Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 01/30/2017 - MINS 01 30 17 REG (Migrated from Optiview)I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:00 pm Page I of28 This summary is provided as a convenience and s ervice 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. Thi s is an official record of the Milton City Council M eeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video r ecorded. The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on January 30, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION Remco Brommet, Chaplain for the City of Milton Police and Fire CALL TO ORDER Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember Lusk , Councilmember Hewitt, Councilmember Longoria and Councilmember Mohrig. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by Mayor J oe Lockw oo d) APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Agenda Item No. 17-022) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following changes : • Add an Executive Session to discuss Land Acquisition. • Remove Agenda Items No. 17-028 and 17-029 from the Consent Agenda and move them to New Business . • Move Agenda Item Numbers 17-031 and 17-032 under New Business to after the Consent Agenda. • Remove Agenda Item No. 17-033 -Consideration of Appointing a Member to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Regular Meeting of the Mil ton C ity Council Monday, Janu ary 30, 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 2 of 2 8 PUBLIC COMMENT The follo win g individuals submitted a Public Comment Card: Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road , Milton , Georgia 30004 CONSENT AGENDA 1. Appro val of the De em ber 19 , 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes . (Agenda Item No. 17-023) (S udie Go rdo n, City Clerk) 2. Appro val of the Jan uary 9, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minute s . (Agenda Item No. 17-024) (S udie Gordon, City Oerk) 3. Appro val of a Construction Service s Agreement between the City of Milton and Mobile Joe 's Professionals , LLC for Construction of a Boulder Wall and Landscape Impro vements at th e Broadwell Pav ilion. (Agenda Item No. 17-025) (C arter Lucas, Ass is tant City Ma nager) 4. Appro val of a Profe sional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Barge , Waggoner, Sumner & Cannon, Inc. for Freemanville at Providence Roundabout Peer Re vie w. (Agenda Item No. 17-026) (C art er Lu cas, Assistant City Ma n ager) 5. Approval of a Construction Service s Agreement between the City of Milton and Deluxe Athletics , LLC for Bell Memorial Park Turf Field Additions. (Agenda Item No. 17-027) (Jim Cregge, Parks an d Recr eation Dire ctor) The following Consent Agenda Items No. 17-028 and 17-029 were moved to New Business by Motion and Vote during Approval of Meeting Agenda. 6. Approval of a Profe ssi onal Services Agreement between the City of Mi lton and the University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc . to Provide Assistance on the Development of Community Septic System Review Guideline s. (Agenda Item No. 17-028) (Ca rt er Lu cas, Assistant City Man ager) I I I I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, January 30 , 2017 at 6:00 pm Page 3 of28 7. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Dr. Robert Rubin to Provide Assistance on the Development of Community Septic Sys tem Review Guidelines. (Agenda Item No. 17-029) (C art er Lu cas, Ass istant C ity Ma nager) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda Item s numbers 1-5. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of Historic Markers Design. (Kathlee n Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm en t Direct or) 2. Presentation of Green Communities Re-Certification. (Mich ele Mcint os h-Ross, Prin cip al Plann er) FIRST PRESENTATION (No ne) PUBLIC HEARING ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION PUBLIC HEARING 1. Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Erkal LLC , dba Manhattan Pizza & Grille , 5230 Windward Parkway Ste. 105 , Milton, Georgia 30004. (Agenda Item No. 17-030) (Bernadette Harvill, Fi nance Director) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-030 . Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Regular Meetin g of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 4 of28 ZONING AGENDA 1. Consideration of RZ16-07 -To Amend the AG-1 (Agr icultural) District Regarding Paved and Unpaved Roads in Chapter 64 , Article VI, Division 2 , in Sec . 64-416 . Development Standards. ORDINANCE NO. 17-01-295 (Agenda Item No. 16-282) (First Presentation at December 5, 20 16 Regular City Coun cil Mee tin g) (Discussed at Decemb er 12, 20 16 City Co un cil Work S es sio n) (Deferr ed at Dece mber 19, 20 16 Meeting) (Kathlee n Fie ld, Co mmunity Developm ent Direc tor) Kathleen Field, Community Development Director The purpose of this text amendment is to amend the existing ordinance to ensure that any parcel fronting on an unpaved ro ad (grav el road ) remain at least three acres in size . This also includes those parcels that have frontage on both an unpaved road and a paved road no matter what the width of the frontage on the unpaved road . This item was presented at the October 26 , 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. There were four citizens who made comments regarding these items. Three of the citizens were in support of the ordinance a s proposed by Staff. One citizen who I also represented land owners was in oppo s ition to the proposal as recommended by Staff. After I deliberation and consideration of comments from the public, the proposed text amendment was deferred to allow Staff to pro v ide the following information: a list of unpaved roads in Milton and a list of parcels and their si ze that have frontage on both unpaved roads and paved roads (not already in platted subdivision like Whi te Columns). Staff provided the items that the Planning Commi ss ion requested from the October meeting. T here was one citizen who spoke in support of the proposed text amendment re garding unpaved roads. After further discussion by the Planning Commission they recommended Approval (6-0) of the amendment as proposed by Staff. Staff presented to the Counc il the propo sed text amendment as outlined above . After further discussion , the City Counc il directed Sta ff to change the ordinance to reflect that , in instances where parcels are adjacent to both paved and unpaved roads , the following shall apply: the portion of the parcel adjacent to an unpaved road shall be developed with m inimum three acre lots and the portion of the parcel that is adjacent to the paved road may be subdivided into one acre lots. We are proposing a change tonight to the text amendment in front of you. It is the proposed change to Section E (2) which refers to three acres adjacent to an unpaved road the following rules shall apply. We would like to change subsection (a) to read as follows: Each proposed lot shall provide at least 100 feet of road frontage , the minimum dimension of which shall be maintained to the building line of the lot. After discussio n with our attorney, we felt that the blue language which was originally included was not needed, therefore , we are proposing that the blue language be deleted. And, subsection (b) will read as follows: each proposed lot sh all provide at least 200 feet of lot width at the build ing line . The Mayor and City Counci l recommended to defer this item until the January 30 , 201 7 Co uncil meeting to allow adequate time for Staff to give notice to I property owners whose properties front on both a paved and unpave d road that may be impacted I I I Regular Meet ing of the Milton City Council Monday, January 