HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 06/21/2010 - 06-21-10 Reg. Mins (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 1 of 30
,- d This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not the intent to
transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice. Public comments
are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and
invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings.
Official Meetings are audio recorded.
77
The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on June 21, 2010 at
6:00 PM, Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt presiding.
INVOCATION
Reverend Brent White, Alpharetta First United Methodist Church
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Interim City Clerk Gordon called the roll and made general announcements.
Council Members Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey,
Councilmember Bill Lusk, Councilmember Burt Hewitt, Councilmember Joe Longoria, Councilmember Alan
Tart.
Mayor Joe Lockwood was absent/excused for the June 21, 2010 Regular Meeting.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Approval of Meeting Agenda (Agenda Item No. 10-1154)
Staff would like to recommend the following changes to the Meeting Agenda:
1. Add an Executive Session to Discuss Land Acquisition and Pending and Potential Litigation.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item 10-1154, Approval of
Meeting Agenda as amended. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously (6-0). (Mayor Lockwood was absent for the vote.)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt read the rules for Public Comment.
• Public comment is a time for citizens to share information with the Mayor and City Council.
• To provide input and opinions for any matter that is not scheduled for its own Public Hearing for today's
meeting.
• There is no discussion on items on the Consent Agenda or First Presentation or from Council.
• Each citizen who chooses to participate in Public Comment must complete a comment card and submit it
rrr+r to the City Clerk.
• This is not a time to engage the Mayor or Council in discussion.
• When your name is called please come forward and speak into the microphone stating your name and
address for the record.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 2 of 30
• You will have five minutes for remarks.
George Ragsdale, 540 Treyburn View, Milton, GA:
• I am speaking as a private citizen.
• I am aware of the fact that we are having difficulty figuring out the process for reviewing amendments to
the zoning ordinances.
• The process we have been using is not consistent with the rules that have been established.
• I would like to ask that the Council address that concern.
• We will have an item on the Planning Commission agenda tomorrow night where we will approve a
recommendation to come forward to you with what we think that process should be.
• I would encourage the Council to get it onto a Work Session for discussion.
CONSENT AGENDA
Interim City Clerk Gordon read the Consent Agenda items:
1. Approval of the May 17, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1155)
(Sudie Gordon, Interim City Clerk)
2. Approval of Financial Statements for Period Ending May, 2010.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1156)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
3. Approval of an Agreement between The City of Milton and Lowe Engineers, LLC for Professional
Engineering Services.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1157)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
4. Approval of an Agreement between The City of Milton and Back On The Road, LLC for Vehicle
Maintenance and Repairs.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1158)
(Deborah Harrell, Chief of Police)
5. Approval of an Amendment to Extend the Agreement Term between The City of Milton and
Georgia Management Agency, Inc. (d/b/a Roadworx).
(Agenda Item No. 10-1159)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
6. Approval of an Amendment to Extend the Agreement Term between The City of Milton and
Optech Monette, LLC.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1160)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 3 of 30
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
Interim City Clerk Gordon read the presentation items.
1. Proclamation Honoring Rebecca McManus, Recipient of Girl Scout Gold Award.
(Presented by Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt)
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt presented a proclamation in recognition honoring Rebecca Mc Manus for the
Girl Scout Gold Award.
2. Proclamation Honoring Former Principal Ronald Tesch in Recognition for His
Service to Milton High School.
(Presented by Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt)
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt presented a proclamation in recognition honoring former Principal Ronald
Tesch.
Presentation of Achievement Certificates to Citizens Police Academy Graduates.
(Presented by Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt)
'"""' Officer Andrew Phillips and Captain Shawn McCarty presented achievement certificates to the
Citizens Police Academy Graduates.
Officer Andrew Phillips:
• The Milton Police Department has appointed a full time community outreach position.
• The Citizens Academy was created to show a day in the life of your Milton Police.
FIRST PRESENTATION
1. Approval of An Ordinance to Replace Chapter 54, Regulating the Location, Placement
and Leasing of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1161)
(Previously Discussed at June 14, 2010 Council Work Session)
(Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
2. Approval of An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 60, Article 2, Tree Preservation of the
Milton City Code.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1162)
(Previously Discussed at March 8, 2010 Council Work Session)
(Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the First Presentation items.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
PUBLIC HEARING
who
1. Approval for the Removal of Billy Lovelace Hauling from the List of Approved Solid
Waste Haulers for the City of Milton Due to Non -Compliance with the Ordinance.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1140)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 4 of 30
(Deferred on May 17, 2010)
(Matt Marietta, Fire Marshal)
Chris Lagerbloom:
• Before we remove any of our haulers, we want to be sure we worked to the full extent with them.
• We were not able to get in contact with the Hauler in the beginning.
• Some lines of communication have been opened.
• I would like to ask that we work with this hauler.
• I believe that we are making steps.
• I would like to ask to defer this to August 16.
• We want to bring some things into compliance with this hauler.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
• What are you and staff currently working on with Mr. Lovelace?
• Do we have a payment plan for a situation like this?
Matt Marietta:
• The main compliance issue we have had is nonpayment of the mandatory infrastructure maintenance fee
which is 5% of the company's gross receipts.
• Also, not having a posted phone number for means of contact.
• There were other performance issues.
• Billy Lovelace seem to be making positive changes in timing and routes.
Chris Lagerbloom:
• It is not specific in the Waste Hauling Ordinance, although I believe that a payment plan is an option.
Joe Longoria:
• I believe that our ordinances lose their effect when we defer these types of problems.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to defer the public hearing item No. 10-1140 to
the August 16, 2010 regular meeting. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously (6-0).
2. Approval of Alcohol Beverage License for Manor Golf Development, LLC at 15952
Manor Club Drive, Milton, Georgia. The applicant is Riverfront Management, Inc. —
Wine, Malt Beverages & Distilled Spirits.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1149)
(Deferred on June 7, 2010)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
Stacey Inglis:
• This item was brought up at the previous meeting and it was deferred due to an advertising issue.
• This is simply a change in ownership.
• The owners have complied with all of the city requirements and staff recommends approval.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to approve Agenda Item No. 10-1149. Councilmember
Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). WNW
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 5 of 30
ZONING AGENDA
(Zoning items typed verbatim.)
City Clerk Gordon read the zoning rules.
At the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month, the mayor and City Council consider a Zoning agenda.
These items include rezoning petitions, modifications of zoning, use permits, and associated concurrent variances,
in addition to ordinances, resolution, and text amendments.
The petitions will be heard in the sequence listed on the posted agenda. I would like to acquaint you with some of
the rules and procedures for this meeting.
The applicant, and all those speaking in support of an application, will be allowed a total of ten (10) minutes to
present the petition. The applicant may choose to save some of the time for rebuttal following the presentation by
the opposition.
The opposition will be allowed a total of ten (10) minutes to present its position. If time remains, the opposition
will be allowed to rebut.
'^' Since the burden of proof is upon the applicant, the applicant will be allowed to make closing remarks, provided
time remains with the allotted time.
The City Clerk's staff will be keeping track of time and will inform you periodically of the remaining time for
your presentation.
Those called to speak will be taken in the order that the speaker cards were received by the City clerk's staff prior
to the beginning of tonight's meeting.
All speakers will identify themselves by name, address and organization, if applicable, before beginning their
presentation.
The Planning Commission heard the rezoning agenda items and recommendations have been forwarded to the
Mayor and City Council for consideration and disposition.
In addition, the applicant shall not submit material to the Council during the meeting, unless requested to do so.
All material that you wish to be reviewed by the Council in consideration of your application should be submitted
to the staff of the Department of Community Development, to be included in the normal distribution of packages
to the Council.
