HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 03/06/2017 - MINS 03 06 17 REG (Migrated from Optiview)I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , March 6, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page I of 19
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 . P ublic 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 Regular Meeting of th e May or and Council of the City of Milton was held on March 6 ,
2017 at 6:00 PM, May or Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Octavia Sargeant-St. Jam es Un ited Meth odi s t Ch urc h -A lp haretta, Georgia
CALL TO ORDE R
Mayor Joe Lockwood call ed the meet ing to order.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Co unci lmember T hurman , Co unci lmem ber Kunz, Councilmember
Lusk , Councilmember Hewitt an d Counc ilm ember Mo hr ig .
Councilmember Absent: Counci lm ember Lo n gori a
PL EDGE OF ALLE GIANCE (Led by M ayor J oe Lockw ood)
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
(Agenda Item No. 17-057)
Motion and Vote: Counci lme mb er Hewitt moved to ap prove t he Meeting Agenda with the
fo ll owing changes :
• Move Agenda Item Num ber 17 -069 , "Consideration of A Resolution Appointing A Member
to the City of Milton Board of Zoning Appeals for District I /Post I " und er New Business
to after the Co n sent Agenda .
• Add "Cons id erati on of A R eso lu tion Ap poi nting A Mem ber to the Milton Equestrian
Committee for D istrict 3/P ost 2" as Age nd a Item N um be r 17-072 un der New Business and
then move th is item to after the Consent Agenda .
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 2of19
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of the February 22, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 17-058)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Atlanta
Office Movers d/b/a Peachtree Movers.
(Agenda Item No.17-059)
(Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director)
3. Approval of an Agreement between the City of Milton and A 1 A Let's Get Tropical, LLC
I
for Performance at "Beach Bash at Bell" at Bell Memorial Park on June 24, 2017. I
(Agenda Item No. 17-060)
(Courtney Spriggs, Community Outreach Manager)
4. Approval of an Agreement between the City of Milton and The American Flyers Show
Band for Performance at "Party on the Plaza" April 29, 2017 .
(Agenda Item No. 17-061)
(Courtney Spriggs , Community Outreach Manager)
5. Approval of an Agreement between the City of Milton and Cooper Carry, Inc. to Provide
Conceptual Design Services for the Proposed Court/Fire/Police Facility on Highway 9.
(Agenda Item No. 17-062)
(Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager)
6. Approval of an Agreement between the City of Milton and NGL & Erosion Control
Group, LLC to Provide Right of Way Mowing Services .
(Agenda Item No. 17-063)
(Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager)
7. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Buxton
Company.
(Agenda Item No. 17-064)
(Sara LaDart, Economic Development Manager)
I
I
I
Re gular Meeti ng of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 6, 20 17 at 6:00 pm
Pa ge 3of19
8 . Approval of an Agreement between the City of Milton and Intercontinental Commercial
Services , Inc. to Provide Janitorial Services for Various City Facilities.
(Agenda Item No. 17-065)
(Car ter Lucas, Ass is tant City Manager)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember
Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6 -0). Councilmember Lon goria
was absent from the meeting .
REPORTS AND PRESENT A TIO NS
1. Presentation of a Grant by the Milton First Responders Foundation to the Milton Police
Departm ent for Specialized Tactical Equipment.
(Brian Dolan, Chairp erson, Milton Fir st Respo nders Foundation)
FIRST PRESENTATION
1. Consideration of an Ordinance of the City of Milton , Georgia to Amend Chapter 4 of the
Code of the City of Milton , Georgia to Amend the Requirements for the Issuance of
Alco ho lic Beverage Licenses ; To Provide for the Repeal of Conflicting Ordinance s; To
Provi de an Effective Date ; And for Other Lawful Purposes.
(Agenda Item No. 17-066)
(Ken J arrard, City Attorney)
2. Consideration of an Amendment to Chapter 2, Article VI -Financial
Management Program to Provide for Necessary Update s and Revisions.
(Agenda Item No. 17-067)
(S tacey In g lis, Ass istant City Manager)
3. Consideration of an Ordinance Creating the Milton Greenspace Ad v isory
Committee (MGAC).
(Agenda Item No. 17-068)
(Kath leen J ohn son, Conservati on Pr oject Manager)
Motion and Vote: Coun cilmember Mohrig moved to appro ve the First Presentation Item s.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousl y (6-0).
Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting.
I PUBLIC HEARING (Non•)
Re g ular Meetin g of th e Milton City Counc il
Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Pa ge 4of19
ZONING AGENDA
1. Consideration of RZ16-05 -To Create Steep Slope Standards in Chapter 64 , Article XVII ,
Division 3, Site Improvement Standards.