30 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 5 of28 by the proposed amendment. Staff has received enquiries from approximately six property owners regarding the notice sent by the City . P U BLIC C O MMENT The following individuals s ubmitted a public comm ent card: Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road , Milton, Georgia 30004 Daniel Fernandez , 14855 Wood Road , Milton , Georgia 30004 Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase , Milton , Georgia 30004 Scott Reece , 13685 Highway 9 , Milton , Georgia 30004 Tom Statham , 3149 South Hwy. 27 , Carrollton, Georgia 30117 Jodi Martin, 15350 Thompson Road , Milton, Georgia 30004 Julie Zahner Bailey , 255 Hickory Flat Road , Milton , Georgia 30004 Dot Epperson , 16515 Black Oak Road , Milton , Georgia 30004 Ben Statham , 1424 Gantt Road , Milton , Georgia 30004 Fitzroy Graham , 700 Creek Road , Milton, Georgia 30004 Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road , Milton , Georgia 30004 Mayor L oc kw ood I would like to say one thing . And , also to some folks that are new to this issue. This is an issue that we have had similar type issues in the past that may have been brought about for one reason but over the years it has kind of been another reason . I will use one ; maybe a long time ago we had non-sewer areas and the density was controlled by that but that wasn 't necessarily because the county wanted to control density , it was because the infrastructure wasn 't there. Fortunatel y, we have adjusted all that. Gravel roads , years before the city was formed, the county had a three acre minimum on a gravel road , so if someone had a lot that had access to the gravel road , in order to keep the maintenance down on the road , because the gravel road wouldn 't handle as much traffic . That , in tum , over time has benefitted us with our beautiful gravel roads and less densit y. But, as we mo ve forward , there has started to look like there are some loopholes , but I say that but the y fit the letter of the law , where a lot fronted a paved road , they were able to have access . Now, I think it got kind of even more contentious when people were designing lots around that to be able to get to the paved road but did not have a three acre minimum. My concern, and what I want to make sure , and we have comments from both side s, and we have folks that li ve here and want to keep gravel roads looking like they are with the less amount of density that we can have. We also have folks that live on a gravel road and own property on a gravel road , they knew what they bought years ago , they knew what the y have had but want to make sure that we are not "taking" and I know it may not be the legal taking , but adjusting what they thought they had or were able to do with it. I think we are fairly close . Obviously, it only impacts where you have both dual frontage . I think that is what we need to get clear for everybody. This is not necessarily going to opposing new rules to take land from folks or ri ghts from folks , but to clarify so that someone working in the confines of the ordinance can may be have unintended consequences if that make s sense . Regular Meetin g of the Milton C ity Council Monday , January 30 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 6 of28 Kathy Field Yes, thank you. You have said it exactly. This is clarifying language. To clarify that when you have property adjacent to a gravel or unpaved road that the three acre minimum shall apply. Mayor Lockwood And, I agree , I am speaking across the board from all sides, I don 't think it makes ; it is not clear for somebody that , let 's say , has 90% of their land on a paved road and a gravel road touches it in the back , that is not fair to hold them to that rule. But, on the flip side , we have had issues where it is the opposite and 90% of the land is on a gravel road and 10% on a paved road. I am going to open this up for comments , questions , and thoughts from council. Councilmember Thurman Mayor, I think you are right, I think we need to go back to what the original intent was by Fulton County. The intent from Fulton County was originally for gravel roads to have three acre lots . And , after a while , there were some developers that came in and sai d, well , as long as it doesn't have access , the three acre lots shouldn 't matter, and Fulton County kind of caved a little bit on that and allowed them , as long as the access was from a paved road , allowed them to have a one acre lot adjacent to a gravel road . I think what we want to get back to is what the original intent was and that is if it is on a gravel road, there needs to be a three acre lot. And , that being said, if I somebody has 90% of their property on a paved road and they have just a little bit of gravel access I then I don 't think you can penalize the part of them that is on the paved road . I absolutely don't think you should be able to have a paved road come off of a gravel road and it be deemed a paved road. I think that if you have a road coming off of a gravel road it needs to state the three acres and we need to make sure that is clarified in here. But, I think we need to go back to what the original intent was and that was to preserve the rural character of those roads and keep them at the three acre minimum for each lot. Mayor Lockwood I appreciate that Councilmem ber Thurman and those are my thoughts too. I think the unintentional consequences that we are concerned about is that you have a beautifu l gravel road, estate homes , etc . and then you have a parcel with some paved road and they build a string of houses really close on small lots , maybe they are not touching the gravel road but they are running along the side of it , but that is a concern. Councilmember Longoria Kathy , our current ordinanc es, before we tried to clarify them . We have had an ordinance that said , if the lot was on a gravel road , it had to be a three acre minimum lot. Correct? Kathy Field Yes. I I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, January 30 , 2017 at 6:00 pm Page 7 of28 Councilmember Longoria Now, it looks like we have inherited some property that is on gravel road and we are questioning whether it meets the minimum. So, those are what we call "legal non-conforming." So , we will not worry about those right now. We also had , as part of the language of the ordinance, a statement that states that if you are on a paved road, the minimum is one acre. Kathy Field Correct. Councilmember Longoria So , we are not trying to restate that. What we are trying to do is clarify when a piece of property has access to both and , apparently , recently , when there was access to both, we were siding in favor of the paved road . And , we were worried that might not be the correct approach. Is that a fair statement? Kathy Field Yes , it is. Councilmember Longoria So , we are not trying to change what three acre lot minimums on gravel roads is or we are not trying to change what one acre lot minimums are on paved roads is. We are trying to deal with "comer cases " where a lot has access to both a paved and unpaved road . What do we do about it? Kathy Field That is correct. Councilmember Longoria So, we were trying to say that if you have access to both, the three acre minimum would apply regardless of the amount of area that is adjacent to the paved road . Correct? Kathy Field Yes. Councilmember Longoria So , in the presentation that you made , yo u included the list of gravel roads first and then you included some lots that are on those gravel roads. Was that list of lots a list of properties that we consider undeveloped or potentially could be developed or what is that list? Kathy Field Let me defer to Robyn. Robyn , would yo u respond please. Robyn MacDonald So, are you speaking of who got notification? The list of gravel roads? Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 8 of28 Councilmember L ongoria Is that the list of dual frontage properties? Robyn MacDonald Yes. Councilmember L ongoria So , this is the set of propert ies that we think would be impacted by changing the ordinance. Robyn MacDonald Actually , the majority of them wouldn 't because many of them are three acres or les s and there are only maybe a handful that have large parcel s like what Mr. Reece repres ents a lot of those large landowners. But, there are not very many. Councilmember Longoria The reason I brought that up is because I looked at that list and sort of got intrigued becau se I started seeing numbers on that list that j ust didn 't make sense. And , the number of acres on the piece of property that is adjacent to both gravel and a paved road , I was a little bit surprised. So, we had about 58 ac res worth of property on that list where the ind ividual p iece of property is less I than three acres . That means , that if we change the ordinance or straighten up the ordinance so I that the language is stricter, th ose properties will never be able to comply unless they are adjacent to another piece of property and they combine the property somehow . So, we are already under the gun with a certain portion of these properties that are in Milton, right? And , then there are another group of properties , it looks like about 103 acres that are less than six acres which means that the y can 't really be two lots because if we are going to require a three acre minimum they can 't split into two pieces that would be three acres or more so really , we have about 150 acres out of 350 acres where they can't support this. They would be legal/non-compliant from the get go. So , really that leaves us with about 200 or so acres where they have the sp ace to support the three acre minimum if they wanted to su bdivide. So , I found that interesting. Th at a good chunk of the property that would be impacted by this ordinance do not have th e option to be conforming . So , maybe you could tell us how th e city would manage that because they are legal/non -conforming today or potentially could be and does that mean that they don 't have the option to change in the future . They just have to stay in the current state. Kathy Field Well , unless they combine. We do have a lot of lots , we have some on Woo d Road , for instance , and they are less than three acres and they are legal/non-conforming. They are what they are. But, they always have the option of combinin g an undeve loped lot next door but they have the ability to stay as they are. Councilmember Hewitt So, we have the first one that is less than three acres on this list is 1. 7 acres on Black Oak Road. I It is non-conforming as it sits right now, correct? I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, January 30 , 20 17 at 6:00 pm Page 9 of28 Kathy Field Yes. Councilmember Hewitt Could they build a house on that 1. 7 acres? Kathy Field Yes . Councilmember Hewitt So , when it is legal/non-conforming they can do that. Kathy Field Right , th at is right , because they are grandfathered in. I think grandfathered is a great term. It sort of explains it. If you approve this tonight, the rules would be changed going forward . Councilmember Longoria I just had one other question , Kathy , and that is , is it fair to say that the original intent of the language in our ordinance was functional as opposed to aesthetic. In other words, was the purpose to protect the gravel road , the purpose was not to create only estate lots on gravel roads. Is that fair or is that a misinterpretation? Kathy Field I think that it was both. It is not only a transportation issue but the fact that the ruralness of the area, so to speak, to maintain those three acres is certainly something that they were concerned about. And, it was our interpretation, because of the loophole that was in there , between the paved and the unpaved , that you were using that aesthetic look on your gravel roads and I think that was part of what concerned the community. Councilmember Hewitt Carter, Karen brought up a paved road coming off of an existing gravel road. I think we have had the discuss ion before that that is not allowed , correct? Carter Lucas It has not been allowed in the past. I was going through the ordinance this evening trying to find a citation directed to a portion of the ordinance that would address that and I haven't found it yet. But, by practice , we have not allowed a paved road off of a gravel road . Are you referring to the language that talked about the access to a gravel road? Councilmember Hewitt More so the threat, for lack of a better term , of a paved road in the middle of a gravel road , coming off of that and having one acre lots. Is that addressed in the amendments we have here? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, January 30 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 10 of28 Carter Lucas I don 't know if it is addressed in there, typically , it wo uld be addressed in our access ordinance that I was going back through and trying to find it. I haven 't found that specific language yet. But, it could probably be addressed in either location. Mayor Lockwood That is obviously very important because the interpretation was that someone could pave the road internal to get by with sm all er lots when the reality is all those homes are on the gravel road , which if you go back to what the original intent was because of the infrastructure and transportation. I would say that even if at some point you were allowed to pave an interi or road into a development that is on a gravel road, then it should have to follow the rules for the gravel road. Carter Lucas Paved or unpaved we generally do no t like to see a higher class ifie d road to tie into a lower classified road because that road can 't support what that hi gher classification does. Councilmember Hewitt I agree with that and I think most of us, if not all of us, agree . I Councilmember Thurman I Does it hurt to add something here that basically says that a paved road cannot be accessed from a gravel road just to get rid of all the amb iguities in the ordinance ? Carter Lucas It never hurts. Councilmember Lusk I don 't think that is possible . Just to clarify , all of these parce ls listed here , have dual frontage and they are at the intersection of gravel roads and paved roads. I counted 79 properties on this list. Of those 79, 52% of them , 41 of them , are less than three acres. Most of the other ones don't vary that much from three acres, four to six acres on average, there are some that are 60 acres , Statham's property is 35 acres , and there are a handful of others and of tho se th at are less than three acres , many are one acre , so I would assume that a lot of those have access right off of paved roads. That is a grandfathered situation ; legal/non-conforming . And , they can continue to do that even if that lot is not developed. Question, if you have a corner lot like that, and for instance , it has then acres, what is your interpretation of how that ten acres can be developed? Kathy Field If it is a comer lot and one side is paved and the other side is unpav ed? The idea is that on the unpaved side , the definition of the width of the lot states that the minimum dimension shall be 100 feet of road frontage and then each proposed lot shall have at least 200 feet of lot width at the building line. So , that lot would have to be built and any others that are a very long parcel would have to meet those