When an opponent of a rezoning action has made, within two years immediately preceding the filing of the
rezoning action being opposed, campaign contributions aggregating $250.00 or more to a local government
official of the local government which will consider the application, it shall be the duty of the opponent to file a
Now disclosure with the governing authority of the respective local government at least five days prior to the Planning
Commission meeting. A violation of the relevant state statute constitutes a misdemeanor. Therefore, if you have
saw contributed $250.00 or more to a Councilmember and you have not filed a disclosure prior to the Planning
Commission meeting, the City Attorney strongly suggests that you have someone else speak for your point of
view.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 6 of 30
RZ09-04 - Approval of an Ordinance to Create Article 18 Of The City Of Milton Zoning Ordinance To
Establish A Historic Preservation Commission In The City Of Milton To Provide For Designation Of
Historic Properties; To Provide For Issuance Of Certificates Of Appropriateness; To Provide For Art
Appeals Procedure; To Repeal Conflicting Ordinances; And For Other Purposes.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1078)
(Previously Discussed at March 8, 2010 Work Session)
(First Presentation on May 17, 2010 Regular Council Meeting)
(Public Hearing on June 7, 2010)
(Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Chris Lagerbloom:
Sorry everyone, I'm in the mood to interrupt tonight so I'm going to start this one too. Last minute stuff
here. Let me see if I can maybe recap a little about where we have been with this particular Ordinance
and kind of lay out maybe how the discussion will go tonight recognizing that this one at least having
seen some of the emails and conversations that I have had, this is one of those that has the potential of
quite a bit of discussion tonight which is fine. Initially, the Council created a Historic Preservation
Committee. The HPC was created by resolution and in one of their deliverables and it is indicated in
that resolution to deliver a Historic Preservation ordinance, another guiding type idea to the Council.
Their work product passed through the Planning Commission who considered that particular ordinance
made some requests, modifications, suggestions, all of which are included in your package. The
Ordinance was then sent back through the HPC who again, there is just a fundamental differing of views
as to what both of those Committees think should be in this ordinance. This was before even the March
Work Session. At the March work session, and unfortunately, and I hope it's not happening to us
tonight, but that was the one meeting that we had since we launched Granicus where Granicus just
crashed. I don't have Granicus to go back to and be able to watch that meeting, but I can tell you that I
remember the direction that I got from that meeting and the direction that we proceeded with was that
we should take the ordinance and send it through our legal team with our Community Development
Director, make it legal, make it look legal, and try to merge as best we could the two recommendations
together and when there was a conflict to err on the side of including what was a recommendation of the
HPC. That got us to the point that that is the ordinance that was presented to you in your packet. One
that has what seems to be the issue of debate on this ordinance, has the H -Zoning designation included
in it. I have received comment and suggestion both individually and collectively from several members
of the Council and I realize that at least at this point there is not a position we could get to that would be
a legitimate compromise between having either the H -zoning designation included versus not included.
They are polar opposite viewpoints on whether or not that should be in that ordinance. There are also
polar opposite viewpoints as to who's recommendation should stand in this particular ordinance. If that:
should be the Historic Preservation Committees recommendation or some of the thoughts that have
come out of the planning commission. We're on both ends of the spectrum. Having realized that and 1:
think we have peeled this thing apart a little bit, realizing that where is that dispute is over this one
section of this particular ordinance that deals with H -Zoning designation and we will talk about what
that means here in a minute. We have presented to you tonight two different ordinances. One that has it
in, and one that doesn't. That is what you are looking at in front of you. I have checked with our City
Attorney and he is okay with us doing that tonight because in essence, the second one that we presented
to you tonight is that same ordinance with a section that is removed from it which is a bit different than
if we had tried to come to the meeting and tried to add some stuff to the ordinance. As far as you having;
an ordinance and then having one that is really the exact same thing with references with the H -Zoning
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 7 of 30
designation removed. We will make a staff presentation here as to exactly what the ordinances mean that
are in front of you and certainly answer any questions that you might have. The reason that you are
seeing two tonight is because I just couldn't get to even a close compromising position. I couldn't even
get us from here to here for the purpose of tonight's meeting. We still have people that are just on both
ends of the spectrum. My hope is that by providing both of them to you tonight, that we can have a
healthy discussion. You all can take action at the end of the night if you want to approve either one or
the other or a modification of one or the other. You can say that we need to talk about this more and
let's send it back to a work session in July or ultimately, as I put in the email over the weekend, I guess
you could scrap it all together if you wanted to. Ultimately, you hold that authority. Let us walk though
the one that was published in the packet and then we will show you what was removed from the second
one that you have which is just kind of a toned down version of the first one and then we will see where
the discussion goes.
Lynn Tully:
Thank you. Based on the presentation at the last meeting that included the public hearing, a request was
sent out for any questions from council. We did receive some questions, not only from council but from
the Citizens as well as Planning Commission members and in addressing those, I need to point out to
you that the Planning Commission version of the historic ordinance that is in your packet is the correct
version. It is the November 18, 2009 version that is included in there. As well as there were questions
regarding a lot of requirements specifically about time frames, those are things that have been set out in
the state model ordinance and allows us to continue to be eligible for state funding, so we have
maintained those same timeframes. There was a question that was brought out regarding an exception
for paint color, that has again been included as well as the undue hardship exception and that has been
included. Again, those things simply make us eligible to continue funding through grants so that is what
is before you and included as recommended by the historic preservation commission. That is labeled
thusly on your table. You have two versions, one that says "as recommended by Historic Preservation
commission" and the other says "removing any reference to the creation of a zoning district" as Mr.
Lagerbloom mentioned to you, the primary point of discussion was including this historic zoning district
as a new base zoning district in reference to the historic Preservation Ordinance and as a
recommendation from the Historic Preservation Ordinance. So, the second version removes any
reference to creation of that district. Again, we were not able to come together in a single view point
regarding this and therefore we have presented both options. I know that you all have questions, so I'll
be happy to entertain those at this time.
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Before we go to questions, I think it is obvious as the City Manager pointed out, that we have some
differences of opinions and that is okay, but I would like for us to move through this as swiftly as
possible and be respectful of each other's viewpoints. I will open them up if there are any questions for
staff.
Chris Lagerbloom:
Before we do that, can we hear the public comment that we have first?
am" Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Sure.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 8 of 30
As a point of information, I have just one question. Just to clarify, I know we basically have three or
four, and I just want to make sure from all us that we are clear, the packet that we received. That has a
version. Is that the same version that is on our desk as recommended by the Historic Preservation
Commission?
Lynn Tully:
Yes Ma'am. As well as the Planning Commission version from November.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Okay, so that which was in our packet for this week is the same as the one that happens to now say
recommended by the Planning Commission and still includes the Historic Zoning designation that had
some of the things that you and Ken had collectively modified including, as you just referenced, the
paint color and the undue hardship. I just wanted to make sure that those two are the same.
Lynn Tully:
Yes Ma'am. They are the same.
Councilmember Tart:
Looking at the different versions, I was looking at the version that we were looking at two weeks ago
when we had this as a public hearing and the language is different from that one. It wasn't that we just
deleted sections. The sections that we deleted don't have the same language as the one that was in our
packet two weeks ago.
Lynn Tully:
I'll have to ask you which version, sir. Sorry.
Councilmember Tart:
This would be section III.c.3 and again this is maybe a lesson for us as we go forward and maybe we can
put headers and footers to the different versions because who knows what version this is. This is the
version that was in our packet for the historic preservation committee two weeks ago. That particular
language, for instance and I'm sure if I go through here it's going to be the same thing for all of these
different sections, section III.c.3 said "the HPC shall be authorized to consider for approval proposals
and recommendations for possible zoning of property to the historic zoning designations and blah blah
blah based on prior use and otherwise in accordance with requirements from this historic H -zoning
designation". The version we have this week for consideration that is supposedly from the Historic
Preservation Commission doesn't have anything about this prior use.