ORDINANCE NO. 17-03-302
(Agenda Item No. 17-009)
(Fir st Present ation at Janu ary 9, 2017 R egular City Council Meeting)
(Dis cussed at Janu ary I 8, 20 I 7 C ity Coun cil Work S ession)
(Def erred at Janu ary 30, 2017 C ity Co un cil Mee tin g)
(C art er Lucas , Assistant City Ma nager)
Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager
Good evening, Mayor and Council. If you will remember , we deferred this particular ordinance
back to the Planning Commission to have a discussion on the ridgeline component of it. They
would like to have it included in this particular ordinance . So, tonight I am going to focus primarily
on the ridgeline component that we went over with the Planning Commission. If you have any
I
questions on it or any other components of the ordinance , please feel free to ask. Since we have I
had a first reading on this already , if you choose to adopt this tonight , it will be adopted with the
revisions that we are discussing tonight. First and foremost is the modification of the title of the
ordinance. Rather than just a steep slope ordinance , it would be a steep slope and ridgeline
protection ordinance. So , one of the concerns that we had with the way the ridgelines were
originally defined in the ordinance that the Planning Commission brought forward , was that the
model ordinance that we took this from really dealt with ridg elines that were really prominent
components of the community. So , where you could see a ridgeline throughout the community
and controlling development along that ridgeline which is not necessarily what we have in many
cases in the City of Milton. The way the ordinance was structured , it required a roof line to be
within two feet of the top of the ridgeline , which if you had a number of ridgelines throughout the
community or large prominent ridgelines , that wasn't necessarily an issue. Our concern with the
administration of that particular component was that we have more of a rolling topography here
where you may have one main ridgeline throughout the property and a lot of smaller ridgelines .
Most of these slides should look relatively familiar. This is a rehash of what we did at a work
session not too long ago. Our concern was that we could hav e ridgelines the way it was defined
in which you could not physically get a structure 's roof within two feet of that ridgeline. And , so
we didn 't want to have the possibility of that being interpreted in that area being totally
undevelopable because I do not believe that was the intent. Either of the model ordinance or what
the Planning Commission recommended but we wanted to go back and clarify that language to
reflect more of what we see throughout our community. This was just an example that we went I
over at the work session where this is actuall y the piece of pro p erty next to us and if you looked at
all the red lines that are on that drawing , they technically would have been ridgelines that would
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , March 6, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 5of19
have been protected under that ordinance and not necessarily something that was the intent of the
Planning Commission. So , what we tried to do, if you look at this, this is actually a digital elevation
of the model of the city where the lighter colors represent the high elevations , the darker colors
represent the valleys. And , so you can see that, for us, for the predominant development along our
ridgelines, our main roads run along those ridgelines, so rather than looking up at a lot of prominent
ridgelines along the community, the majority of our roads run along those ridgelines. So , what we
wanted to do , and having some discussions with the Planning Commission , the intent was really
to try to protect the viewshed as you drive through the City of Milton. So, similar to our viewshed
protection, we wanted to maintain those ridgelines that were readily visible to the general public
as you move throughout the community. And , so what we looked at which areas have some
prominence as you drive down the road, and we estab lished those areas to be higher than 50 feet
of the exterior roads and within 500 feet of the right-of-way. And, so we modified our ordinance
to read, we st ill have the two feet for the roof line above a primary ridgeline or it could be shielded
from view. So , it gave some opportunity for development along that ridgeline provided it shielded
it from view and I will show some examples of that further in the presentation. We did not want
to exclude those developments along the ridgelines because this ordinance will be done in
conjunction with the steep slopes ordinance so it is all one. And, if you remember, the steep slope
ordinance requires you to find an area of at least 25% or flatter for your building envelope. So , in
many cases , that will be along these ridgelines within the development. We wanted to provide
some opportunity to allow development of those areas where we think it is going to be necessary
to develop. What we wanted to do with the digital elevation model is to look at those areas
throughout the city where we thought this may come into play. So, the black lines represent the
500 feet on either side of the road so 1,000 foot wide corridor along our main roads. The green
areas represent areas where the criteria of 50 feet above the road elevation and within our 500 foot
zone may exist. So , it gives you an idea about the distribution of these ridgelines throughout the
city . We then looked at those areas in more detail so if you looked at the area between Providence
and Freemanville, you can see that the light areas represent the highest ridgelines along this area
and the dark areas represent the streams, valleys and lower areas in this particular corridor. When
we started to break that down , all the green areas turned into these areas , so the areas outlined in
red would be those areas in this particular zone that would meet our criteria of being 50 feet or
more of elevation from the roadway and within our 500 foot zone. So, that was our definition of
the primary ridgelines that we felt were important to protect that met the Planning Commission's
intent so we modified the ordinance accordingly. One of the options was to shield or screen the
types of developments along the ridgeline so here are a couple of examples of what we are talking
about. It could either be vegetative cover, and in the case where existing vegetation exists and it
can provide the screening, you will see that non-invasive vegetation exists that shall be maintained
and incorporated into the screening to the greatest extent possible. The idea was that where that
existing vegetation existed, it would be utilized in the screening so we are not stripping the
ridgelines down. The buildings can be moved back they can be flattened; there are a number of
different alternatives that would allow that type of development along the ridgeline and still protect
the viewshed corridor along our main roadways. In the applicability section, we revised it so that
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 6 , 2017 at 6: 0 pm
Pa ge 6of19
this particular ordinance related to the primary ridgelines in addition to the steep slopes areas that
we previously discussed. If you have any questions , I will be glad to answer them.
