Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 04/19/2007 - MINS 04 19 07 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 1 of 102 Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION - Pastor Jerry Dockery, Crabapple First Baptist Church CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lockwood called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL City Clerk Marchiafava called roll and reminded those in attendance to please silence all cell phones and pagers at this time. Additionally, those attending the meeting who would like to provide public comment either during the public hearings or during the call for public comment you are required to fill out a public comment card and need to be turned in to City Clerk staff. They are available at the front and back tables. City Clerk Marchiafava called the roll and all were present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA City Clerk Marchiafava stated 07-239, Approval of the Meeting Agenda. Staff would like to move Agenda Item 07-246 Executive Session for the purpose to discuss pending litigation between the Consent Agenda and the Zoning Agenda. We would also like to postpone Agenda Item 07-235, A Resolution Regarding Meeting Times to the May 3rd meeting. City Attorney Scott addressed the members of the Council. The applicant for the Longstreet Abandonment and Dedication, which is the developer of the Manor subdivision, has discussed some issues with the City this week. They were not able to obtain a bond as requested for that duration and they have asked us to revisit the issue this week. They are under a lot of time pressure in order to get some closings taken care of and they have asked us if we would reconsider that item this week by adding it to the agenda. Councilmember Thurman stated that she would like to request that they postpone the minutes for the work session and the minutes for the regular meeting that are on Consent Agenda. City Clerk Marchiafava stated Councilmember Thurman is requesting to postpone the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th items on the Consent Agenda; those are all approval of the meeting minutes. The Consent Agenda will only be item number 1, Approval of Financial Statements for the Period Ending March 2007. Motion and Second: Councilmember O’Brien moved to approve the meeting agenda as amended. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey had one question for the record, given that we just received notice from our City Attorney about the request to reconsider the item that was on our agenda item last week, she would ask that we modify the amendment to approve our agenda with everything with the exception of that item that we have only just heard about. So if it would be the pleasure of this Council if we could have the first motion, or either separate the two items, so that our first motion would be to approve the Agenda with the removal of the Consent Agenda items with the exception of the financial statement, and to defer the other item that was noted until May 3. But then separately, consider the additional item of the City Attorney. City Attorney Scott stated just for procedural clarity, is that a motion to divide the question? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 2 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes, thank you. That would be a motion to divide the question. Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to split the amended meeting agenda and defer consideration of resolution accepting dedication of Longstreet Road in light of new information received. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion and Vote: Councilmember O’Brien moved to approve the meeting agenda as amended. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Lockwood stated that the next item is public comment. Public Comment is the time for citizens to share information with the Mayor and City Council and provide input and opinions on any matter that is not scheduled for its own public hearing during today’s meeting. There is no discussion on items on the Consent Agenda or First Presentation from the public or from Council. Each citizen who chooses to participate in public comment must complete a comment card and submit it to the City Clerk. Please remember this is not a time to engage the Mayor or members of the City Council in conversation. When your name is called please come forward and speak into the microphone stating your name and address for the record. You will have five minutes for remarks. Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any public comment. City Clerk Marchiafava stated she had not received public comment cards for general public comment. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor Lockwood stated there are no reports and presentations. CONSENT AGENDA City Clerk Marchiafava stated as amended by motion and vote, the Consent Agenda is Item #07-240, Approval of Financial Statements for the period ending March 2007. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the Financial Statements for the period ending March 2007. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Marchiafava stated as approved during the approval of the meeting agenda at this time, we need the motion to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Adjourned into Executive Session at 7:13 pm. MEETING RECONVENED Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to reconvene the meeting at 7:56 pm. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with those present, 4-0. Councilmember Zahner Bailey and Councilmember O’Brien were not present for the vote. City Clerk Marchiafava called the next agenda item under the Zoning Agenda #07-227. First Presentation on April 12, 2007. This will be the second reading. RZO7-002 Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 33 Sign Ordinance, Article 12G State Route 9 Overlay District, Article 12H Northwest Fulton Overlay Zoning District, Article 12H1 Crabapple Crossroads at the Northwest Fulton Overlay District. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 3 of 102 Mayor Lockwood stated before we get into discussion on the item, staff has suggested that we move the ordinance on the floor as it is written in the packet and then we can discuss and amend it from there. Therefore, at this time, he would entertain a motion to adopt the text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as currently written. Motion and Second: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve RZO7-002 as submitted. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. Staff has recommended a motion to suspend the rules. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend the Rules of Procedure to limit Public Comment to three minutes per person, limited one chance to speak. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT City Clerk Marchiafava reminded everyone this is a zoning item and if you notice at the bottom of the public comment card, you are asked to check whether or not within the two years immediately preceding the filing of this zoning petition have you, as an applicant or opponent for the rezoning petition, or an attorney or agent of the applicant or opponent for the rezoning petition, made any campaign contributions aggregating $250.00 or made gifts having an aggregate value of $250.00 to the Mayor or any member of City Council. Nikki Haslett, 330 Stone Hill Point, Milton, GA, stated she has actually sent an email out to Mayor Lockwood and all the Councilmembers. She did get it out a bit late, so what she is going to do is just read what she sent. She wanted to confirm what she thought they all envisioned for the City of Milton when we embarked on its formation and incorporation. Promises and catch phrases to grab the voters were in abundance. For example, to develop a distinctive architectural look and feel for the entire community that capitalizes on the existing historic nature of Milton and to safeguard Milton’s small town community and rural feel. To pursue a goal of protecting and preserving the unique policies of this area, etc. In essence, it was her understanding that there was a vision for the City of Milton which sought to retain its charm and where necessary to enhance its overall esthetic quality. From where she is sitting, this vision appears to incorporate all of Milton with the exception of the Highway 9 Overlay area. This is in very close proximity to where she lives, and where a large number of residents are located. In fact, where many of you as Councilmembers reside. It is unfortunate that the perception lingers with many residents (and rightly so) that our best interests in this area are not being represented. Highway 9 may well be one of Milton’s main commercial districts. It is, however, also a huge residential area with subdivisions and town homes lining its length on each side. As a commercial and residential thoroughfare, its external look and visual impact should reflect the community’s beauty, unique qualities, and attitudes. And this becomes paramount when one considers a revamp of the overlay and, in particular, when you vote on the signage ordinance this evening. This is just what she likes to look at when you are looking at your ordinance. Janet Turner, 815 Barberry Drive, Milton, GA had to leave and City Attorney Scott read her comments into the record. “For five years prior to moving here, I lived in San Ramon, CA. The community is very similar to Milton. One of the first things to catch my eye was the height of their business signage. Everything was no higher than 6 ft. It was esthetically pleasing and not obstructive to the view of the buildings. If we truly wish to maintain our small town feel, then a maximum sign height of 6 ft. is what our city deserves.” Richard Wernick, 210 Dorawell Way, 30022, stated that he is the president of Land Solutions and they are a developer in the area with several subdivisions. His comments are stated toward Section 25 C 1, Free Standing Signs. We are okay with the Sign Ordinance as it is and there has been a few changes made there in that section and they are fine with those as well. He just wants to encourage this Council not to change what is there. We have been getting our signs approved through the county, previous to this and one of the Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 4 of 102 subdivisions that are in your City now is Triple Crown. They are in the process of three other subdivisions in the City and will probably have similar signage that was approved by the county with this Sign Ordinance. He would like to encourage the Council to keep it the same and not make any changes in that area. Also, he does not know if it is possible at this point. He knows that there are some changes proposed to the Sign Ordinance tonight, but in a lot of ways he thinks that it would be good to form a committee of persons from in all the different business functions that are affected by the signs. Signage is very important to businesses and subdivisions and he knows that there is economic impact to it. There all these different signs and we need to get people involved that can sit down on several nights and dig through some of this stuff and see so that if you are unsure about certain areas and what its impact might be, he would say maybe leave those off and pass the ordinance for the changes you want. Other than that then form citizens committees and get some citizens involved, etc. that can hash through some of these things. He appreciates your time, thank you. Carol Lane, 14890 East Bluff Road, Milton, stated that first she applauds the City Council for the ground breaking work they have done constructing this Sign Ordinance. Although it has been a lengthy process, the attention to detail will make this City one we can all be proud of. You are establishing the standards for the City of Milton, not only for today and tomorrow, but for future generations. What a lesson to teach our children that we can show them by implementing what the citizens want and, at the same time, encouraging businesses to follow the standards that we want. It will be a win-win situation. You have proven to the citizens of our new City that you can implement change for the positive. You seven Councilmembers are the trustees of us and have an awesome opportunity to lay the groundwork for a great looking City. Of course, there is fear from the developers because this may be contrary to what they are used to. The developer may say that if they adhere to this ordinance, the City of Milton will lose business. She would challenge that. There are many high income residents who would love to have the opportunity to support a business that would adhere to our rules. You had a choice where you wanted to live, why did you choose the City of Milton over the east side of 400? Please let us keep the character we have grown to love and make a statement starting tonight and approve the Sign Ordinance before you. Thank you. John McMillan, 14255 Thompson Road, Milton, thanked the Mayor and Council much for your time tonight and for the great task that you are undertaking and the amount of time you all spend on these things. From the beginning, we