dimension requirements. Then, if the land were wide enough , I suppose you I I I I Re g ular Meet ing of th e Milton City Council Mond ay, January 30 , 2 017 at 6 :00 pm Page 11 of28 could build a road in the back pave to pave to service the back part. But, that is how you would look at it. City Manager Krokoff So , the way we designed this was to avoid if you have a long enough piece along a paved road with dual frontage , you could not create a three acre buffer strip because if your frontage was long enough , you would actually be able to , depending on the dimensions , create three acres that isn 't so deep and then you would get around , once again , what it is you are trying to accomplish as a council. That is why we added language in there of the 100 feet of the road frontage and then 200 feet at the building line to prevent just that. But, under the question you have put forth , Councilmember Lusk , what we would anticipate is a picture that I just drew for Ken , is that if you were going to subdivide that larger lot, an y part of the subdivision that any adjacency whatsoever to that gravel road would have to be three acres. Once you have taken up that area that is adjacent to the gravel road , through however many parcels that may be ; it may be one it may be five , anything that is no longer adjacent to that gravel road could now be a one acre lot. Councilmember Thurman So , you could put a subdivision behind those three acre lots that are on the gravel road parallel to the gravel road as long as you had a three acre lot buffer beforehand on the gravel. Kathy Field Yes , that is exactl y right. City Manager Krokoff Correct, we were trying to avoid if you had a large enough property to avoid a strip being installed so you could now 20 feet off of the gravel road you can now build . A good example of where this would have been applicable would have been the development going in at Freemanville Road and Ni x Road. Under what is being proposed , those lots that are adjacent to Nix Road would have been three acre lots and then the other parcels that are non-adjacent to Nix Road could have been one acre. I think that is probably the best example . Mayor Lockwood We want to preserve the look and feel of our gravel roads. We have some gravel road s that you travel down and you see the back of houses that are on one acre lots and it takes away the beauty. Going way back to gravel roads whe re no paved road touched it , those property owners who have owned that property all along have had the three acre minimum zoning. So , we are keeping that scenario. We are not taking away or changing anything that people have come to expect since the y have owned their land. Is that correct? Kathy Field Yes , that is correct. Regular Meeting of the Milton C ity Council Monday, January 30 , 2017 at 6:0 0 pm Page 12 of28 Mayor Lockwood Some examples are where we have a gravel road where just a litt le bit touches a paved road. Does that spoil the rest of the gravel road? In your presentation, Kathy , and to Steve's point, if a win- win along the gravel road if those lots are three acres, so along the gravel road you see three acre lots , but if someone has a larger piece of property and the majority of it is on a paved road then that would be under AG-1 requirements. That takes care of everything. It preserves our gravel roads, they are the same rul es that have been on that land since way before our time, and it is not penalizing someone who has 90% of their land on a paved road . Councilmember Longoria These changes ensure the functional aspect of this so that anybody that has primary access off of a gravel road is on a three acre lot and it preserves the aesthetic function as well so that if you live on a gravel road you can be assured that all your neighbors are going to be on three acre lots. Councilmember Lusk Going back to my example if you have a lot with ten acres, it was po ss ible to develop a three acre parcel along the gravel road that also fronted on the paved road. J ust to be clear, the remaining seven acres that totally fr onted on the paved road, would fa ll under the one acre minimum. Is that correct? I City Attorney Jarrard I That is clearly what staff has proposed and what staff has brought to yo u. Remember, we had this discussion about the noti on of if the land touches the grave l road , does that permeate throughout the entire ten acres. So, then does the landowner have to have three acre minimum lots throughout the balance of the acreage. To your credit, council said this is not the w ay this is supposed to work so that is why this different language has been brought to you tonight. These terms become so important when we begin to interpret them so perhaps we might think of a bette r definition of the word "adjacent" to make ure that is not lost in translation. I think the intention is meant to mean physically touching the grave l road . However, words are important and I want to ensure we have a rock solid definition of the word "adjacent" so we can implement the will of the council. Councilmember Mohrig In looking up the definition of adjacent ; does the word "abuts" make more sense to use than the word adjacent? City Attorney Jarrard Yes . Councilmember Kunz Carter, what is our history , we obviously had a lot of gravel roads in this area at one time and then some of them were paved. When were most of the roads in our community paved? Carter Lucas I have no idea. I I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, January 30 , 2 017 at 6 :00 pm Page 13 of28 Coun cilm e mb er T hu rman I know that at the time that Fulton County absorbed Milton County , back in the 1930 's, there was not a sing le paved road in the county at that time. And, I'm sure Fulton County took their time in paving the roads. Councilmemb e r Kunz We need to make sure we understand what we are talking about ; one acre lots versus three acre lots. Coun cilm e mb er Lo ngo ria We are not changing the ordinance that we have. Our ordinance has always stated one acre lot minimum for paved road and three acre lot minimum for gravel roads . We are clarifyin g in some cases where there is a commonality between those two types of roads where the density is open for interpretation. Mayor L oc kwoo d Would it be safe to say that the will of council would be to protect the look of our gravel roads as the existing ordinance states that any lot on a gravel road must be a minimum of three acres but then again not to take away any rights of someone who is on a paved road but by doing that specify that every lot that touches the gravel road has a three acre minimum. So , if someone has a long piece of property on a paved road the y can develop AG-1 but every lot that touches a gravel road is a three acre minimum so that the net result is that on our paved roads , AG-1 is allowed but as you drive down a gravel road there are three acre lots at a minimum. Would that be the intent of council and could staff, legal , etc . create text amendments to reflect this . City Atto rn ey Jarra rd I understand . I concur with Councilmember Mohrig to use the word "abut s" instead o f the word "adjacent". This may be one of those situations where a diagram may be appropriate to further speak to the exact intention. The diagram should show the gravel intersecting with the paved, showing that the three acres abutting the gravel road would be three and then further back it could be the typical one acre AG-1 lots. Mayo r L ockw ood I also want to make sure that we are not , as a city, taking rights away from anyone with existing property . Co uncilm emb er L usk There may be exceptions out there that we need to consider in protecting landowners. May or L ockw ood Yes , there are probably a handful of exceptions . Could we add a clause that if it is a special piece of property and is an exception that it can come back to the council for review? Re g ular Meeting of the Milton C ity Council Monday, January 30 , 2 01 7 at 6 :00 pm Pa ge 14 of 2 8 City Attorney Jarrard Typically, that would fall under the definition of a variance to the extent that there 1s an extraordinary hardship or unusual topography , etc. Councilmember Thurman That would come before the BZA , not the council. Is there a way for it to come before the council; variances just for that parti c ular item? City Attorney Jarrard Of course. Motion and Vote : Cou c ilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 16-282 with the following changes: • Use the term "abu ts" in stead of the term "adjacent to " • Staff include a d ia gram to capture the scenarios that have been discussed to show the three acre subdivision abutting an unpaved road with the balance of the larger tract left AG-1. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 2 . Consideration of RZ16-08 -To Amend the Definitions Regarding Paved and Unpaved Road in Chapter 64 , Article I, in Sec . 64-1. Definitions . ORDINANCE NO. 17-01-296 (Agenda Ite m No. 16-2 83) (Fir st Pr esentation at December 5, 2016 Regular City Co un cil Meeting) (Di scussed at Decemb er 12, 20 16 City Co un cil Work S ess ion) (Deferred at December 19, 20 16 Meetin g) (Kathleen Fi eld, Co mmu n ity Developm ent Director) Kathleen Field, Commun ity Development Director I I The purpose of this te xt am e ndment is to amend the existing ordinance to ensure that any parcel fronting on an unpaved r ad (gravel road) remains three acre in size . This also includes those parcels that have frontage on both an unpaved road and a paved road no matter what the width of the frontage on the unpaved road. These items were presented at the October 26 , 2016 Planning Commission Meeting . There were four citizens who made comment s regarding these items. Three of the citizens were in s pport of the ordinance as proposed by Staff. One citizen who also represented land owners was in opposition to the proposal as recommended by Staff. After deliberation and consideration of comments from the publ ic, the proposed text amendment was deferred to allow Staff to provide the following information : a list of unpaved roads in Milton and I a list of parcels and their size that have frontage on both unpaved roads and paved roads (not I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, Jan uary 30 , 2017 at 6:00 pm Page 15of 2 8 already in platted subdivision like White Columns). Staff provided the items that the Planning Commission requested from the October meeting. There was one citizen who spoke in support of the proposed text amendment regarding unpaved roads. After further discussion by the Planning Commission they recommended Approval (6-0) of the amendment to the definition section except, that within the definition of "gravel road'', to include the list of unpaved road s as listed below. In addition, they recommended that in the definition of "unpaved road " to add "with the list of unpaved roads" and include the map cited in the definition. These changes are reflected in the attached text amendment. PUBLIC COMMENT Th e following individuals s ubmitted a public comment card: Daniel Fernandez, 14855 Wood Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Jodi Martin , 15350 Thompson Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Ben Statham, 1424 Gantt Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Fitzroy Graham, 700 Creek Road , Milton, Georgia 30004 Kathleen Field I would li k e to read you the proposed definition of a gravel road. Gravel road means an unpaved road surfaced with gravel material and may have a paved extension that is constructed and maintained to function as an all-weather surface for vehicular and pedestrian travel and is synony mous with unpaved road . Mayor Lockwood We have some gravel roads where portions of it are paved either by mistake or not. May be we could add language that states "if the majority of the road i s not asphalt" or "the majority of the road is gravel." That would clarify it. Councilmember Longoria Any road named on the list of gravel road s is considered a gravel road . Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No . 16-283. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousl y (7-0). 3. Consideration of RZ16-05 -To Create Steep Slope Standards in Chapter 64, Article XVII , Division 3 , Site Improvement Standards . (Agenda Item No. 17 -009) (F ir s t Pr esentation at January 9, 201 7 R egular City Co un cil Mee tin g) (Discussed at Janu ary 18, 2017 City Co un cil Work S es s ion) (Kathl een Fi eld, Co mmunity Dev elopm ent Director) Regular Meeting of the Mi lton C ity Council Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 16 of28 Kathleen Field I am going to defer this ite m to Carter Lucas . Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager Tonight, we are going to as k that we defer this item back to the Planning Commis sion. T he reason I am asking for this is because there is some added language that the P lanning Commission wanted to have included in this re ga rding the ridge lines. Keeping in mind that the ridge line section came from a model ordinance that primarily discussed ridge lines as it re lated to the community from large high ridge lines overlooking the entire community that were an important component of that. The way it is currently de fined in the ordinance is that a ridge line means the line formed by the meeting of the tops of sloping surfaces of the land which is a very b road definition. I will give you an example of how th at is causing us some issues from the administrative component. One piece of the ordinance talks about the relationship with the building and roof line to a ridge line and that the roof line shoul d not exceed more than two feet above the ridge line which is great and eas y to administer in a loc ation where you have high and prominent ridge lines . In our case , we have much more rolling terrain and under the broad definition of that ri dge line , any of these rolling areas could be covered under that ridge l ine and you could end up with a situation where you cannot fit the building on the site and maintain the roof line within two feet of that ridge line. If I you were to look at a piece o f property such as the one I am showing you, you can see that the red I lines identify a number o f roof ridge lines that could be considered under the existing ordinance but I do not believe the intent of the Planning Commission was to protect these individual ridge lines on a piece of property . Part of the ord inance , if you remember from last week 's discussion, required that each ind iv id ual building site have a 25% or less b uilding pad under existing topographical conditions which creates a little bit of a competing factor when you start talking about protecting the ridge line and pushin g the buildings down the ridge line when, in fact, that ridge line may be the loc ation where you need to build a bui lding . And, in fac t , you may still be able to protect that ridge line even though you are putting the home on there . There are ways to construct or conceal the rid ge line to meet the intent of what I believe the Planning Commission's discussion was . And , so tonight, for that reason, we would like to go back to the Planning Commission to clarify that language and the definition of a ridge line and then bring the ordinance back to you in its entirety . PUBLIC COMMENT The following individuals s ubmitted a public comment card: Tim Becker, 15625 Canterb ury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 Scott Reece , 13685 Highway 9 , Milton, Georgia 30004 Tom Statham, 3149 South Hwy. 27, Carrollton , Georgia 30117 Laura Bentley , 2500 Bethany Church Road , Milton, Georgia 30004 I I I I Re g ular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , January 30 , 2 017 at 6 :00 pm Page 17 of 2 8 Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to DEFER Agenda Item No. 17-009 to the March 6, 2017 Regularl y Scheduled City Council Meeting. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 4. Consideration of RZ16-10 -To Amend the Rural Milton Overlay Single Family Us e s, Height -Section 64-1141 ( c ). ORDINANCE NO. 17-01-297 (Agenda Item No. 17-010) (First Pr es en ta tion at J anu ary 9, 20 17 Regu lar City Co unc il Me eting) (Discussed at J anu ary 18, 20 17 C ity Co un c il Work Sess ion) (Kathleen Field, Co mmun ity Development Director) Kathleen Field, Community Development Director The City Council approved a retaining wall ordinance on No vember 21 , 2016 within the Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 64-2403) limiting the height ofretaining walls , including those attached to single family homes. There is now a potential for new homes to exceed the building height to compensate for the required maximum six foot high retaining walls . Therefore , Staff has proposed an amendment to the required height for single famil y uses within the Rural Milton Overlay to limit the amount of height credit that would apply to steep slope applications, depending on each indi vidual lot. Staff has included a series of graphics to illustrate possible building height sce narios and how the height credit is applied . At the December 28 , 2016 Planning Commission Meeting there was no one in attendance from the public to speak about this item. The Planning Commission recommended to approve the proposed text amendment as proposed by Staff unanimously 7-0 . There was discu ss ion at the January 18 , 2017 Council Work Se ssion and council was in support of the proposed changes by staff. PUBLIC COMMENT Th e follo w in g individuals submitted a public comment card: Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase , Milton, Georgia 30004 Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-010. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Re g ular Meeting of th e Milton C ity Co uncil Monday, Janu ary 30 , 2 017 at 6 :00 pm Page 18 of 2 8 5. Consideration o f RZ16-11 -To Amend the Crabapple Form Based Code as it Relates to Building Units Allowed for Parking Structures -Article XIX of the Zoning Ordinance. (F ir st Pr esentat io n at J anu ary 9, 2017 Regular City Coun cil Mee ting) (Discussed at J anuary 18, 2017 City Co un cil Work S ess ion) ORDINANCE NO. 17-01-298 (Agenda Item No. 17-011) (Kathlee n Field, Co mm un ity Developm ent Direc tor) Kathleen Field, Community Development Director Within the Crabapple Form Based Code , when a parking structure is constructed the ordinance allows for a density bonus of two building units per one parking space created within a parking structure. One building unit equals either: one residential unit (no matter what the size) or 2,250 square feet of non-residenti al space. As the ordinance reads currently , there is no maximum cap on the number of densit y bonus units one can utilize. Staff has encountered developers wanting to take ad vantag e of thi s "loophole". In order to eliminate unappealing high density development that does not me et the v isio n for the Crabapple area, staff has proposed: a den sity cap that is the same as the density cap ind icated for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as shown on Table 10 of the Crabapple Form Based Code. For instance , in the T-5 zone, the allowed density is 9 units per acre and the d ensi ty allowed with the use of TDR credits is 14 units per acre . Should thi s te xt amendment be appro ve d , density bonuses when a parking structure is included will be capped at 14 units per acre a s well. At the December 28 , 20 16 Planning Commission Meeting, no one was in attendance fr om the publ ic to speak about this item. The Planning Commission recommended to approv e the proposed te xt amendment as proposed by Staff unanimously 7-0. There w as di scuss ion at the January 18, 201 7 Council Work Session and council was in support of the propo se d chan ge s by staff. PUBLIC COMMENT Th e followin g in di viduals submitted a public comment card: Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road , Milton , Georgia 30004 Rory Taylor, 616 Branyon Trail , Milton, Georgia 30004 Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road , Milton, Georgia 30004 Councilmember Longoria I don 't think that the growth has reached its potential, however, there is a lot going on in Crabapple. Normally, when we look at o ur ordinances in terms of commercial property or any kind of property that is going to attract customers , there is a ratio between the number of parking spaces that are I I required based on the number of square feet of the faci lity. It is easy to calculate because you start I with one and end up with the other. Whereas, when you add a bonus for the square footage based on the number of parking spaces in a vertical structure, you are creating a circular reference and it I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 19 of28 gets very complicated and is easily misunderstood. I would guess that if you looked at the end result , you would not be able to tell which one created what. And, so is there a way for us to simplify this and say if we are building a parking structure the required number of spaces per square foot is "X" versus trying to get to that same number by way of a building bonus. This would make it clearer and easily understood . Kathy Field We have parking requirements based on square footage. The intent was that when we originally wrote this form based code overlay for Crabapple , we tried to encourage parking under a structure . In order to encourage that so we wouldn't have as much parking outside, we allowed for increased density. This comes into play more for residential uses because yo u do not need a lot of parking but the commercial or restaurants you need a lot of parking. With residential uses , with the amount of parking required , you can have some of it underground and it has a better aesthetic look. That was the original intent , however , we realized there was a loophole and it had no limit on what you could do. We are not referring to large stand-alone above ground parking decks . We are talking about parking under a building. Councilmember Longoria So , we are saying that it is one level below whatever the structure is; so it is just referring to underground parking so it would not apply anywhere else. Kathy Field That is right. Councilmember Longoria So , the idea of adding parking spaces somehow impacts the square footage of the building itself; again , it seems backwards. It seems like we should be reducing the number of spaces required if they are located underground. Kathy Field Yes, we would like to encourage business owners to have parking underground as opposed to above ground parking. Councilmember Lusk Would adopting this amendment preclude the normal requirement for parking? Kathy Field No , not at all. Councilmember Lusk So , you would still have to have surface on-site parking. Kathy Field Correct. Regular Meeting of the Mi lto n C ity Council Monday , January 30 , 2017 at 6:00 pm Page 20 of 2 8 Councilmember Lusk The development would have to make provisions for the parking so the tenants of the building would not park on side str eets or vacant lots . Kathy Field Correct. Councilmember Lusk With this amendment , you are giving a bonus from 9 to 14 units w ith the parking configuration but you are still going to require on-site parking to accommodate all the units. With a TDR, you would still have the same bonu s . Would that still require all of those units , the original base units , plus the bonus units to have parking? Kathy Field Absolutely. Councilmember Lusk Parking is going to be a big issue in the Crabapple area. Kathy Field Yes , it is the limiting factor in terms of development. Councilmember Lusk It was all taken into cons id eration when we developed the transect zones . Kathy Field That is correct and the T S is the most dense and is located along the mai n street. Most of Crabapple is zoned T4 which has a m ax imum density of 5 units to one acre with a TDR allowance up to nine units. So , it is a lower density in T4. Councilmember Lusk There is currentl y a mi x ed use development that is in review for the Crabappl e area; retail , office and res idential. If there is a bonus attached to the residential portion of it , how would that impact the entire development knowing that there are parking requirements for both the office and retail which requires more parking spaces. Kathy Field In terms of the residential use , we would look at that and allow shared parking as most communities do. You would share the same parking as the office since the office is only open from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm and then peopl e wo uld be coming home after work. This is standard procedure to consider this type of situation. I I I I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Cou nci l Monday, January 30 , 2 017 at 6 :00 pm Page 21 of28 Councilmember Thurman We have two issues here ; we have the issu e that is before us which is the reduction in density that would be allowed based on the change to the ordinance as it is currently written and then we have the bigger issue of the overall Crabapple development of the downtown area. The second plan that was brought forward of the Crabapple development downtown area was better than the first but it is still way too dense. Parking would be a disaster if it was built out the way the plan states. Councilmember Hewitt I just want to be clear that this amendment is not adding any bonus. The bonus is already there. This is just capping it. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-011. Counci lmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 6. Co nsideration of U16-01NC16-03 -2785 Francis Road by Chrysalis Experimental Academy to Consider a Use Permit for a Private School (Section 64-1831) with a Maximum of 25 Students within the Existing Structure and a Concurrent Variance to Reduce the Undisturbed Buffer [64-1143(a)(3)(b)]. (Agenda Item No. 17-012) (First Presentation at January 9, 201 7 Regular City Co uncil Meeting) (Kathl een Fi eld, Co mmunity Dev elopm ent Direc tor) Kathleen Field The appli cant has requested that it be withdrawn. The request for withdrawn letter is in your packet. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to accept the WITHDRAW AL of Agenda Item No . 17-012 . Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Regular Meeting of th e Milton City Council Monday, January 30 , 20 17 at 6:00 pm Page 22 of28 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration to Amend Chapter 50, Article III, Division 1, Sec. 50-71 Comp li ance with City Procedures and G uidelines Required . (Paved and Unpaved Roads .) ORDINANCE NO. 17-01-299 (Agenda Item No. 16-285) (First Present at ion at December 5, 20 16 Regular City Council Meeting) (Discussed at December 12, 2016 City Council Work Session) (Deferred at December 19, 2016 Meeting) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director) Kathleen Field, C ommun ity Development Director The purpose of thi s text amendment is to amend the subdivision ordinance Chapter 50 to make it consistent with the zoning ordinance specifically the zoning text amendment changes that you made tonight in Section 64-4 16 ( e2). You made changes to the gravel road ordinance. This is to make reference to that zoning ordinance so that they both read the same way . PUBLIC COMMENT The following individual submitted a public comment card: Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Motion and Vote : Councilme mber Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item No. 16-285 with the following changes: • Change the word "adj acent" to "abutting" in number (9) to be consistent with RZl 6-07. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 2. Consideration of an Ordinance of the City of Milton, Georgia to Amend Chapter 2 of the Code of the City of Milton, Georgia to provide for Compensation for the Planning Commission, Board o f Zoning A ppeals, and Design Review Board ; to Provide for the Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances; to Provide an Effecti ve Date ; and for Other Lawful Purposes. ORDINANCE NO. 17-01-300 (Agenda Item No. 17-013) (First Presentation at J anuary 9, 2017 R egular City Cou ncil Me eting) (Ken Jarrard, City Attorney) I I I I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , January 30 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 23 of28 Ken Jarrard, City Attorney This is a proposed ordinance that we have discussed at work sessions and it has alread y been through first presentation. It is consistent with the City of Milton Charter that authorizes the council to set the compensation for members of boards and committees that are regulated by the City Counc il. This provides for three different boards or commissions to receive compensation. It allows members of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board , and Board of Zoning Appeals to receive $50.00 per member for each meeting they attend that is defined by the Open Meetings Act. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk mo ved to approve Agenda Item No . 17-013. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a Resolution Appointing Members to the City of Milton Cultural Arts Committee for District 3/Post 1 and District 2/Post 2. RESOLUTION NO. 17-01-411 (Agenda Item No. 17-031) (May or Joe Lockwood) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-031 appointing Emily Griffith for District 3/Post 1 to the City of Milton Cultural Arts Committee. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0). Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-031 appointing Dr. Lauri Goodling for District 2/Post 2 to the City of Milton Cultural Arts Committee. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0). 2. Consideration of a Resolution Appointing a Member to the City of Milton Equestrian Committee for District 2/Post 1 and District 2/Post 2. RESOLUTION NO. 17-01-412 (Agenda Item No. 17-032) (May or J oe Lo ckw ood) Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, January 30 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 24 of28 Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approv e Agenda Item No. 17-032 appointing Dr. Lis Drevet for District 2/Post 1 to the City of Milton Equestrian Committee. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0). Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item No . 17-032 appointing Tamara Didjurgis for District 2/Post 2 to the City of Mi lton Equestrian Committee. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion . The motion passed (7-0). The following Agenda Item No. 17-033 was removed from the agenda by motion and vote during Approval of Meeting Agenda: 3. Consideration of a Resolution Appointing a Member to the City of Milton Board of Zoning Appeals for District 1/Post 1. (Agenda Item No . 