Councilmember Lusk
In the definitions , you define a ridgeline as the line for the intersection of two slopes. I recognize
that situation up in the Appalachians and the Smokies where you may have a ridge or the top of
the ridge that is only two or three feet wide so you get that intersection in the two slopes. But,
down here, we are in the Piedmont area where there are rolling hills so you may get an intersection
of those slopes; maybe 30 feet above the top of the hill, so you don 't really get a ridge , you get a
rolling topography. So , I'm not sure that ridgelines really apply to this area of the country;
particularly the southeast.
Carter Lucas
Correct, it is not where we would see a traditional ridgeline. In a lot of cases you see these
ordinances above a certain elevation so they are trying to protect elevations of ridgelines above
2,500 -3,500 feet; where you have the more traditional ridgelines that you think of in the
mountains . And, that was really kind of the challenge in defining an area that we felt should be
protected to maintain the type of viewshed that the Planning Commission was interested in. And,
so while you are correct, we do not have a traditional type of ridgeline that you would expect in
this type of ordinance, th ose rolling type of elevations and rolling hills where they meet the criteria
I
of 50 feet above the adjoining road within our corridor, we felt like we could protect and maintain I
that use to some degree.
Councilmember Lusk
And , you have really minimize d it in this second or third slide that you have come up with. Of
those slides, particularly where you have identified what you call a ridgeline, part of this
ordinance?
Carter Lucas
No , those slides were to give us an indication of whether or not the criteria we were selecting was
reasonable and to give you an idea about where the distribution of those areas would be. The final
determination on any of these ridgelines would be based on the survey provided by each project
on a case by case basis. So, that was just a starting point for us to see where these particular areas
might occur throughout the city.
Mayor Lockwood
I certainly understand , Carter, where you said 3 ,5 00 feet elevation, where Councilmember Lusk
brought up the Appalachian Mountains but I am trying to figure out how this affects Milton;
positively and negatively for someone who has a lot that they want to build a house on. Do we
have any idea how many peop le will be affected?
Carter Lucas
I do not have a lot count. It would not necessarily prohibit development on the ridgelines but it I
protects development on the ri dgelines and regulates it to some degree. The impact of it , I guess ,
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , March 6, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 7of19
is going to be that everyone's opinion is going to be a little different, but I do not have a specific
lot count so I don't know how many lots wi ll be affected by this.
Mayor Lockwood
In the mountains , you can tell whether they have this protection or not; there is a big difference.
Milton is mainly gentle slopes and rolling hills. I would think there are a lot of lots in Milton that
it would make the most sense to build on the ridgeline. How would that affect?
Carter Lucas
I think most of what we found in the areas that we were looking at were hilltops as opposed to
ridgelines. So, in some cases it would bring the house or structure down the slope to comply with
the two feet above the hilltop or ridgeline. Or, it may require taking it to the back side of the slope
or screen it in some way.
Mayor Lockwood
I believe our citizens in Milton want, with the equestrian logo , etc ., when you drive by you see a
pasture and a barn and maybe a house sitting back probably on top of the hilltop. You would have
to move it down to protect the ridgeline but does that fit what our citizens want the look and feel
of Milton to be ?
Carter Lucas
From our valuation, most of the impact would be in the immediate vicinity of that ridgeline. And,
what you see from that corridor in front of the ridgeline. We di d not see areas where you are going
to protect something on Freemanville and have that visual effect on Hopewell Road type of
incident. There is too much topography between our roads and too much existing vegetation to
have those long vistas and viewsheds that you might traditionally see with a typical ridgeline
protection ordinance .
Councilmember Lusk
Going back to the term, ridgeline , the way it is being used in this document is contrary to the
definition of a ridgeline. In the Piedmont area, we do not get an intersection of two joining slopes .
Carter Lucas
In the trad itional ridgeline , you have two slopes that meet at the pinnacle and in this case you have
two slopes that come out and flatten to zero as they come together. We do have a ridgeline but not
in the traditional sense . You are absolutely right. It is more of a rolling terrain versus that sharp
peak ridgeline that you see in the mountains.