Lynn Tully:
Yes and that was based on the comments that we received at the public hearing. At the public hearing,
there was much deliberation regarding including that and particularly in consultation with the City
Attorney and including the prior uses of reference for that historic zoning designation. So we took all of
the references for that out. •*e
Councilmember Tart: ...r
Okay, so as recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission, just to make sure I am clear, is
everything that was recommended by them, including the paint color and undue hardship, including the
historic zoning designation, but without any reference to prior use.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 9 of 30
Lynn Tully:
Yes Sir.
Councilmember Tart:
And this other one that we have is removal of any reference has all of the above except for it takes out
the historic zoning designation?
Lynn Tully:
Yes, thank you!
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Okay, so now if we would go ahead now and take public comment, are there any public comments?
Interim City Clerk:
Yes sir, we have four public comments. The first I will read into the record. It is from Mindy Freeman.
Mindy Freeman, 14120 Phillips Circle, Milton, GA:
Dear Mayor, City Council members, City manager, and Staff,
am
We have been residents of Northwest Fulton County (now City of Milton) for 24 years, and we have
been both pleased and concerned about the many changes that have taken place in this area that we call
home.
That is why we are very troubled by a proposed ordinance now before the council regarding Prior Use as
a basis for rezoning a historic structure. A structure that at one time had a non-residential use, but is
now in a location where such as use is not allowed, should not be allowed to convert back to a non-
residential use simply because the building may be historic. If a land owner or applicant wants to pursue
a rezoning, then they have the ability and right to do so through a typical rezoning process. Historic
preservation and zoning are separate issues and should not be combined in one ordinance. The citizens
of Milton want to preserve historic structures but not at the cost of imposing a non -conforming use on an
area that was not intended for non-residential uses. We revised this when it came before the Planning
Commission and supported their removal of any reference to zoning. However, we are now concerned
that zoning has been re-inserted into the ordinance.
Please allow the current zoning process to remain as it is now, and keep historic preservation and
rezoning separated. Please protect our beautiful City of Milton by ensuring that any Historic
Preservation Ordinance does not include anything tied to zoning, and remove any references to Prior
Use and Historic Zoning Designations.
N..,
Thank you,
aw
Mindy Freeman
Joan Borzilleri, 540 Kings County Ct., Milton, GA:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 10 of 30
I am a member of the Historic Preservation Committee but I am speaking tonight as a private citizen.
You have the two versions of the Historic Preservation ordinance before you this evening. I respectfully
request that you approve the one without the historic district zoning designation. Historic designation
zoning introduces complexity and the potential for unintended consequences into the zoning process. It
can result in commercial encroachment, inter residential areas currently zoned AG -1. It is not in the
department of natural resources sample version of the ordinance and it was voted down by the planning
commission and the design review board. Please vote against this version of the ordinance and support
the existing zoning process. Thank you.
George Ragsdale, 540 Treyburn View, Milton, GA:
I don't have a script to read, but I would like to start by trying to get clarification as all of you would.
There were two packages sent out, one that was supposedly for the June 7th meeting. It was indicated as
a letter dated May 5th. There was another package sent out as indicated for the June 21s' meeting also
with a letter dated May 5th. There are significant differences in both the letter and the ordinances
attached. I would like to understand since both of them say that they represent final versions approved
by the Historic Preservation Committee on March 3rd when all of these additional changes had been
discussed were reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation committee? There are several
significant issues and I have two pages worth of comments, most of which are construction issues that I
do not need to raise tonight, but clearly the primary issue for me is what was sent out in the packet and
what you have before you is a version of the ordinance that was proposed by the planning commission �1
back in November of last year. To the best of my knowledge, the council has not considered that
ordinance or looked at that ordinance. The ordinance that the council has looked at is an ordinance that ...
was put forward by the Historic Preservation Committee. To me, that is inconsistent with the process
and the laws that are on the books for the City of Milton. There is no provision that allows for a
Committee to bring forth an ordinance outside of the process of the CZIM and the Planning Commission
and bring it to the City Council. So, to the best of my knowledge the City Council has not considered
the ordinance that was put forth by the Planning Commission. The second thing, the addition, and I am
not speaking on behalf of the Planning Commission, I am speaking on behalf of myself but I want to
contrast what I think are the key differences, not between the two historic preservation committee
ordinances but between the Planning Commission ordinance, the one proposed by the planning
commission, and the ordinance proposed by the Historic Preservation Committee. We have already
talked about one, as have others, and that is the inclusion of the Historic Zoning District. The second
one has to do with the inclusion of Historic District instead of Historic Properties. The way the Historic;
Preservation Committees Ordinances written. It provides for Historic District and that can include
properties and are now in the latest version of the ordinance potentially classified as contributory and
non contributory. It is a good idea, and I think it came from the state ordinance, but the ordinance that is
before you does not carry that through to its ultimate conclusion. It requires non contributory properties
to go through the same process of obtaining certificates of appropriateness before they can make
material alterations to their properties. To me, that is inappropriate. Designating an area as Historic is a
good idea if what you are trying to do is to promote that area as Historic, I am all for that. I know in
prior conversations, one of the goals was to be able to post signs to say "This is historic Crabapple or
Historic Birmingham" but including properties that are not historic and subjecting them to a higher WOR
standard with respect to what they can do with their property to me is inappropriate. In the ordinances
before you, it has that requirement. Another thing that is troubling to me, is the level of authority that is
granted to the historic preservation commission by this ordinance. Not only do they have the authority
to modify design guidelines without any oversight which to me is troublesome. They have the authority
to waive requirements to the ordinance if the Commission feels that the property owner would suffer
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 11 of 30
undue economic hardship. I am all for having an undue hardship clause in this ordinance, but giving the
r.,. historic preservation committee the right to waive ... you just got through talking about enforcement of
ordinances with respect to trash hauling ... I don't think that you want to give a Committee that is
established by this ordinance the authority to waive requirements that are in the ordinance that you
approve. I recommend that you defer this for 60 days. I believe that you should follow the process that
is set out in the City ordinances as currently established and let the Planning Commission, and if the
Planning Commission wants to meet again with the Planning Commission, they should absolutely do
that. I believe that we can work through to the point of having a single ordinance to bring it forward, but
right now we have two that are very different in scope. Thank you.
Paul Moore, 15290 White Columns Dr., Milton, GA:
Good Evening. I would also like to clarify, as George may have done earlier this evening, I am a
member of the Planning commission but I am speaking as a Citizen this evening. I share some of the
same concerns that have come before you this evening. Some of the questions that arose because of
what had appeared to be some conflict in the two ordinances that are put before you. Because that was
unclear, I just prepared a couple of remarks that address two items in particular, so you will hear the
clarification here in a second. The planning commission put forward a comprehensive document with a
conclusion with more than 10 hours of work including time spent with Mr. Ken Jarrard, the Milton City
Attorney in a special called meeting. That is not being considered tonight. I am troubled that as you
consider a new ordinance that addressing the zoning issues, the planning commission, the body created
to be the zoning recommended entity for the Mayor and Council, is being taken out of the process and
a" basically creates two bodies that are doing the same work that could be in conflict. I believe in any and
all language in the current draft that pertains to any zoning related item, ordinance change, or process
should be removed. To do anything less would be in direct conflict with our established laws and
procedures regarding our adopted zoning procedures. The document you have tonight also introduces a
prior use clause. The planning commission specifically voted by unanimous decision to remove any
reference to the prior use clause and I encourage you to remove the same thing. The documents that you
have before you tonight also creates a new special zoning designation and historic zoning designation.
A designation that does not even have a definition offered for consideration tonight. It's clearly a case of
rushing to conclusion before having all of the details worked out. I strongly urge you not to pass the
ordinance tonight. Please defer it and send it back to the planning commission for additional work and a
chance to fill in the blanks with what is currently missing and a chance to ensure that you do not create
an ordinance that is in conflict with our current zoning process. If you feel that you must proceed
tonight, please remove all language that addresses the prior use clause and the undefined historic zoning
designation. Thank you.