17-033) (May or J oe Lockwoo d) The following Consent Agenda Items No. 17-028 and 17-029 were moved to New Business by Motion and Vote during Approval of Meeting Agenda. 4. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and the University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. to Provide Assistance on the Development of Community Septic System Review Guidelines . (Agenda Item No. 17-028) (Carter Lu cas, A ss istant City Manager) Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager I would like to discuss th i s item and the following item together since they are related. PUBLIC COMMENT The following individual submitted a public comment card: Julie Zahner Bailey , 255 Hickory Flat Road , Milton, Georgia 30004 I I I I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, January 30 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm Page 25 of28 Mayor Lockwood A while ago, we discussed exploring community septic which is why these items are on our agenda tonight. I thought it would be a good idea to explore our options on the non-residential areas of our community. The reason I asked to bring these items off of the Consent Agenda so we could discuss it is because , at this point, I don 't think we have had anything come before us on the non- residential side of development. I do not support this concept on the residential areas of our community. I have a hard time spending taxpayer dollars on research if we are not going to pursue this development option. Councilmember Kunz We obviously have the disappearance of our equestrian life all over the place in Milton. My neighbors and I have seen it first-hand. The AG-1 zoning that we currently have does not protect our equestrian way of life. I think we should be open to the idea of community septic to find out exactly what can be done to help us achieve our objective of preserving the rural character of Milton. The City of Thomasville has recently hired a consultant to help them create a conservation subdivision ordinance. I recently spent some time with a councilmember from Flowery Branch and he lives in a conservation subdivision and he praised how much his home value has gone up because of this concept. If you look up conservation subdivision, there are numerous articles on the benefits of these type of areas and how they increase home values. We need to be open to new technology that will save our land. Carter Lucas After our discussion in September 2016, there was a desire to allow the evaluation of these types of systems on a case by case basis through a use permit or other similar process. So, as part of that process, we were asked to establish guidelines on the requirements of community septic systems as well as the process to bring them forward to the Mayor and City Council. That is what these contracts are in place for. They are to help provide some technical and legal guidance on the use of these systems and how to bring them forward through some sort of special use or similar type process . Councilmember Longoria So , we are following up on something we said we were going to do and we are just trying to be prepared for some moment in time when it could be applicable. As of today, we have some community septic in place but we do not have any pending applications . So , tonight we are discussing if we need to spend taxpayer money to hire a consultant to research community septic system rev iew guidelines . Carter Lucas They are hourly contracts not to exceed $10 ,000 pe r contract. Mayor Lockwood If we are not considering allowing community septic conservation subdivisions at this time , then is this something that we could look at again at a later date? Regular Meeting of th e Milton Ci ty Council Monday, January 30 , 2 017 at 6:00 pm Page 26 of28 Councilmember Lusk I support both of these contracts because of all the reasons we discussed several months ago and for the reasons that Counci lmember Kunz just repeated. Our mission is to set policy and to plan for the future. We have spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of citizen time discussing and formulating the comprehensive land use plan. So, it is the very too l that we have to plan for the future. We are trying to get ahead of this issue. It is common sense and good planning. It is money well spent. I think we owe it to the people in our community to look at ways to preserve our land. Councilmember Thurma n I think conservatio n subd ivis ions can work great in certain areas. In order for them to work great, you need a really big piece o f property. I'm not sure we have any property in Milton that would be suitable for a conservation subdivision that would be completely density neutral. This technology is constantly changing. I do not want to spend money on research now that by the time we receive a request for a conservation subdivision, that information is outdated. I do not think this is a good use of taxpayer dollars right now . Councilmember Hewitt I am not in favor of community septic in residential areas. I think we could possibly look at it in some mixed use areas . I do not want to spend any money on this co nsultant. Councilmember Kunz We are losing land and you need to understand the land trust to see how community septic can be effective . We are losing our equestrian communities. Councilmember Longoria This is not a discussion on ke eping Milton equestrian with beautiful large parcels of land. This is about whether or not we need to spend $20 ,000 on a consultant to give us information about using community septic . Councilmember Thurman I would rather spend $20,000 give tax relief to our large landowners so they would be more inclined to create three or fiv e acre parcels versus selling to big developers. Councilmember Lusk The intent of these two agenda items is to get ahead of this is sue regarding how to handle development issues particularly commercial areas. Councilmember Mohrig We have been discussing a commercial node along Hwy. 140 Arnold Mill Road. That is one of the areas where we have considered community septic. These consultants could look at certain areas and determine the feasib il ity of commercial septic . I I I I I I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, Janu ary 30, 20 I 7 at 6:00 pm Page 27 of28 Carter Lucas These studies would give us an idea of how , when , and where to use these types of systems . And , also recommend the types of systems that would be conducive to our area. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to DENY Agenda Item No. 17-028. Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-3). Councilmember Mohrig, Councilmember Lusk and Councilmember Kunz were in opposition. 5 . Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Dr. Robert Rubin to Provide Assistance on the Development of Community Septic System Review Guidelines. (Agenda Item No. 17-029) (Carter Lu cas, Ass istant City Mana ger) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-029. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion . The motion was DENIED (4-3). Mayor Lockwood , Councilmember Thurman , Councilmember Hewitt, and Councilmember Longoria were in opposition. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS STAFF REPORTS-Staff Reports were deferred to afuture council meeting. Department Updates 1. Community Development 2 . Police 3. Court EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to not have an Executive Session to discuss land acquisition . Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, January 30 , 2017 at 6:00 pm Page 28 of28 ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 17-034) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 9:45 p.m. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Date Approved: February 22 , 2017 Joe Lock~ I I I