definition for "Equine Garment
Fabrication"
Currently, there is not a definition for "equine garment fabrication ". Therefore , Staff has included a new
definition.
The Planning Commission at its March 25 ,2015 meeting unanimousl y recommended that all ofthe
three proposed text amendments related to Equine Garment Fabrication be denied. It was the opinion of
the Planning Commission that Equine Garment Fabrication remains as a Use Permit and not be
permitted by right under the AG-1 (Agricultural) district. They expressed their concern that the proposed
amendments would allow noxious uses such as tanneries and retail shops that sold unrelated items on the
premises. The Planning Commission also stated that text amendments should not be initiated just for one
or two situations.
The definition reads as follows:
Equine Garment Fabrication means the fabrication , wholesale distribution and retail sale of blankets,
saddles , halters and other similar garments utilized by the equine family of animals. You should also
note that we are limiting this use to no more than 2 ,000 sq. ft.
Councilmember Hewitt
Is there a current definition?
Kathleen Field
No there is not, so we established one.
Councilmember Mohrig
So it has been defined , but this is the definition that the Planning Commission still feels allows for
noxious uses such as tanneries and retail shops, even with this restricted definition? So tanneries , etc.
have been excluded?
Kathleen Field
That is correct.
Councilmember Hewitt
Can you specifically exclude some ofthose things ?
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 20, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of 12
Kathleen Field
Robyn , can we do that? If it is not mentioned , is it automatically excluded?
Paul Frickey
It depends on how the rest of the definition is worded in this case. I do not see how tanneries falls into
this but I do not know the industry well enough to know what all is captured by fabrication of saddle and
halter. It seems to me excluded, but if you were to want to specifically exclude something you would
say this definition does not include X , Y or Z.
Councilmember Mohrig
The definition we have now is pretty specific saying this is all it includes and what we are allowing
without getting a Use Permit, specifically these items , correct?
Kathleen Field
That is correct. We are limiting it to 2 ,000 sq. ft., which is not a large warehouse or large retail store .
Councilmember Lusk
You bring up the point of tanneries which are the originators of noxious fumes and I think might have
motivated the Planning Commission to deny all of the changes. All of the other uses of making saddles ,
bridles and halters are manufactured from the finish of the tanning process.
Councilmember Kunz
I like the idea as far as it goes. If we are going to have equestrian facilities here I can see having
equipment like this for sale.
Mayor Lockwood
Before we adjourn tonight I would like to express our condolences to our sister city of Sandy Spring.
Their first and long standing mayor, Mayor Eva Galambos passed away yesterday . Her city and family
are in our thoughts and prayers.
Councilmember Thurman
Truth of the matter we would not be a city ourselves if Eva had not fought for cityhood for Sandy
Springs for so long. I think all of us ought to be very thankful for her relentless diligence of getting
Sandy Springs cityhood so the rest of us could have a very easy door to walk through.
Date Approved: May 4, 2015
Sudie AM Gordon , City