Interim City Clerk Gordon:
That is all of the comments, sir.
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
The public hearing is now closed. Again, perhaps we will start down with Councilmember Thurman and
Now work our way this way. If we have anything that needs to be brought up, let's just try to maintain our
discussion in a professional manner.
am
Councilmember Thurman:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 12 of 30
It is my understanding that anything that would rezoned to this new H -zoning category would have to go
before the planning commission and the City Council and it would be a full rezoning process that would
conform to our current stance.
Lynn Tully:
Yes Ma'am.
Councilmember Thurman:
It is my understanding that you all have not written that yet which I believe you should not write it until
you know that there is something that needs to be written, I don't want our staff wasting time writing a
zoning classification when you don't even know that we are going to have that zoning classification.
But the zoning classification has not been written yet, is that correct?
Lynn Tully:
That is correct.
Councilmember Thurman:
Once that classification is written, it would be a change to our zoning ordinance so it would go through
the planning commission and then to the City Council for approval?
Lynn Tully:
Yes ma'am.
Councilmember Thurman:
There were some questions as far as the conforming and non conforming, are you comfortable with the
language that is in there concerning when properties would have to conform and which ones would not?
Lynn Tully:
Yes ma'am. I believe the question was contributing or non contributing structures in the historic district.
There is a little bit of an additional requirement for those structures that are non contributing and fall
within a historic district. They would have to appear before the Design Review Board, not before the
Historic Preservation Commission but before the Design Review Board. I believe that the Design
Review Board is comfortable with hearing those and that is simply put in there as a protection to the
other buildings that are in the historic district and are contributing such that changes to those particular
buildings don't have a detrimental effect on the historic value of any of the other buildings.
Councilmember Thurman:
So you're comfortable with the way it is currently done and it is clear for those who would come for it.
Lynn Tully:
Yes ma'am.
Councilmember Thurman:
You took out the words "prior use" but I'm assuming that in order for a building to get this new H -
Zoning classification, it would first have to be approved by the Historic Planning Commission, the it
would have to go through a rezoning with the Planning Commission, and then it would have to go
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 13 of 30
through the City Council. So it is not bypassing any steps, it is just an additional step with the historic
rte. planning commission.
Lynn Tully:
Yes ma'am. They would have to have a recommendation from the historic preservation commission
prior to being heard by the planning commission and that is how it is intended to be written at this point.
Councilmember Thurman:
And at that time, then things could not be zoned to this new category that had not been historic. So it is
not a way to get a zoning that would be inappropriate for the area because it had never been that in the
past. So you couldn't just take an old house and suddenly decide that you're going to make a store out of
it if it had never been anything other than an old house.
Lynn Tully:
At this point, we haven't written the district and my best guess at this point is that would be a correct
statement but again, we haven't written the district and I don't want to presuppose any uses, and in fact
that is why the prior use requirement reference was taken out, we don't want to presuppose any of the
OW -M requirements of this new zoning district at this time.
Councilmember Thurman:
Is it true, when I first got involved in Fulton County and the historic process 15 years ago, we have lost
over half of these structures that we had on our initial historic map in Fulton County for the inventory.
We have to find some way to really preserve. What we want to do is preserve the historic structure and
we have to find some way to preserve them so that they aren't allowed to just deteriorate to the point
that they are no longer worth anything. Do you feel comfortable with this ordinance and that it would
help preserve the historic structures that we have?
Lynn Tully:
Yes ma'am, it will help preserve the historic structures that currently exist in Milton.
City Attorney Jarrard:
Councilmember Thurman, I just want one point of clarification and it may just have been you were
speaking about two different things, with respect to the recommendation to the H -zoning designation on
page 9, if it can come from the historic preservation committee but it can also come from the historical
society neighborhood association or property owner. I just wanted to clarify that.
Councilmember Thurman:
Regardless of who it came from, it would have to go through the planning commission as a rezoning
with all of the public hearings and all of the typical rezoning would have?
City Attorney Jarrard:
am It is very specifically called out that it would be the case.
Councilmember Thurman:
But it is just one extra step because it has to be recommended by one of these groups?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 14 of 30
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Is that all Karen?
Councilmember Thurman:
Yes sir, that is it for now.
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Okay, Councilmember Zahner Bailey?
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Thank you Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt. We obviously had dialogue about two weeks ago. First of all, I
want to be very clear, I support Historic Preservation. I have been a Historic Preservationist for a long
time helping to make sure that those who have been a part of this Fulton County inventory for the last 24
years that we have done everything possible to keep them from being demolished and I am proud to say
that many of those that have not been demolished have been a large part because of my efforts and we;
have lost some. So we need to make sure that we protect them. My concerns tonight and my questions
are the fact that in the midst of preserving our historic buildings and sites that we don't as we have heard
from our members of our planning commission and the community and the other emails from other
citizens that we don't set in motion some unintended consequences. I think that probably if we asked all
of us tonight, we all support historic preservation. What is not to support? I think that I heard very
clearly articulated, and I appreciate the comments of tonight because it does help give me some clarity
about where we are. Thank you to our City Manager and to Lynn to help with summarizing that and
thank you to the comments of Mr. Ragsdale and other citizens. It really does seem that we have two
sections that cause some trouble for the Design Review Board that has caused some concern from the
Planning Commission unanimously. We have heard from citizens and members of the HPC that the;
reference to the Zoning designation is not part of a state model. I know that the DRB and the Planning
Commission both unanimously removed any reference to zoning designation whether that was prior use;
or this Historic zoning designation. I know that we have had some dialog, and Lynn if you could speak,
and I know that you just answered a question that specifically said "with this ordinance" to help preserve
the history, but could you also speak to from your professional perspective two things, one, are you
aware of any zoning categories being part of other historic preservation ordinances that you are familiar
with? Two, in your professional involvement in zoning etc., if you were helping to write this ordinance,
would you have a Historic Zoning Designation and reference to prior use within the Historic;
Preservation document or would you keep that separate and keep that part of zoning?
Lynn Tully:
Addressing the first question, In Georgia, I have not seen a prior use or other historic reference to a
zoning district for a base zoning district. It doesn't mean that it can't happen. I just haven't seen one. I
don't think there is one in Georgia. I would be surprised if there was. As far as if I was to have planned
this in a vacuum, meaning no committees and no planning commission and a start from scratch, it
probably would look different. There would probably be some changes, particularly in regards to how it
is handled in the zoning ordinance. That doesn't mean that this is wrong or illegal in any way, it simply
means that I would have done it a little differently. Would I have handled it separately? Probably as a
J
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 15 of 30
separate issue, but again the effort that this committee has put in I would say that this is a valid
document.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
My question is not really about the validity, it was more about the function of good ordinance structure
and in terms of keeping processes as we have heard from Mr. Ragsdale and Mr. Moore, I think the
question is where does part of it belong? I think what I just heard you just say that if you were helping
to construct this you would have kept the zoning portions within zoning, and I know that's what you
have said to be separately, and I think that is what I you say politely and professionally and restate this
evening and of course, with all due respect, I think that all of us appreciate all of the work that
everybody has put into this document to date and none of these questions call in to question those
efforts. It simply says that now this document is before us, what is the best structure, based on the input
from the various entities including the HPC and the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission
including the state model and our staff. I think that we need to make sure that we don't presume that you
haven't been involved, because you are now involved and I think that we need to not ignore the fact that
if you were creating this, you have stated that you would have not kept zoning within the Historic
Preservation but you would have separated them. I think that is also what I've heard here tonight from
some of the Citizens but also from members that were speaking individually but still members of our
planning commission and again it is not to say that our planning commission wouldn't and couldn't
PF"„ consider creating a Historic Zoning Designation but it's that this document tonight I think sets in motion
some risk if we do that without that already defined. I would support either deferring as has been
suggested by Mr. Ragsdale and others so that the HPC and the planning commission can remedy those
areas and I think, if I may and if it is appropriate from a procedure standpoint, Mr. Ragsdale could you
just come up and restate, I think I heard you say that you believe that there was an opportunity that in 60
days for the HPC and for you guys to come together and really resolve those places where it is different
and where there is a question. I think I heard you say that you had "high confidence" that you guys
could come together and have one document versus having four versions. May I ask that question?