Councilmember Thurman
My fear is that in order to comply with this ordinance , there are going to be in conflict with other
ordinances that we may have that require houses to be built a certain distance from the road. Are
we getting ourselves into a situation where it will make it difficult for someone to build on certain
lots because they can 't go down the hill , they have to be up the hill, but they have to go down the
hill for this new steep slope ordinance; are we just getting ourselves into a situation where it will
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 6 , 20 17 at 6 :00 pm
Page 8 of 19
be difficult for staff to try to figure out how to put a house on certain lots. Which of the ordinances
are they going to be in confl ict with the least ?
Carter Lucas
The ordinance provides for an appeals process to the Board of Zoning Appeals so if we come
across a lot that has difficulty building on, then there is an avenue for them to go through the Board
of Zoning Appeals . But, with any ordinance, particularly this one and the steep slopes component
of it , it will take staff time to go through individual developm ents with the property owners to try
and work through some of these issues. How many of thos e exist? I honestly don't know and
sometimes you don't know until you begin implementation. We believe that this ordinance meets
the intent of the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Thurman
The BZA is really only supposed to approve variances when there is a hardship and I am assuming
this would qualify as a hardship for many of the lots because this ordinance would not have been
around when people originally purchased their property. Is th at correct?
Carter Lucas
Yes, particularly the steep slopes component of it. This doe sn 't necessarily preclude yo u from
developing on an existing lot ; it regulates the subdivision of those lots. So, if you have an existing
I
lot, the steep slopes ordinance allows you to have a building p ermit on that lot. If you wanted to I
subdivide that lot , that is where these regulations would come into effect. If you subdivided the
lot into two lots or fifty lots , this ordinance will come into play at that time.
Mayor Lockwood
My concern is , and all ordinances sound good on paper, but then as staff knows and probably some
councilmembers , what I run into is that you get the cases where it really works against what you
are trying to do. A good example may be somebody that wants to subdivide a parcel, two 5 acre
lots or one 10 acre lot , or whatever, but where the home site sits perfectly and then if this ordinance
can't allow it to sit perfectly then that takes the prime home lo t out and it has to be developed into
four lots instead. I like that yo u can go to the BZA, but to Karen's point if that is a hardship , it is
not necessarily a hardship , it is more of a common sense judgment. Would the home site look
better from the street or what would be better for the homeowners, etc. I don 't see that as a BZA
cut and dry thing.
Councilmember Lusk
Along the roadway where there are differences in slope and there is undevelopable land so by
using this guide ordinance , yo u could end up with different setbacks amongst a row of houses
along a right of way . So, it could works against the aesthetics along a certain ridgeline. We may
be introducing more issues by adopting this ; creat ing hardships.
Mayor Lockwood
Unintended consequences by altering something it may not gi ve us the desired effect. I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , March 6, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 9of19
Councilmember Thurman
Is there a way for there to be an administrative appeal of this if it is not in the best interest of the
community as a whole? Rather than have to go to the BZA as a hardship situation that the Director
could handle a certain amount of appeals for this?
City Attorney Jarrard
Of course, it can be structured however the council wants to structure it. These are not zoning
issues , these are subdivision administrative issues. So, if the council wants to set up a situation
where administrative relief can be provided, you can do that, subject of course to the overriding
issue which is how much discretion do you want to give staff. How much does staff want? At
some poi nt , they run the risk of making decisions that are perhaps inconsistent with the will of the
council. We could craft an administrative appeal or administrative variance , some sort of internal
process for these, but the trick is always in these sorts of things, if staff makes a determination that
decides that a strict interpretation of this ordinance is not in the best interest of the public , then that
is tough for staff to make. I hope everyone can understand why ; sometimes it can be difficult for
them to do. Your point is well taken, yes , we can allow staff to make those decisions , but they
will need guidance on what you are looking for from a standpoint of when they should exercise
that discreti on and give relief.
Mayor Lockwood
I think you have a good point because you have an ordinance here but you also have an
administrative way to handle it to make a different decision; where do you draw the line ?
City Attorney Jarrard
I suspect the councilmember was thinking; I would know it when I saw it and it no longer makes
any sense fo r us to strictly apply it. I am not speaking for Mrs. Field but I'm sure she would want
you to put something that would indicate; when do you want me to make that call.
Carter Lucas
I think that gets to the heart of why we wanted to go back and have this discussion with the
Planning Commission because the way the ridgelines were defined before; almost every little ridge
we saw, for example, on the piece of property next to us , fell under that type ofregulation. So , we
tried to define those primary ridgelines a little better to get to a point that we felt was more in line
with what the Planning Commission was really wanting and hoping to detect along the corridors
and , therefore , get it out of the administrative type of approval and more toward; this is the
ridgeline that we want to protect.
Mayor Lockwood
Do we have any public comment?
City Clerk Gordon
Yes , we do sir. We have one.