had mentioned that we felt like we did not have community input on the changes suggested in this ordinance. To that end, we had a meeting, thanks to Councilmember Lusk the other night and, basically, these folks that were invited were people that had some involvement with the original Highway 9 Overlay update. The findings in that meeting were 28 days ago our Sign Ordinance for Highway 9 was attempted to be changed. It would have gone unnoticed except for God prompted him to be at the Council meeting. His understanding to the group consensus was go back to the basics. This was the group the other night, going back to the basics, having a balanced task force of stake holders appointed by Council to study the Highway 9 Overlay District, and Sign Ordinance in an expeditious manner. Our vision for Highway 9 is to look more like Deerfield. We want it to look nice; we want it to be a pleasing place. We understand that we may need to pass the Sign Ordinance for several reasons. Tonight, we would just say let’s not [inaudible] anything that relates to the size of the [inaudible] or anything else that references the Highway 9 portion of it. At this time, let’s leave it like it was at Fulton County, like we were supposed to have transferred over. Let’s do a regular process, which just asks for community input, residents, staff, property owners, and business owners. That is the way we have always done things before and it served us very well. He does not think we want to depart from that right away. Let us take our time, time to understand this. Part of the information we found out is that the Deerfield signs are a good bit larger than the ones that exist on Highway 9 because they got variances to get those. But, let him also just read what Joelle Corcoran said, and she was very, very involved in the committee and is knowledgeable about this issue as anybody else: “All, sorry for the late response. She had not been available today. She would like to clarify her response if it is not too late. She did not mention a sign face size because, as she stated on Tuesday night. She does not believe that she has the knowledge to do so at this time. She is sure that there is some architectural guideline that determines the face value sign, face values and types. She, Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 5 of 102 however, does not know what this is and our understanding the other night was that we will try to study it and come back and do that if we had appropriate time to do so.” Thank you very much. Cary Schlenke, 490 The Hermitage Drive, Milton, Georgia, stated as you vote on the Sign Ordinance this evening, she feels we have a great opportunity with the Sign Ordinance to create a better look on Highway 9; a look that distinguishes our City from other areas. She thinks the 6 ft. monument signs are a great way to work towards accomplishing this unique and better look. She feels the 10 ft. sign maximum is too high in the area that is yet to be developed. She thinks that it is important to consider the location of the remaining undeveloped commercial land on the Highway 9 Overlay. The majority of it is closely or directly situated next to or across from neighborhoods. There is the corner of Bethany Bend and Highway 9, which is directly abutted to Bethany Creek north and south to the north of Bethany Bend on Highway 9, the land across from Crooked Creek and Lake Laurel neighborhoods, to the south the land across from the Orchards and the east side of Highway 9 as across from the Fairmount subdivision, Webb Road and Highway 9 undeveloped land is in close proximity to the Pulte town homes. As a resident in the Highway 9 Overlay area, she knows that many of the residents that she has spoken to since she has lived in this area would like to see Highway 9 have a cleaner look. The one thing that she had heard repeatedly from residents in this area is that Highway 9 is often not given enough consideration for a better look and feel with Fulton County never quite getting the picture. She does not believe the Highway 9 Overlay residents want this area to be excluded from this town to keep Milton the jewel and the unique area that it is. She is confident that she speaks for many of the residents who would like to see the Council demonstrate to them that they also have their best interest represented. As you all know, she has spent a great deal of time during the election and heard much of what you heard the City of Milton residents say about what they want for this community. She is not unsympathetic to development and business community needs and personally has deep roots in the building industry. She did feel that some meaningful changes, as we work to create a better look on Highway 9, to the development community can reap great benefits in this area. She realizes much of the height, size, and general signage guidelines are a departure from what has previously been seen in the Highway 9 area. She believes these changes represent a much better outcome for our community. Her impression in traveling in newer successful areas for less and more approached signs is what is already happening, whether it is monument or window signs. When traveling down Windward Parkway, she believes most all monument signs are greater than 6 feet with a few exceptions. She thinks that it looks great and it is not difficult to locate businesses in that area. As we prepare when you look at areas that are not successful, and are not visually appealing are the signs 10 ft to 20 ft. in height. Thank you very much for consideration on her input. Bob Moheb, 13085 Morris Road, Unit 12010, Alpharetta, Georgia, stated he would like to let you know about the one change that he thinks will seriously crippled the building industry, located in Section 75A1 of the Sign Ordinance. The existing wording states that the signs shall not exceed 12 sq ft in area and 5 ft in height. He had a chance to talk to government officials with the National Association of Home Builders. They stated to him that the national industry standard is roughly 32 sq ft. in area and 10 ft. tall, the proposed change is 50% less. Also, just in case you did not know, the NAHB has hundreds of thousands of members and it is a well respected association that works closely with the national government to put new laws into affect. Please keep in mind when considering height that most of these informational signs you see in the subdivisions are 4 x 8. When you have them at 10 ft. tall, you can put more decorative posts on them which cost more, but looks a whole lot better. He has also had a chance to drive