City Manager Lagerbloom:
We're debating that right now because Mr. Ragsdale is here speaking as a citizen.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Well I'm asking him as a citizen ... if he were an applicant ... Can I just ask him to restate what he said?
How can I rephrase my question?
Councilmember Longoria:
If he is restating what he already said, does it really make a lot of sense?
Councilmember Thurman:
The public hearing is already closed though.
mom Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
We often can ask citizens that have already spoken, so I'm going to ask George Ragsdale as a citizen to
am just clarify, I believe I heard you say that as a citizen that you felt that it would be possible to have the
HPC members join with the planning commission members, whether that includes you or not, to help
resolve and rectify some of these differences.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 16 of 30
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
I really don't care if you get into a back and forth with the audience and us, but if you have one more wrr
last quick question let's ask and just get on with this thing.
City Attorney Jarrard:
I think that is okay, just for clarification.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I mean, it is consistent with our zoning procedures.
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Mr. Ragsdale, really quick please.
George Ragsdale:
As a private citizen, I don't have an opinion.
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Okay, thank you.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Okay, so again for the record under the zoning item, it's quite appropriate to ask those who have spoken
to clarify. I believe it sets in motion some unintended consequences, in particular when we have a
historic zoning designation that is not even defined, I think that is troubling. I would also ask that when
we consider historic preservation that the comments that were also made with regards to contributory
and noncontributory and ill just speak to the Birmingham Crossroad as an example, I think that some of
the businesses that exist in that area, obviously some of those structures are new, I think it is a valid
point that there could be some concern as to whether a new structure within the confines of the area that
may be in totality historic, but they would perhaps have to adhere to standards that they previously
didn't have to adhere to, and again it is one thing to adhere to the master plan and the overlays, but I
think it could be troubling from the contributory versus non contributory. I think that is something that I
very honestly don't believe has been figured out as early as it needs to be. It doesn't mean that we
couldn't have something very solid here shortly. I also thought that it was valid, the comments that were
brought up about concern over authority with regard to a waiver, and could staff please speak to that
section? To think that we would have an ordinance but then we would have a committee or commission
that could then waive those without any oversight? Can you speak to which section of the document that
Mr. Ragsdale referenced?
Lynn Tully:
That would be section five letter G, undue hardship.
Councilmember Longoria:
Which version?
Lynn Tully: %
Either. It does state that the commission in a specific instance of extreme economic hardship or
practical difficulty may waive some of the requirements of this ordinance.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 17 of 30
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
O•• I would like to just speak to that for consideration for everybody on this council, what would be the
measurement of financial hardship? That has not been defined. It becomes a subjective reference and it
would be hard for me to ignore the comments that were made into the record earlier this evening, but
that is troubling. Again, it's not those that would be on that commission aren't very talented or able
people but from an authority standpoint, as it relates to our ordinances to put ordinances in place, but
then could have segments of those waived by a separate entity is troubling. And I appreciate the fact
that that was brought to the attention to everybody this evening, because I don't think that that would be
appropriate and I believe it would be inconsistent with what we have done in other ordinances. I would
like to ask that everybody on this body be given careful consideration to that. I personally would like to
see that modified. As it relates to time frames, and this is a secondary issue, my primary concern is with
the prior use as well with the historic zoning designation first and foremost, contributory and non
contributory, and then finally the point about the ability of the HPC commission being able to waive
those rights. I did pose a few questions to you earlier about the time frames with regards to
advertisements as well as if someone wanted to appeal a decision of the HPC. My question had to do
with whether or not those time frames were adequate. They seemed to be somewhat short. Again, this
would be in the instance of if a citizen that had a decision given, whether for or against, it seemed that
that citizen or business would be given ample time to respond to an appeal. I believe the appeal was
about 15 days. If someone is out of town for a week and a half and suddenly they don't have an opportunity to appeal. Can you speak to that?
smog Lynn Tully:
Yes ma'am. Those time frames were taken straight from the state's model ordinance and they are the
minimum time frames. If you so choose to relax those standards or allow them to have a longer time
frame, then you are welcome to do so.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
And just for the benefit of the Council, I would just like to point to, and I hope the page numbers are still
accurate, but those were as an example were on page 14 talked about if 45 days passes with no response
there would be an automatic approval? That troubled me a little bit because sometimes I know that our
committees sometimes have difficulty with a quorum, but I was more troubled by, on page 15, where it
says time for a property owner to appeal was only 15 days, and I was just concerned that we wouldn't
want to have a property owner lose the right to appeal if they happen to be out of town. That again was
something that I thought was worthy of consideration. The final comment is in regards to creating or
modifying design guidelines, could you speak to that Lynn? It concerns me that a separate entity would
be able to modify design guidelines. Again, I think the more collaborative the better because we end up
with a better end result. Can you speak to whether or not a separate committee would be able to modify
these design guidelines through their authority?
Lynn Tully:
That is the intent of the undue hardship clause. Is to allow modification of variance for specific items.
"M Again, that would not harm the intent of the area and would continue to preserve the architectural
integrity but would allow for deviations from the design guidelines.
woo
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Again, this would be and I think we have heard from those citizens that commented, is that it would be
without any oversight and that is troubling. What would be an alternative approach as an example, let's
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 18 of 30
say someone wanted to claim undue hardship under the current language and rather to have a separate
entity that historically hasn't had that authority, what would be an alternative? Would it be to have that
to come back to for consideration, either by the planning commission or this body so that we didn't
simply just have waivers occurring without some sort of approval process?
Lynn Tully:
Those typically would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but again, that particular section comes
straight from the model ordinance and was recommended to us by the state so that we can maintain our
eligibility for additional grant funding.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
And I'll just point out that we are now talking about things that are highlighted in the state model, it is
inconsistent from my perspective, and in some regards we want to say that we are going to reference the
state model and yet two of the biggest things prior use and historic zoning designation, in particular it is
the Historic Zoning Designation, is not recommended by the state model at all. I would suggest that if
we're going to lean towards the state model, we should be consistent in that. Just to recap quickly, my
concerns are those that were stated this evening quite well by those citizens and others with regards to
leaving historic zoning designation, set that aside out of this document, as well as come up with some
alternative language with regards to the waiver authority that is troubling as well as being able to modify
design guidelines and then also the need to address the contributory versus noncontributory and I know
that we are all wanting to get this in place and I would say that it would hard for me to ignore the request
from Mr. Ragsdale which was to consider a deferral of 60 days so that well intended folks that have
worked hard, on both planning commission and the HPC to come together and to come up with one
document versus five different versions. That seems reasonable and I think that right now in this
economy we don't tend to have a lot of risk of demolition and because the DRB can stay some of those
demolitions, 60 days seems like a very minimal risk and a great opportunity for folks to come together
that have been extremely well intended. I would like to ask us to consider that request that was put
forward. Thank you.
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Thank you Councilmember Zahner Bailey. Councilmember Lusk?
Councilmember Lusk:
Thank you. I wish if you would please Lynn clarify again, does the state model address the historic
designation?
Lynn Tully:
No sir, it does not.
Councilmember Lusk:
Is there anything in this state model that would closely address the historic designation.
Lynn Tully:
I don't believe so, sir.
Councilmember Lusk:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 19 of 30
Back in 2004 or 2005 time frame, Fulton County conducted a survey for historic structures in Northwest
am" Fulton County. Jessica Lavendear with Fulton County spearheaded that. Councilmember Thurman was
a part of that process. At that time, I believe there was something in the range of about 100 structures in
that survey.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
It was 196 structures, sorry.