Re g ular Meetin g of th e Milton Ci ty Council
Monday, March 6 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 10of19
Mayor Lockwood
Okay , let 's hear the public comment and then we can continue to discuss it.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Scott Reece, Brumbelow Reece and Associates, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004
I have been asked by m y family , relatives , and clients to speak on the steep slope ordinance. My
personal and professional opinion is that the existing rules and regulations that we have in effect,
have controlled the devel opment in a quality manner for the city for the past ten years. I was going
to ask for clarification if it was just for those of us who own large tracts of land and I received
clarification tonight and the answer is yes . So , our friends who live in subdivided neighborhoods
are exempt. To me , if this ordinance is good for me , it is good for everybody. It should be for the
gu y that wants to put a pool on his lot and he has a 35% or 40 % slope ; he should be subject to the
same rules and regulatio ns to create this utopian environment that we are seeking. Not just on
those of us who have still held on to our property and we are now going to be penalized for that.
So , if that clarification has gone through, I strongly disagree. If the ordinance is of quality and the
need and necessity is such that the quality of life in Milton, then it needs to apply to everyone.
Everyone needs to participate not just those of us who still have our farms and have not subdivided
our land yet. If you feel the need to pass this ordinance , I ask that you change the percentage from
I
25% to 33 or 35 % to be more in line with the definition of critical slopes and areas that are
considered to be at risk fo r erosion control. And , I am gue ssing that is the main thing we are I
fighting on steep slopes is the fact that if you are grading on a steep slope then we are trying to
protect the environment and ho ld that in. So , I think we should bring it more in line with the state
where it is considered critical slopes that are being graded d own 40%. Lastly , after listening to
this presentation , if we can identify the properties that would be affected , I think we should contact
those property owners and those individuals and let them participate since we have now defined
the areas and properties as such . This could be a major effect on the use of their property. It just
seems like those of us who still have large tracts of land in Milton are in a constant battle to protect
our property rights . Thank you for your consideration to allow this ordinance to apply to everyone;
not just those of us who own more than five acres in Milton.
Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
In response to thi s, I just wanted to make sure you remember this whole steep slopes ordinance
has travelled through the CZIM. I was in attendance at the CZIM and maybe 5-10 people were
there in support of it. I own a piece of property with some steep slopes and I am more interested
in the way Milton looks in the future. As Carter pointed out , this seems like reasonable protection.
We have done the views hed protection, I think in general, most citizens are in favor of it. Thank
you very much. And , also we don 't have a steep slopes ord inance and most cities in this area
already have this protection. Thank you .
Councilmember Lusk
I think Mr. Reece brings up a good point about the fact that we have identified those critical areas
within the city and I think it is onl y fair to notify these property owners that there are issues with I
it and get them engaged in the discussion rather than adopting something that could lead to several
either administrati ve variance changes or even in some cases appeals to the Board of Zoning
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 11 of 19
Appeals. I think we have gone far enough down this path that we have recogruzed the properties
and it seems logical to take it another step further and advise thes e property owners just like we
would in any change to a zoning code or anything else that affects personal property; the uses or
personal property rights.
C ouncilm e mb e r T hurman
Have we actually identified this on a property by property basis or just from a forty-thousand foot
view on the map? I know one little area right there at Freemanville and Providence that we have
drilled down into but have we drilled down to all areas of the city or is that the only area?
Ca rt e r Luc as
A detaile d analysis was just in that one area of Freemanville and Providence. For that level , we
have done that on a citywide basis. But, if we are talking about notifying everyone who may be
affected, I don 't know that we wouldn't notify everyone within the 1,000 foot corridor because the
fina l determination of what areas would fa ll under this regu lation wou ld be done on a case by case
basis based on specific surveys of those properties rather than two foot aerial topography . We
would probably need to have a little more conversation on the right people to involve in that.
Councilm emb e r T hu rm an
So, that is not something that you could just send out notices to property owners without doing a
lot of extra work?
C arte r Lu cas
If you are wanting to do it for everyone in the corridor; that is easier than going through the detailed
determination of each property .
C ouncilm e mb e r T hurman
What is that going to do if someone gets a notice; they may or may not be affected and are then
going to be very concerned possibly for no reason.
Mayor Lo ckwood
I learned a long time ago, I call it the big circle, a person has an idea and they say this is what we
need to do then there is a lot of research that takes a lot of time and effort from many people only
to come back around to the same solution in the end. The Planning Commission, citizens , and
staffs main concern is protecting the rural viewshed. Is there another way to attack this rather
than craft an ordinance that we really don 't know what the ramifications will be in the future ? Is
there a w ay we can work with an applicant to identify viewshed issues and find solutions? Is there
an easier way for staff to handle this issue rather than have an o rdinance?