Councilmember Lusk:
Are you familiar with that?
Lynn Tully:
I have seen the book, yes sir.
Councilmember Lusk:
In your best estimate, how many of those structures are still existing today?
Lynn Tully:
I don't know that I can really answer that question, sir. Potentially, one of the Committee members
might be able to answer that better.
tow
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Does a committee member know that answer?
Unnamed:
40 tops. 196 in the entire Northwest Fulton County including Johns Creek, Alpharetta, and Roswell.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Correct, I was just referring to the fact that that document was 196 so that we are all clear which
document we are all referencing.
Councilmember Lusk:
I guess my point is that these structures are disappearing rapidly and I noticed while I was on the
Northwest Fulton Design Review Board in reviewing uses for some of these structures that disappeared
over night because the owners were not willing to comply with some of the conditions that were placed
on them. Has the planning commission developed a designation or description for historic district or
historic site?
Lynn Tully:
Not at this time, sir.
Councilmember Lusk:
Nothing of any sort?
Lynn Tully:
Not anything that would be outside of what we have seen in these versions.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 20 of 30
Councilmember Lusk: ■rO
In article 4d.2 the approval process it appears to me or my interpretation, is that the designation comes
of historic or an H -designation comes solely from the historic preservation committee or City Council.
There is no process stated here where it goes in front of the planning commission for approval, is that
correct?
Lynn Tully:
No sir. In section 2b, the section which states that the property owner shall follow the process for
rezoning as established by article 28 of the zoning ordinance, that is where the planning commission
would come in.
Councilmember Lusk:
Okay, so really ultimately, the decision is with the planning commission. Would you agree with that?
Lynn Tully:
Well there is a recommendation to you all from the planning commission and yes, the decision would
then be the council's as with any other zoning.
Councilmember Lusk:
That is all for my questions. Thank you.
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Okay. I'll go on with a couple of things. As far as the currently non-existent H -zoning classification, we
could graph that and be as tight or as non tight as we like, is that correct?
Lynn Tully:
That is correct, sir.
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
I have to agree with Councilmember Zahner Bailey on some thoughts about the hardship and the
variance process with that. I would prefer to perhaps see that and maybe leave that with us as a council.
Not to take anything away from our yet to be established Historic Preservation Commission. My other
thought would be, and maybe you have already, but what is the significance of the prior use in either one
of these documents?
Lynn Tully:
In discussions with the City Attorney and others, we felt that even mentioning prior use presupposed
that condition on the zoning district, whereas we wouldn't necessarily do that with another ordinance.
That is kind of A -typical. So, what we did was remove that and replace that with language that basically
said it would need to contribute to the historic value of the area.
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Thank you. I know everyone has worked very diligently on this, whether it be the preservation
committee or the planning commission. I'm not sure that we perhaps haven't reached a point of going
backwards instead of forwards. I'm not sure if a deferral is going to get us any closer. I wish that we
could all come up here and everybody agree on everything and it move forward. I would like to say this,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 21 of 30
I think we have been debating this for a long time but I think it is only fair to have their comments and
go forward. That is all I have at this point. Councilperson Longoria?
Councilmember Longoria:
Lynn, do you know when the historic preservation committee was created? Or maybe we can ask the
audience and they can just shout out when it was created?
Lynn Tully:
I believe it was in 2007.
Councilmember Longoria:
Okay, so the committee has been working on this for two to two and a half years so in terms of being
quick or rushing to decisions, I don't think that really qualifies. We have been working on this for a
while and there has been a lot of hard work that has gone into this by the historic preservation committee
and we created that committee specifically to do a job. And the job that we created for them was to
come up with an ordinance that would cover this if one was worthy of consideration. These guys put a
lot of time and effort into that. Why didn't we ask the planning commission to do that? Well because
this is a subset of the work that they do. And it was a big enough subset and important enough subset for
us to give it special treatment and to focus someone's efforts on that for a certain period of time. So,
why are we sitting here today, July of 2010 and worried about the fact that were rushing to create an
ordinance that we need to consider more because I think that we have put quite a bit of consideration
into this and I would like to thank that the folks on the Historic Preservation Commission for getting that
done. So, what is confusing me at this point in time is why two documents. I am the new guy, I haven't
been around very long but I have never seen this done. I have never seen us vote on something and then
say, "you know what? If you don't like this one then lets vote on this one. If you don't like this one, then
vote on the other one." I'm confused because what we should have done was allow the Historic
Preservation Committee present us with a document. Either we liked it, or we didn't. We either vote it
up or we vote it down. I don't understand this array of options here and it's a little bit confusing and I
don't believe we are doing the HPC a service by doing that. It's almost like saying that they did a really
good job, but there was another guy in the class and he took good notes so we might consider his version
of this. I want to point out that nothing automatically happens if we vote on either one of these versions
of the ordinance. It's not like tomorrow, all of the sudden there will be 60 Historic Districts to find or
60 properties to find that have historic significance. That is one of the interesting things about Historic
Preservation. Something has to happen for them to actually be historic. You can't just call yourself
historic. Although, at some point in time the president of the United States will have come from Milton
and his house, maybe it was built in 2007 will become historic even though it is new. So I'm a little
confused again with why we pitted these two groups against each other. It seems like the guys on the
planning commission are a little worried about some of the things that are going into this, but really we
need to vote on this in terms of the merits of what the historic preservation committee put together and
either vote that up or vote that down. I am not concerned about the lack of definition of the historic
zoning itself, because that is very common in an approach to this kind of stuff. It is exactly why we
have gaps in our ordinances today. The numbers are filled in from one to ten. They skip some. Why is
that? So we can insert some stuff later that we don't know about. So the fact that we get an opportunity
once this is passed to consider how we need to deal with historic zoning itself is a good thing and I don't
think that it requires that we know everything in advanced because if we were to wait for that day to
come around, this would never get voted on. So, there weren't a lot of questions in there, was there?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 22 of 30
Other than when was the Committee created, but those are the things I wanted to make sure got on the
record and that's the way I feel about it. ..r
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
Alright, thank you. Mr. Tart?
Councilmember Tart:
Well, first and foremost I would like to thank the members of the Historic Preservation Committee for
your efforts. Also, the planning commission for your review of the original draft. There appears to be
some confusion and maybe I am confused as well. I'll just address this very systematically. The
original draft of the historic preservation ordinance from the Historic Preservation Committee included
reference to prior use. It did not include historic zoning designation, correct?
Lynn Tully:
It did.
Councilmember Tart:
It did? Okay.
Lynn Tully:
Wait, the one from March 3`d included a Historic Zoning District.
City Attorney Jarrard:
I think Councilmember Tart is talking about the one in 2009.
Lynn Tully:
Okay, the one that you were scheduled to hear in December did not but it did include an extensive prior
use allowances.
Councilmember Tart:
So there was a subsequent draft that went back before the planning commission and was reviewed that
included the prior use and included the zoning designation and the planning commission voted at that
time 7-0 to not include either of those, is that correct?
Lynn Tully:
I don't believe that it included a historic zoning designation, it only included the prior use.
Councilmember Tart:
That is what I am confused about. There has been several comments that has been made by this body
and perhaps even some of the members of the chamber that said that the planning commission had
reviewed and considered a historic zoning designation and they voted not to accept that. I, in all of these
versions, am not getting where that was reviewed or ever considered by the planning commission.
Lynn Tully:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 23 of 30
The historic zoning district version came from additional discussion that was offline and was brought
forward as recommendations to the HPC. That language was approved by the committee.
Councilmember Tart:
In my interpretation, the planning commission reviewed a draft. That draft did not include Historic
Zoning Designation, subsequent to that meeting and the recommendations that came out of the planning
commission. The historic preservation committee added back into the draft ordinance that we are
viewing tonight a new historic zoning designation, is that correct?
Lynn Tully:
Yes sir, they pulled out all of the prior use reference and allowance and added in place of those the
historic district.
Councilmember Tart:
Okay, I just wanted to be clear with that because I have a few questions and I have a few comments. Are
there any other zoning designations in our zoning ordinance for which we have already gone ahead and
said this is a certain designation, but were going to define that later?
Lynn Tully:
We do that in some of our other committees. CPAC for instance, will have a recommendation for
different zoning districts to be created and incompliance with implementation of the comprehensive
low plan, this contemplates a historic zoning district for implementation of historic preservation. Again,
with CPAC it's a little bit different. They're charged with specifically land use type criteria. This is
charged with primarily historic preservation criteria.
Councilmember Tart:
I see a big difference here because when this becomes law, I know that subsequent and several members
of this body have pointed out that we can come up with the criteria for the historic zoning designation
and even defined how it is to be used and whatnot. What I am having confusion with is the fact that in
the same thing, people are saying that it will come back to the historic planning commission. It will be a
recommendation made to the planning commission and we will make the ultimate decision on whether
something becomes historic or not. The problem I'm having with that is if we haven't even defined
what that Historic designation is going to be, how can anyone make any kind of recommendation one
way or the other on anything? They haven't even defined what that is yet. It's like we're putting the cart
before the horse. Why on earth would we possibly pass something into law that should be implemented
tomorrow where these three bodies should consider something when they have no clue with how to
make that consideration? What do they use? If someone wants to come in front of now and rezone from
AG -1 to C-1 there are things in our zoning ordinance that addresses that.
City Attorney Jarrard:
Councilmember Tart, I'd like to address that. I think the answer to your question is that there would be
no applications in consideration to the zoning designation until it is in place. So until the actual zoning
designation is created and is lawfully adopted by this council, no one can seek an H -Zoning designation.
Councilmember Tart:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 24 of 30
Okay, next question. With regard to undue hardship, and this has been expressed by members of this
board as well and there were some angst with that, I'm having a hard time understanding how the
commission itself could have the authority to waive requirements of the ordinance but yet these have to
come before that same body for rezoning and a recommendation would be made from that body to the
planning commission which we ultimately decide. How can on one hand they waive certain
requirements of the ordinance and on the other hand make recommendations that they ultimately have to
decide, how would all of that work?
Lynn Tully:
I'll take that one. Primarily, the authority for the historic preservation commission lies in the issuing of
these certificates of appropriateness. The certificates are based on aesthetic design guidelines. They are
not based on use or setbacks or anything like that. They're based on the aesthetic guidelines. The
Model ordinance for the state was created for places where zoning may not even be in existence and
there may not even be a board of zoning appeals. Here, we do have one. But the model ordinance
allows for the commission themselves to monitor themselves and maintaining the integrity of that
district. So yes, in this particular case they would be allowed to waive their design guidelines of those
aesthetic criteria if they found specific undue hardship or extreme economic hardship. It would still
have to be something that they didn't create themselves. A situation that wasn't created by the
applicant, but it is almost a BZA issue. I don't know that the BZA would be adverse to hearing any of
those issues, but it is simply not written that way in the model ordinance and has been recommended by
the state historic preservation planner that we maintain that same language.
Councilmember Tart:
I apologize for my remaining confusion but I'm still confused. The BZA is entirely separate from us.
Once we hear a rezoning, if there is a need to deviate from the requirements in our zoning ordinance
they can before the BZA to get a variance or if it is brought in conjunction with the rezoning then it
would be a concurrent variance. That is all clear to me. But what we have here is a committee that is
making recommendations to the planning commission and on to the Council and making
recommendations for even making something historic. This ordinance has the authority to waive
requirements of the ordinance. How does that work?
City Attorney Ken Jarrard:
Councilmember Tart, are you referencing their ability to recommend a historic zoning and your
questioning their influence on that process?
Councilmember Tart:
How does that work with them being able to waive requirements of the ordinance.
City Attorney Jarrard:
The H -zoning designation would be a separate ordinance. I don't believe they will have a variance
power with respect to the H -zoning. That is totally separate. This will certainly set up and act as the
precursor to the creation of that, but it is not going to be the historic preservation commissions charge to
grant variances with respect to those zonings that are the byproducts of this. That would be handled in
the ordinary course through the planning commission or the council or the BZA. With the language on
the undue hardship says...
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 25 of 30
Councilmember Tart:
Please tell me how section 5.g would be....
City Attorney Jarrard:
When by reason, the strict application would be of the ordinance that we have right here. This one does
not actually create the H zoning designation.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
But it does contemplate it, does it not?
City Attorney Jarrard:
It does contemplate it. But it is not created yet and it does not provide the HPC the power to grant
variances with respect to that future ordinance that has not been created yet.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Do we know that for certain based on this language or are we saying that we think in the future that
when that language is defined that we are hopeful that it won't?
City Attorney Jarrard:
., I think it absolutely says that. It says that they only have the power to grant variances with respect to
this ordinance.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I guess is that question of what this ordinance includes? I know that right now it doesn't define in that
language, and forgive me for jumping in on these questions but before you get off of that
Councilmember Tart, if we can clarify what undue hardship actually applies to? Because I know I will
forget to ask this question later so ill ask while we're on this topic. I think I heard you guys say that it
applies to design but I don't see it saying that.
Councilmember Tart:
I guess that is where I'm confused.
City Attorney Jarrard:
I think to Councilmember Zahner Bailey's point I think that the bottom of page 13 it says that the strict
application of any provision of this ordinance, so I don't know that it is necessarily limited to design. I
think that you have two things going against you. I think two things can create this. One is an intent to
do the best we can to go by the model code, and quite frankly I think that's why it is in there at all, and
then secondly the fact that we have this other ordinance contemplated and that's creating some
confusion. Councilmember Tart, I understand your question.
Councilmember Tart:
ON" Some of this has been answered by others and I appreciate that. In summary, I believe that the H zoning
designation should have to go before the planning commission as a matter of process. I know we can
""""" finagle the language of our ordinance and say the ordinance went before them at some point in the past,
even though now we have something that is more specific to zoning and has not been reviewed by the
planning commission. I have a lot of angst with that. Basically, I would like to make a motion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 26 of 30
Motion and Second:
Councilmember Tart put forward a motion to defer 10-1078 to the August 16, 2010 Zoning meeting and
specific to that deferral I would like for this, the version of the ordinance which is removing the version
of the document that I would like to go back before the planning commission is the one recommended
by the historic preservation committee and includes the historic zoning designation, I would like for that
to go before the planning commission and recommendations to come back before this body so that we
can ensure that the proper process is then followed in regards to consideration of that particular new
zoning designation, that is my motion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Thank you Mayor Pro Tem, in the motion to defer, would they also be able to consider the other things
including other input from the HPC? I just wouldn't want to preclude them from having healthy
dialogue with the HPC members about these various items.
Councilmember Tart:
Absolutely.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Okay, so that motion is not intended to preclude them from not having those discussions. I would
support a motion to defer until August 16, 2010 with the presumption that they would meet, they would
have the HPC and they would resolve this contributory versus non contributory defined the undue
hardship because I even heard our staff have a different perspective, and Lynn, with all due respect, you
referenced the hardship referring to design and yet Ken just pointed out that it refers to any hardship and
that is troubling. So again, I know we all care about Historic Preservation and we do want to get this
done, but it seems that between the various entities there has been a number of things that need to be at
least mentioned that need to be clarified.