Coun cilm e mb er K un z
Ken , I believe you and I talked a while back about design guidelines that are not necessarily
ordinances. Some communities have design guides that are no t necessari ly ordinances but they
allow for developers to have some idea of what the commuruty if looking for. I think we are
moving in a logical direct ion based on some of the past decisions that we have made but that
doesn 't necessarily make it right. I agree with Karen 's commen ts that we may be runrung into an
Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council
Monday, March 6, 20 l 7 at 6 :00 pm
Page 12 of 19
overregulation situation where it is well intended but I have not had anyone complain to me about
where their house sits on the lot , however, they have complained about land disappearing in
Milton. As we head down this path, I am concerned that we may be fixing a problem that I have
not heard is there other than the fact that we might be regulating our way to achieving an objective
that will infringe on indi vidual landowner property rights especially if we don't communicate with
them , we are doing a dis service. But, it might be a question of whether this information once it is
processed will fit better with a design guide that our staff could create. To my knowledge, we
have a Comprehensive Plan , but when it comes to building structures and things of that nature,
this could be a place where that could fit as an alternative to being an ordinance.
City Attorney Jarrard
Yes , obviously protecting the viewshed is the main objective here and that could be done by way
of aspirational aesthetic concerns in a design guidebook. The only issue is the difference between
recommendations and the force of law. It is all well and good until the rubber hits the road and
someone says no , I am not going to do that. At some point the way governments compel people
to carry out their vision is by law.
Councilmember Kunz
A design guide can be treated as a basis of communication so staff could communicate the
council 's vision; however, it is not a requirement by law.
I
City Attorney Jarrard I
You may have a lot of peop le who voluntarily comply with the design guide. My experience in
Milton is that a lot of people share the same interests in Milton; they look at things a particular
way, my point is that it is the tough cases where all of a sudden you get push back and this is not
my vision for my piece o f property and I have property rights, etc.
Councilmember Kunz
That is an element of risk that we as a council would have to decide. Based on past experiences,
I don 't think that is a risk that is over burdensome. Although, situations like that may occur but I
think there is a way to settle this issue without an ordinance.
Councilmember Hewitt
So , the key components of this ordinance are steep slopes and ridgel ines. It seems that the one
that is causing the most d ifficulty is the ridgelines.
Carter Lucas
Yes , that is definitely the one that we went back to the Planning Commission to have some
additional discussion on.
Councilmember Hewitt
So, we could potentially have a steep slope ordinance like our neighbors but maybe drop the
ridgeline component out of it and at least have some protection on some of those steep slopes. I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 6 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 13of19
Councilmember Lusk
What slope grade were you using to determine the slopes shown on the green slide?
Carter Lucas
In this particular case, it is only identifying the ridgeline area so it is using the criteria of 50 feet
higher than the existing road and within the 500 foot corridor. If you wanted to look at slopes , this
would be a little difficult, and this was based strictly on the percentage criteria and not necessarily
on the criteria of whether or not it is ten feet high and 5,000 contiguous square feet, but this would
give yo u an idea of those slopes throughout the city that are more than 25% and which slopes are
more than 35%. So, all of the red areas and in some cases are very difficult to see. The distribution
breaks down that there are 1, 130 acres of 25% or greater and 313 acres of 3 5% or greater. Keep
in mind that we have slopes that are less than ten feet tall. This is going to take into account every
slope that is greater than that percentage. Our ordinance takes into account slopes that are greater
than ten feet tall and more than 5,000 contiguous square feet. So, that may take some of those out.
This wou ld also take out slopes that exist within currently subdivided developments. So , an
existing subdivision would not be represented here because it is already developed and platted
under previous regulations. But, that should give you some idea of the distribution of these types
of slopes and where we would be looking throughout the city.
Councilmember Hewitt
So, the slope component of this, 1,130 acres, is not a huge component of this. It is less of a factor
than the ridgeline component.
Carter Lucas
It is going to look more at the way you subdivide a property versus a traditional one acre lot. It is
going to force you to look at those steep slope areas and where you have a predominant number
of steep slopes on a particular piece of property, it may require you to have larger lots within that
subdivision. And, you will have to find a building envelope the way the ordinance is currently
written of 25% or less in order to be built. So, whi le it is not an absolute prohibition of
development on those slopes , it does regulate them in some way and allow us to have to look at
the layout of a subdivision to make sure that those lots are placed in the most appropriate place on
the property. When you throw in the ridgeline component, it adds an additional layer ofregulation
and some complexity to it that staff will have to work through with the applicant as well.
Councilmember Hewitt
Taking in to consideration the perk ability of soi l, sometimes if you have less you need more space;
your lots have to be different sizes to get a permit for a septic system; so this is a similar process .
Our neighboring cities have steep slope ordinances and so does Fulton County.
Carter Lucas
Fulton County is a little different in that it regulates 33% to 40% slopes requiring a site plan and
it prohibits development on 40% or greater.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 14of19
Councilmember Hewitt
And, our proposed ordinance does not prohibit someone from building.