Councilmember Thurman:
It is my understanding that when this H -Zoning classification is done, it will go before the planning
commission, correct? And they will have input into what goes into it at that time.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
If I may clarify though, I think the distinction, and I understand that as well Karen and I appreciate you
pointing that out, my understanding though is if we were to approve this ordinance tonight with that
included, even though it would go to them, it is already presupposing the existence of that zoning
designation and I think therein lies some of the challenges and what we have heard from citizens and
these folks, they might be able to define it later, but the very existence of that inclusion here when they
have not been part of that discussion is what is a divergence from what our process has been historically
and about CPAC, to your point and you stated well into the record, that CPAC is charged with land use
and with zoning. So, it would be appropriate for that committee to be contemplating possible zoning ■"
districts and they are not yet approving ordinances. I think that is the distinction here, is that this is an
ordinance that would define and contemplate that there would indeed be that zoning designation. It's «••
not that it might be, it's that it would be and the definition would follow. For those reasons, I would
support a deferral for no more than 60 days.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 27 of 30
%-uuncumemuer iLum
+ Whether a contemplation or not, I think in my opinion is that this is what we have been working for
almost three years. We want to create a historic designation. I think to Karen's point, the fact that this
ordinance will go in front of the planning commission for the final approval, I think it is justification at
this point to go ahead and do it. I would much rather continue with that process.
Councilmember Longoria:
More people get involved in this process, the more options were going to have, the more decisions were
going to have to make, and the more times were going to have to defer this. I'm with Councilmember
Lusk, I think that we have put a lot of effort into this and I don't see anything that is bad enough and
doesn't cover what needs to be covered in terms of the language of the ordinance, I think we need to
just go back to this idea that we gave the historic preservation committee a task, they have done the task,
and they are wanting to get some decision on that task, and we owe them a decision, and if we want to
change it up after we decide, then great. Either as an ordinance or as an ordinance that wasn't passed,
the reboot and start from a different document and a different group of people. It doesn't make any
sense for me, from my point of view, to defer this but we can vote on that.
Councilmember Tart:
I have a question, because one thing I have not heard answered, and I have heard Lynn say that she
would have done it differently and I have heard the question asked of Lynn, is there any other
jurisdiction that she is aware of, either in the state of Georgia or outside the state of Georgia that has an
H -zoning designation and her answer, although you don't know all of the million jurisdictions in the
county, but her answer was no she was not aware of one, especially in the state of Georgia. One thing I
have not heard from either the committee, the planning commission, the staff, or anyone on this Council
is why that approach is the way to go when that doesn't even exist anywhere? Why is this zoning
designation necessary, needed, and the way to go in Milton when that example is not used anywhere else
that we can possibly think of. I am having a hard time approving something that has not been reviewed
by the planning commission, that there is not an example of anywhere that we can say it is the way to
go.
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
I have already stated that I am not in favor of deferring this, and we have a motion and a second and I
would like to vote on that motion and see where that takes us.
Vote: The motion failed 2-4, with Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt, Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember
Lusk, and Councilmember Longoria being opposed.
Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve RZ 09-04 approval of an ordinance to create
an article 18 at the City of Milton Zoning ordinance to establish a historic zoning commission in the City
of Milton to provide for designation of historic properties and to provide for certificates of
appropriateness to provide for an appeals procedure to appeal conflicting ordinances and for other
purposes. I would ask that we would modify the draft that has been before us and I would ask that
specifically as a matter of this motion that we remove reference to the historic zoning designation and
that also on page 14 that we modify the reference to undue hardship and specifically verify that undue
hardship not be of any provision that it specifically referenced to allow the HPC the opportunity to have
any provisions modified but instead we would clarify that any of those would be specifically as it relates
to design and that any reference within that paragraph, and I would ask that this motion would have our
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 28 of 30
attorney and our staff modify it, but that effectively from the 4 1h sentence where it begins with "shall"
and ends after "purpose of the ordinance" that that be modified so that it is not to assume that that
commission has the authority to make any and all provisions, but that we clarify that it is design specific,
which I believe was the intent but it is not as reflective here, and Lynn if you would as a function of this
motion, could you refer to me again the waiver? I believe that was the same section, correct? About
undue hardship without them being able to waiver that that would cover that item? In terms of
contributory versus non contributory, can you point me to that Lynn?
City Attorney Jarrard:
To the extent that you are talking about for non contributory has to go to the DRB and that is in Section
5a and at the bottom of page 11.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Again, it clarifies that they just have to go back to the DRB. I am fine with that, and that was the
reference and it is not assuming that they have to make a decision so they have to go back for review
purposes.
Motion Restated, Second, and Vote:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve RZ 09-04 approval of an ordinance to create an article
18 at the City of Milton Zoning ordinance to establish a historic zoning commission in the City of
Milton to provide for designation of historic properties and to provide for certificates of appropriateness
to provide for an appeals procedure to appeal conflicting ordinances and for other purposes. I would
recommend removal of the reference to the historic zoning designation and modifying on page 14 the
undue hardship and rather than reference any and all provisions of the ordinance that it would only allow
for a potential modification of the design standard specifically if undue hardship were proven but that it
be specific to that as opposed to what it says currently which is any and all provisions of the ordinance.
Councilmember Tart seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-4 with Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt,
Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Lusk, and Councilmember Longoria opposed.
City Attorney Jarrard:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey, just as you stated in your motion, every reference with respect to the
historic zoning would need to be pulled out for consistency.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman made a motion to approve RZ09-04 "As Recommended
by Historic Preservation" document by changing p.13, section 5 (G) Undue Hardship, to read:
"When, by reason of unusual circumstances, the strict application of any provision of the ordinance
would result in the exceptional practical difficulty or undue economic hardship upon any owner of a
specific property, the Commission, in passing upon applications, shall have the power to recommend to
the Milton Mayor and City Council to vary or modify strict provisions, so as to relieve such difficulty or
hardship; provided such variances, modifications, interpretations shall remain in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of said provisions, so that the architectural or historical integrity, or character
of the property, shall be conserved and substantial justice done. In granting variances, the Milton Mayor
and City Council may impose such reasonable and additional stipulations and conditions as will, in its
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 29 of 30
judgment, best fulfill the purpose of this Ordinance. An undue hardship shall not be a situation of the
wwo person's own making."
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
My vote will reflect my concern with the zoning designation specifically, just for the record I continue
to support Historic Preservation but I'm concerned about the comingling of these two.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-2).
Councilmembers Tart and Zahner Bailey were in opposition.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 20, Environment, Article VI, Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1139)
(Previously Discussed at April 19, 2010 Work Session)
(First Presentation on May 17, 2010 Regular Council Meeting)
(Public Hearing on June 7, 2010)
(Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
OMM
Lynn Tully:
ww • This is a requirement from the state DNR to model their model ordinance.
• They require that we maintain our issuing authority.
• The proposal does include all of the changes from the state's recommended ordinance and does
comply.
• We have sent our copy to the state for verification and we haven't heard any comments which
are negative.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk made a motion to approve Agenda Item No. 10-1139, the
Approval of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 20, Environment, Article VI, Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Control, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances. Councilmember Zahner Bailey
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
NEW BUSINESS (none)
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Pro Tem Hewitt:
• I wanted to commend the Fire Department and thank the support of the City of Alpharetta last
Tuesday night with the fires.
,.,... • I wish a speedy recovery to the firefighter that was injured.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
• Thank you for protecting our homes and our lives.
Councilmember Thurman:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, June 21, 2010
Page 30 of 30
• I spoke with the headmaster at the Chandler School.
• They are looking into the problem address.
• There is not a barn being built in the front of his property.
• The Fulton County Tax records show zero address.
STAFF REPOTS
Chris Lagerbloom:
• GMA is this Friday
• Everyone has per diem checks for the Conference.
EXECUTIVE SESSON
Added by Motion and Vote
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to adjourn into Executive Session at 8:11 p.m. Councilmember
Tart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
RECONVENE
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to reconvene the Regular meeting at 8:26 p.m. Councilmember
Tart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
ADJOURNMENT
Motion and Vote: councilmember Lusk moved to adjourn the Regular meeting at 8:28 p.m. Councilmember
Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Date Approved: July 19, 2010
Sudie AM Gordon, Intofim City C
Burt Hewitt, Mayor Pro Tem