Carter Lucas
Correct, but as long as you can find a building envelope, it may require you to increase your lot
size to compensate for steeper slopes on the lot. And, all the standard setbacks of the zoning
ordinance would still apply .
Councilmember Mohrig
I am leaning more toward not putting the ridgeline component in there. As far as the steep slope,
I think 25% is too extreme . I think somewhere between 33% and 35% was the average for our
area.
Carter Lucas
For those areas that have adopted the model ordinance; 25% was not uncommon . Calhoun was
the same as Fulton County . Canton was the model ordinance but they moved it to 35%.
Mayor Lockwood
Even within Fulton County , the topography is completely different; South Fulton versus North
I
Fulton. Jackson County was 25% and it is a fairly flat county so it has a totally different effect. I
Existing neighborhoods do not have to follow the same rules that the property owners who have
still held on their property will have to follow. Maybe have a 35% range but slant it toward areas
that are similar to ours.
Councilmember Mohrig
Milton has more sloping topography than most areas in the Atlanta area. I think 25% is too
restrictive.
Councilmember Lusk
With Fulton County having their slope ordinance at greater than 33%, I would like to see a line
going across the state of Georgia from west to east and where the Piedmont starts to blend into the
coastal. The southern section of Fulton County is a lot flatter; you don 't have the rolling Piedmont
that you have in north Fulton. I don 't think one size fits all. Fulton County is 70 miles long. I
think we need a percentage that represents the unique slopes we have in Milton . 25% is too flat.
Councilmember Thurman
I don't have a problem wi th it being 25% as long as there is an administrative way to get a variance
without having to go through the BZA. If you look at what we are really trying to do here, we are
trying to protect our steep slopes. You can see from the map , if we go down to 33%, there will
not be many steep slopes; maybe only one or two lots in the n ext ten years. I don't mind the 25%
and the ridgeline wording as long as there is a way that we can have an administrative variance.
Staff understands what we are trying to accomplish. And , sometimes when we try to put things I
neatly in a box , we realize that it does more harm than good and we don 't get the outcome we
wanted.
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 6 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 15of19
Councilmember Hewitt
I would li ke to leave it as it is with the ridgeline in there but we need to understand that it may or
may not be able to happen . I prefer the 25% but if we have to have something on the books then
I would like it to be around 33% versus making the whole thing 25%. I would like to leave the
ridgeline portion in there but it is a moving target and it may end up being an administrative hassle.
Mayor Lockwood
I have a hard time saying 25% just based on other areas of the state since topography differs
drastically fr om one area to another. Based on the topography in Milton, something in the 30% to
33% may be more reasonable. Also , it sounds like the council may be okay with not including the
ridgeline portion.
Councilmember Kunz
I think 25% is too much and something gradual may be more a ppropriate. I have not heard any
complaints on slopes or ri dge lines.
Councilmember Lusk
Article 0 -building requirements and guidelines ; section 0.3. In the last three sentences ; roof
forms and roof lines for new structures should be broken into a series of smaller building
components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding hillside. Long linear unbroken roof
lines are discouraged; flat roofs are discouraged; the slope angle of roof pitch should be at or below
the angle of the natural h illside slope. So you could end u p with maybe not a flat roof but
something like a three /twelve which is a warehouse slope; a p re-engineered metal building. So,
we are trying to use something like one size fits all , but that slope in particular is not reasonable .
I don't know how many different sloped roofs there are around Milton but I would guess most are
in the 4-6-12 slope. I think we are getting too deep into building design. I am not sure this has any
redeeming value.
Carter Lucas
There was some discussion with the Planning Commission on deletion of that portion of that
section because it was more of a guidance section where it could be used and more of an intent to
conform the structure more to the slope and ridgeline that exists as an option. It was one way to
screen or camouflage a structure, but it wasn't a requirement by ordinance. There was also some
discussion with our Planning Commission that there were further guidelines within the model
ordinance that it would be possible for us to breakout into a guidance document to enforce and
regulate this particular ordinance from both the ridgeline and steep slopes perspective.
Councilmember Lusk
So, there would be a companion document to this ordinance?
Carter Lucas
It is possible. We slimmed this ordinance down from the model ordinance as best we could so we
had a document that was easier administratively with the inten t of taking all the should, would ,
could , and may out into a different type of document to guide this type of development.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 6 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 16of19
Councilmember Lusk
I think we are just trying to overregulate.
Councilmember Hewitt
Is the ridgeline component easy to remove from this proposed ordinance?
Carter Lucas
Yes,
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-009 with the
following changes:
• Delete Ridgeline portion
• Change slope from 25% to 33%
Councilmember Lusk made a friendly amendment to delete Section 0.(3).
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting .
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consideration of an Ord inance of the City of Milton, Georgia to Revise the City's
Procurement Policy with Respect to Engineering and Design Related Services in Federally-
Funded Road Construc tion Projects; to Provide for the Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances;
to Provide an Effective Date; and for Other Lawful Purposes .
ORDINANCE NO. 17-03-303
(Agenda Item No. 17-052)
(First Presentation at February 22, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Ken Jarrard, C ity Attorney)
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney
This is a proposed modification to the city's procurement policy. As you may be aware , the City
of Milton is a local designated entity which can implement transportation projects and programs
I
I
that are funded with federal aid highway programming dollars. . However, to retain our I
certification, there are certain requirements under the Code of Federal Regulations that both GDOT
is going to anticipate as well as the Federal Government will require if we are to retain our local
I
I
I
Regular Meetin g of the Milton City Council
Monday, Marc h 6 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 17 of 19
certification standard. This is a proposed modification to the city's engineering and design related
services. In other words , how do we retain those services with respect to Federal Aid projects ?
This means professional services of an architectural or engineering nature or incidental services
that members of the architectural and engineering professions may logicall y or justifiably perform,
etc. Candidl y, if we intend to continue to be certified to locally administer federall y funded
transportation projects , we must approve this modification .
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-052.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimousl y (6-0).
Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting .
NEW BUSINESS
The following Agenda Item No. 17-069 was moved by motion and vote during Approval of
Meeting Agenda to after the Consent Agenda:
1. Consideration of a Resolution Appointing a Member to the City of Milton Board of
Zoni ng Appeals for District 1 /Post 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-03-415
(Agenda Item No. 17-069)
(Mayo r J oe Lockwood)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to appro ve Agenda It em No. 17-069 to
appoint Hodge Patel as the District 1/Post 1 member to the City of Milton Board of Zoning
Appeals. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousl y (6-0).
Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting.
The following Agenda Item No. 17-072 was added by motion and vote during Approval of
Meeting Agenda to after the Consent Agenda:
2. Cons ideration of a Reso lution Appointing a Member to the City of Milton Equestrian
Committee for District 3/Post 2 .
RESOLUTION NO. 17-03-416
(Agenda Item No. 17-072)
(Mayor J oe Lockw ood)
Re g ular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council
Mond ay, March 6 , 20 l 7 at 6 :00 pm
Page 18of19
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-072 to
appoint Larry Covington as the District 3/Post 2 member to the City of Milton Equestrian
Committee. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion . The motion passed
unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting.
2. Consideration of the following Subdivision Plat:
Name of Development I Location Action Comments I Total Density #lots Acres
I. Tanglewood Preserve -
Phase 11 Final Plat Create 14 Lots 25 .32 .56 Lots I Acre LL 465 & 466 ..
Chenery Drive
(Agenda Item No. 17-070)
(Kathl ee n Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Dir ec tor)
I
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve (\genda Item No. 17 -070. I
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting .
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
STAFF REPORTS
Department Updates
1. Public Works
2 . Fire
3 . Community Outreach
Public Works, Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager
This is the last council meeting we will have at this location. We wi ll be moving to the new City
Hall next week. They are rapidly working on the new road construction in front of the City Hall
and it should be completed, weather permitting, in the next few months. We are completing our
right of way certification for the sidewalk project on Mayfield Road . We are working on
landscaping for the Hopewell/Birmingham roundabout as well as the corner of the Hopewell
House. We are continuing to work on the roundabout at Freemanville and Providence. We are
also working on the turn lane s at Hopewell and Redd Road. I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, Marc h 6 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 19of19
Fire Department, Bob Edgar, Fire Chief
We have started our MDA boot drive for 2017 and in just one day we have collected over $13 ,000.
We completed the training for a strategic stockpile and we are the distribution point for orth
Fulton. We will be celebrating the 10 year anniversary of the Milton Fire Department and
unfortunately we will have four of our senior employees retirin g. We are happy for them but sad
that we will lose their knowledge.
Community Outreach, Courtney Spriggs, Community Outreach Manager
Wayne Boston our Community Builder is working with Better Together. He recruits for this
program when individuals volunteer via our online application. From that pool of volunteers , we
have connected with non-profits. Shannon Ferguson has configured an online way for non-profits
and voluntee rs to connect with each other to fill their needs. Way ne also connects with new Milton
citizens by sending them welcome packets with important information and contact numbers . He
has events that connect bu sinesses and individuals in the community. He started the Milton
Literary Group which has created the Milton Literary Festival where 30 local authors gathered
together with over 100 readers. Wayne is the most proud of the Village Volunteers started in
conjunction with Diane Stewart, who has two disabled sons, and is very active in Milton. The y
meet at the Bethwell Center on Mondays with the participants, caregivers , and volunteers. Wayne
is a vital resource for our city.
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 17-071)
Motion and Vote: Counc ilmember Thurman moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting
Date Approved: April 10 , 2017
Sudie AM Gordon , City Clerk