around Milton, Roswell, and Alpharetta to measure over fifteen informational signs. All apartments and subdivisions he measured had a minimum of 4 x 8 signs. Anything that was bigger just flat out did not look good. He begs of you to please take this information into consideration as you make this important decision. Also, for your information, he did receive the document put together by Joelle and Heidi when they were putting the City of Milton together. The only recommended changes he saw at that point on that document were a height of 10 ft and external illumination. He asks of you to also keep in mind those business owners, builders, and developers are also the people that voted for you when you were running. We expected only these changes stated above. Also, not only are the citizens you are talking with tonight, but you are also Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 6 of 102 trustees of business owners. The reason he chose Milton instead of the east side is because he enjoyed the beauty and the existing rules that we had. Thank you. Kim Horne, 415 Wade Glen Court, Milton, Georgia, stated she would like to speak to you for a few minutes and request that you support the changes to the ordinance in regards to the State Route 9 Overlay. One of the purposes she would like to bring your attention to the ordinance it says, “To prevent the destruction of the natural beauty and environment of the city and to ensure the harmony and compatibility of the character of the area, including physical appearance, natural settings, informal landscaping, and to preserve the historic character of the city.” It is not tonight about the presently approved signs along Highway 9. It is about a transition to residential and mixed use areas. For the many residential areas along Highway 9, highway signs should be in keeping with the harmony of residential development. The creation of this Sign Ordinance that what was supposed to be entirely different from the Fulton County statutes was to bring the State Route 9 area in harmony with the other overlays in Milton while promoting economic development. To accomplish this, the total square footage of area and height of signs had to be modified for the Milton standards and was approved by the Planning Commission with much community input. Many municipalities have statutes of smaller sizes and still thrive; to name a few Peachtree City, and Historic Roswell. She would like to site two examples of sections that she firmly believes need to stay as written in the ordinance, Section 26 1B which reads, “Multi tenant developments should only be allowed one primary monument sign for overall development which should not exceed a maximum surface area of 32 sq ft and a maximum area of 6 ft should be approved. The second one is Section 26 1D, which also currently reads, “a single tenant space and out parcels are limited to one monument sign which shall not exceed the maximum sq footage of 24 sq ft and a maximum height of 6 feet. Please support the citizens of Milton and that would be the residents, the small business owners, developers and everybody else, by approving the State Route 9 overlay text amendment. Thank you. Point of Order Mayor Lockwood stated as a Point of Order requesting a motion and a second to address the time limit. Because there are so many issues involved in a Sign Ordinance amendment and, in everybody’s interest that we are not here all night long, he is asking for a motion to limit debate on any amendment to the ordinance to a maximum two minutes per Councilmember, per item. Vote: There was unanimous consent for the Motion to Limit Debate. Discussion on consented time limits imposed. Director of Community Development Tom Wilson stated that in order to simplify this a little bit, we have collected a number of edits that the City Council would like to make. We will just go through them one at a time from the document we all have been given. He asked Councilmember Thurman to explain her first line item. Point of Order Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated as a Point of Order are we going to go by sections first so that we start at the beginning of the document. Councilmember Thurman stated she believed she had the very first one. She just had a question on Section 2, paragraph 5. It is describing Milton and her concern was the fact that it states that “where rural, pastoral and equestrian in nature and land use”. She was concerned that we were not referring at all to any area around Highway 9, and that this could come back to haunt us if this part was ever proven, or if it ever came to court that not all of the area is equestrian in nature. She asked if we needed to reword this such that it would state the majority of the area with this or something rather than basically stating the whole City was rural, pastoral, and equestrian in nature. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 7 of 102 Director of Community Development Tom Wilson asked if Councilmember Thurman was proposing a change to that paragraph. Councilmember Thurman stated she really just put it out there for discussion to see what the pleasure of the Council was. Mayor Lockwood asked if there any comments. Councilmember Zahner Bailey commented that when we had our retreat, we did have a visioning process. She felt that that visioning process for the most part did speak to the overall vision of Milton, whether it was on the peripheral or within the interior, and that the goal was to promote these factors which represent a large portion of the City. She does believe that our City Attorney, under findings of Section B, added some additional language from a legal perspective that also speaks about the importance of balancing economic viability with businesses. Her thoughts would be that the concern is addressed in some of those additional paragraphs that were subsequently added by the City Attorney under the Section of Findings. Councilmember Thurman stated that is fine as long as the City Attorney does not feel that this could compromise our ordinance in any way. That was her concern that we stated something that was not entirely correct that could compromise the ordinance. City Attorney Scott stated that if the Council would like, he could propose a very brief amendment to that and would say on line 23 there at Section 5, “The city further finds that much of the City of Milton…” we could add those two words. Councilmember Thurman clarified with ‘most of.” City Attorney Scott questioned if she was making an amendment. Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend Section 2, subsection B, and paragraph 5 by adding “most of.” Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember O’Brien stated he would think since several comments were made pertaining to Highway 9 and the perception, which is fairly well-founded, that it is considered a part or not considered in Milton. He would be a little bit uncomfortable with the phrase “most of." He thinks that again it has a subtle bias toward Highway 9, and it implies that just about all of Milton is rural and pastoral except for the dumping ground on Highway 9. He, as a nearby neighbor of Highway 9 and with consideration for the fair comments that were made tonight and other evenings, that we perhaps seek a little better characterization. He recognized that all of Milton is not rural and pastoral, but perhaps we could avoid segregating some of the citizens who may feel that Milton is rural and pastoral in their hearts, but not necessarily in their small piece of it. On that basis, would ask if we could perhaps refine it a bit further. Director of Community Development Tom Wilson asked Councilmember O’Brien if he had a recommendation for that refinement. Councilmember O’Brien stated he would seek any other comment that would… Councilmember Mohrig perhaps. Councilmember Thurman stated the intent was not to say anything against Highway 9 at all, but to make sure we were not stating something in here that was not correct that could come back to haunt us at another time. She did not know if you want to use “predominantly unique” or if “primarily to be unique” or "tries to be unique, she did not know. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 8 of 102 Councilmember O’Brien stated just to be sure we are on Section 2b5 the second line. Point of Order City Attorney Scott called for a Point of Order. We are not following the rule. We moved to limit debate and there is supposed to be one person speaking and pass it on. It is not supposed to be a lot of dialogue because we will be here all night. Vote: The motion passed 5-2, with Councilmember O’Brien and Councilmember Zahner Bailey voting in opposition. Director of Community Development Tom Wilson stated item 2 is also Councilmember Thurman’s amendment. Councilmember Thurman stated she thought Section 3 was the next correction by Councilmember Zahner Bailey. Director of Community Development Tom Wilson stated oh we want to do it that way. Councilmember Thurman stated yes, we want to do it by section. She has a couple of them. City Manager Bovos stated that he actually had the opportunity to take the Excel document and sort it by section while you were going through public comment. He will try to help, but we do have three items in Section 3(1); one from Councilmember Lusk, and two from Councilmember Zahner Bailey. Mayor Lockwood stated then we will start with Councilmember Zahner Bailey. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated her items were both in the definitional area. The first is on page 4 and refers to the freestanding sign i.e. the billboard. If you look on page 4, and hopefully we are all in the same document, but page 4 under Billboard, it currently reads, “A freestanding sign with an area of more than 128 sq ft,” this has been an item that we have had much discussion about both going back to December 21, as well as during our Work Sessions. She thinks that earlier she heard 28 days, but we have been at this for months and months. A freestanding sign with regards to the billboards, the concern raised historically is that 128 sq ft is still too large for the definition of billboard. Her recommendations would be that we ratchet that down at a minimum to 120 sq ft, but she would ask as we discuss this whether or not we could consider something closer to 96 sq ft. We do have a measurement that staff provided us from some billboard signs that are on Arnold Mill in Cherokee County, and staff will correct her if this is incorrect, but the information she had from staff was that that measured at 8 x 15, which was 120 sq ft and it stands only 6 ft on 6 foot tiling, so it is not a 20 ft tall element. What she is suggesting then is at the first mention of billboards that we consider a smaller billboard area even those will be available throughout Milton in certain sections. She believes that we need to not allow for 128 sq ft. She does not think that is the magic number and would suggest that we consider the range of 96 sq ft to 120 sq ft for that definition and then in any subsequent section that references billboards. Councilmember D'Aversa stated just for clarification she had sent an email today stating that same point. What she had heard was the same point that Councilmember Zahner Bailey heard and she thought that we were going to measure a sign on 140 to see what the sizes were. She asked what the size of that sign was. Community Development Director Wilson stated he had it on Power Point and asked them to just take a moment to just look through some signs. Councilmember D'Aversa stated what size was that? Community Development Director Wilson responded 120. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 9 of 102 Councilmember D'Aversa stated that basically answers and clarifies our questions. City Attorney Scott questioned whether Councilmember Zahner Bailey was intending to make a motion on that point. Councilmember Zahner Bailey responded that she was intending to make a motion, but she did not know if whether based on our new rules for this particular item allowed her to have other members to provide comments since we all have some comments on this, and then make a motion or does she need to make the motion and then have additional commentary. City Manager Bovos stated make the motion, get a second, and then there can be discussion. City Attorney Scott agreed. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated before she makes her motion could she have Community Development Director Tom Wilson provides his Power Point because that would be valuable as we consider the area size of a billboard. Just for the record, we have never had billboards in this area before so it is pretty intensive stuff. Community Development Director Wilson stated that this Power Point actually has a lot of signs in it and at the end we get into some billboards and some different sizes. We can just go through this very quickly and get some idea of what size signs we are talking about and where. Via the Power Point, he pointed out that this is the Fry's sign, it is 15.75 sq ft, here are two other signs 32 sq ft, a 0:38:08 sign you see, the Fairmont sign you see right there is 22 sq ft, top sign 72 sq ft the lower sign there is 64 sq ft. That does not include the base that is just the size of the sign face. Here are two real estate signs that are 32 sq ft the other 16 sq ft, here are some residential signs 20 sq feet and 20 sq ft these are the signs, not the structure holding the signs. Lake Lawn is 12 sq ft, Wyndham is 15 sq ft, the commercial sign at the top is 140 sq ft, the commercial sign at the bottom is 42 sq ft, the top sign here a residential sign is 27.6 sq ft, the commercial sign there at the bottom is 24 sq ft these are all obviously along Highway 9. The commercial, the Publix sign you see right there is 44 sq ft, the Publix sign you see at the lower part of your screen is 32 sq ft, the commercial sign at the top Kids R US is 24 sq ft, the Zaxby’s sign is 30 sq ft, Wendy’s sign is 36.75 sq ft, the McDonald’s sign there is 22 sq ft, Kaufmann 29.75 sq ft, Sherwin Williams 32 sq ft, Dayton sign there 20 sq feet, First Academy sign 32 sq ft, Your Extra Attic is 64 sq ft the base of that is 161 sq ft, so we have got some large signs out there, 68 sq ft on the top that is a multi-tenant sign, the lower also a multi-tenant sign is 88 sq ft, the freestanding sign at the top there is 550 sq ft, Forsyth the freestanding sign here in Forsyth County border is 550 sq ft, here is another rather tall freestanding billboard sign 550 sq ft, here is another one that is 550 sq ft, another one at 550 sq ft in the City of Roswell and yet another 550 sq ft and another 550 sq ft in the City of Roswell, 550 sq ft and 550 sq ft, we see these fairly often. Here is a freestanding sign that is 96 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated it is 96 sq ft and she pointed out that that is the one on Arnold Mill in Cherokee County, so it is 96 sq ft; it is not 120 sq ft? Community Development Director Wilson responded okay well we misunderstood which sign you were speaking of, but here is one that is 96 sq ft, here is one in Cherokee County that is 120 sq ft, another one in Cherokee County that is 120 sq ft, 120 sq ft, and 120 sq ft in Cherokee County, so they are all over the place. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated with that if she is to follow the direction given by our City Attorney she would state her motion. Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved for the definitional area regarding billboard signs she would put forward would be that we would have the definition instead of 120 sq ft with regards to Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 10 of 102 billboards that we would replace that with a 96 sq foot area and then the rest of the verbiage would be the same. Discussion on the Motion: Mayor Lockwood requested a second and stated this may be out of order, but requested the City Attorney’s legal opinion on this matter of reducing. City Attorney Scott responded stating the smaller we go the more litigation we would risk. He certainly would not risk going any smaller than 96 sq ft. There is more risk involved in 96 sq ft than there is in 128 sq ft. The Council will remember the advice we were given by the attorneys representing us in the billboard lawsuit, and he will not repeat the figure because he thinks that was a portion of the Executive Session and he feels you all remember that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated if she may just comment along those lines that the attorney also said that if we had examples of signs that were adjacent to our City that were more in keeping with the vision and the values that our citizens, and we as a City wanted to put forward that that would indeed help to mitigate the risks that you just mentioned. It was for that reason that we asked during that Work Session for measurements of signs that are immediately adjacent to our City and it is based on that that she recommend the 96 sq ft in keeping with what Ms. Henderson had recommended to us. Mayor Lockwood requests a second for Councilmember Zahner Bailey’s motion. Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey motioned to amend the definition of billboards in the definitional area to replace 128 sq ft with 96 sq ft and the remainder of the verbiage remaining intact. The motion died for lack of a second. Community Development Director Wilson states next section to be Section 3, page 7 under definition of ‘Window Signs.’ Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Councilmember D'Aversa did we need to address your Section 3. Councilmember D'Aversa stated she did not have a Section 3. City Manager Bovos stated there were a total of three in Section 3 one remaining from Councilmember Zahner Bailey and one from Councilmember Lusk. Mayor Lockwood stated he would just ask the City Manager if he would keep us on track. City Manager Bovos stated he would do his best. Community Development Director Wilson stated so let us go to Section 3, page 7, under definition of Window Sign. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated her point here was more a function of an amendment text or for conflict. Again, Section 3, page 7, it currently defines it as a window sign is anything within 24 inches, if you go to several of the overlays including both Crabapple and Birmingham the definition of the window signs is that within 5 ft of that window and so her only point here is that it is a text amendment for consistency purposes. She would ask for staff to verify that for the other Council and Mayor, but that is the point of this item in this definitional section. Community Development Director Wilson responded that when this document was reviewed back in December 2006 it was the Council who proposed 24 inches. Since that time the Planning Commission has taken a look at this document and in a couple of places has recommended that that be 5 ft, so that any sign Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 11 of 102 that is within 5 ft of a window could be seen outside of the store would be considered a window sign. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she thought the exception was the Highway 9 that the Highway 9 area remained with a separate definition for window sign. She thinks it is the point of clarification that the definition of the 5 ft would not apply to Highway 9 because that was a separate overlay, but this and her comment and amendment is specifically to make it consistent with those recommendations for consistency later in this document so that it is defined as is defined in Birmingham’s overlay and in the Crabapple overlay, which currently when you read further in the document state that a window sign is 5 ft. This definition is in conflict with that later language. Community Development Director Wilson responded stating that it is not in conflict with the later language. It is different than the later language would always prevail because they are in the overlay district. This is in Section 3 of this document, and thinks of this entire document, sections 1 through 25 are what used to be the Northwest Fulton Overlay District for everything that is not in another overlay district. Sections 26 through the end are those overlay districts, which would prevail and have precedent over the first 25 sections of this. This is what we are on right now is Section 3 would be what used to be called Northwest Overlay District for those parts of Milton that are not in either the Birmingham, Crabapple, and Highway 9 overlay districts. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated just so that she can clarify, but if we were to leave it in this definitional section as 24 inches and when we later get to the sections of the Crabapple overlay and the Birmingham overlay that 5 feet would apply consistently to those areas and would not be in conflict with this definition. She asked is that a correct statement. Community Development Director Wilson responded this was correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would hold any change here and just ask that when we get to those two sections we are very sure to ensure that those sections are consistent because there were some inconsistencies later. City Manager Bovos stated the next comments are from Councilmember Lusk. Councilmember Lusk stated it was just punctuation a comma added in 100 definitions Section 3, added a comma between the words building and sign. He believes that was the intent when it was written. Community Development Director Wilson stated what definition is that? (There was discussion to clarify typographical error within definitions requiring addition of a comma.) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to add the punctuation comma in 100 definitions Section 3, between the words building and sign. There was unanimous consent to approve for staff to make correction. Councilmember D'Aversa stated before we move on can she make a comment about Section 3, hers did not make it on here. She had a similar recollection of the discussion about the billboards maximum or minimum signs be defined as a billboard and would like to make a motion that we restate that square footage as 120 sq ft instead of 128 sq ft. Motion and Second: Councilmember D'Aversa moved to restate the square footage as 120 sq ft instead of 128 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember Thurman stated she would like to ask our City Attorney if it was her understanding that Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 12 of 102 128 sq ft came directly from our outside counsel on billboards and that was her recommendation as to the 128 sq ft. City Attorney Scott responded no, that is not correct. Councilmember Thurman stated so the 128 sq ft was what we had come up with. City Attorney Scott stated that is what we had in the original December draft, yes. He thinks there might have been some discussion about that it was just at a meeting resulted in that number. If you are asking for my recommendation as far as the comfort level of a number in that neighborhood what he would tell you is that given the number of signs that we saw up there that were at 120 sq ft. He would be comfortable with 120 sq ft. Mayor Lockwood asked Tom Wilson in his experience is that fairly typical 120 sq ft versus 128 sq ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated it is hardly noticeable. Whenever we said that that billboard was 120 sq ft, we were really estimating because we certainly did not climb these billboards. It is certainly within the realm of possibilities that is all the same size. Motion and Vote: Councilmember D'Aversa moved to accept the amendment of the definition of billboards in Section 3 in the definitional area from 128 sq ft to 120 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Bovos stated that there were three changes from Section 11, two in subsection A. He asked Councilmember Thurman to start discussion. Councilmember Thurman stated yes, right now Section 11 only allows the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant certain variances. She does not feel like we ought to handcuff the Board of Zoning Appeals. She feels like we have a very good board and it is her understanding that none of the other municipalities around limit the Board of Zoning Appeals’ power to grant variances. She does not feel like we ought to do it. She feels like we ought to leave it up to them to make the decisions that they feel is in the best interest of our City and she would like to make a motion that we on Section 11 subsection A change it to “The Board of Zoning Appeals shall be allowed to grant variances to this article" and put a period after that. Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend Section 11 subsection A (Limitations) to read “The Board of Zoning Appeals shall be allowed to grant variances to this article.” Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked as a Point of Order because we are trying to go through these and some of us may have had different comments, but in the same section would it be appropriate for us to discuss that section before a motion since it is the same section of the same language. Community Development Director Wilson responded yes, absolutely. Councilmember Zahner Bailey continuing that she was not sure how best to ask this, but in order to keep consistent with the process that was put in place earlier this evening would it be reasonable to ask for that motion that was just put forward to be withdrawn until we can have a discussion of the item. City Attorney Scott stated he thinks you could still have a discussion of the item, but if you have a different opinion and you would like to say well if this motion does not pass, you would like to make another motion. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 13 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and then maybe going forward on the next item she would ask that before we put a motion forward if we have comment on the same section to go ahead and have that discussion. With regards to that same section, Section 11, we did have quite a lengthy discussion about this on December 21 at our public hearing. At that public hearing initially we actually had the discussion with staff and they had talked about other examples where some appeal processes were in fact limited and she believes that we went through some examples of those back at the 21st. She does not have those minutes in front of her and that might be helpful, but as an example what she do know is that we changed it from having two times the height and sign. We compromised at that point, and we voted on it at that point on December 21 and ended up with regards to height and size that we would allow for 1½ times the height and size to be the consideration by the BZA if a hardship existed. She believes that is where we ended up with the 150%. The current document before us shows that the variance to the size would not exceed two times. She guessed part of her confusion is that we had been through this discussion at length, so she would recommend that we still maintain the 150% which was a voted compromise going back to December 21. Mayor Lockwood asked City Attorney how to proceed. City Attorney Scott responded stating that the motion has been made and he thinks basically Councilmember Zahner Bailey has said that if this motion fails this is what she would propose instead. So there is a motion on the floor and this motion needs to be dealt with. If this motion fails, then Councilmember Zahner Bailey would be free to make that motion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated as a Point of Order may she ask one other question. She asked would it be appropriate to ask, and she knows we are not allowed to ask for a friendly amendment, but are we able to ask whether or not the motion on the floor could be amended to accommodate. City Attorney Scott responded that a motion to amend could be made to that amendment. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated before there is a vote on it? City Attorney Scott stated exactly. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so she would therefore make a motion to amend the motion on the floor to adjust this Section 11 that says “Currently shall not exceed two times the allowable height to reflect what we had voted on back on December 21 to say shall not exceed 150% or 1½ times the allowable height or size of the sign. What she is suggesting is an amendment to the motion on this limitation section that is consistent with what was voted on by this Mayor and Council on December 21 which resulted in the 1½ times as it relates to height and size, as opposed to completely reconstructing this whole section as with the first motion. Mayor Lockwood stated do we have a second? Motion to Amend: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to amend the motion on the floor for Section 11A (Limitations) to adjust this Section 11 that says “Currently shall not exceed two times the allowable height to reflect what we had voted on back on December 21 to say shall not exceed 150% or 1½ times the allowable height or size of the sign. (The motion to amend died for lack of a second.) Mayor Lockwood stated so moving back to Councilmember Thurman’s motion, is there any more discussion. Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember Zahner Bailey in opposition. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 14 of 102 City Manager Bovos directing that the next Section 11, subsection D (Standards) to Councilmember Thurman. Councilmember Thurman stated her question here was on the standards, which should be considered for granting of variances as she understands that these standards are already outlined for the BZA. She would correct that this would be in conflict with standards outlined elsewhere for the BZA in establishing the reason for granting a variance according to hardship. That was her question, is this is in conflict with another ordinance that we have outlining reason for the screening of a variance? Community Development Director Wilson responded that elsewhere in this Zoning Ordinance it does have a third type of hardship that is not listed here under D (Standards). You may remember that hardship is relief if granted could be made to be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. That is not part of a hardship or granting of a variance to the sign. Councilmember Thurman questioned so what this is saying is that these are the only reasons that a variance could be granted? Community Development Director Wilson responded that this is what it is saying, yes. Councilmember Thurman stated that then she would like to move that we add a number 3 to this that would be consistent with what is in the Zoning Ordinance that allows variances to be granted if they are in keeping with the intent of the zoning resolution. Community Development Director Wilson asked if he could suggest that she simply state that she would like this Section D (Standards) to be identical to Section 22.3.1 elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Thurman concurred that would be great, so moved. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved for amendment to Section D (Standards) to be identical to Section 22.3.1., also in the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Lusk seconded. There was no Council discussion. The motion was passed unanimously. City Manager Bovos stated that there were no discussion topics for Sections 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16. He did show two in Section 17, the first in section B, for Councilmember Thurman. Councilmember Thurman stated her questions here is are we outlawing any kind of sandwich-type and A-frame type signs that she noticed when driving through the historic Roswell area the other night, that they have a lot of those A-frame sandwich-type signs. She just wanted to bring it up for discussion whether or not that was something that was typical in a historic area and if it was something that we might ought to allow on a limited basis. She wanted to get staff’s opinion if that is something that is typically seen in a historic area, like she stated she saw them in old Roswell and that is what brought it to her attention. Community Development Director Wilson responded that she was correct that they are allowed in the historic district in Roswell. We are checking to see. He noted there was conversation earlier about allowing these in the Crabapple district and we are checking to make sure that is in there that may be what she is asking. Councilmember Thurman stated that is what she was asking. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she guessed her question would be how do we limit those? Councilmember Thurman stated she did not know and that was why she brought it up for discussion. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 15 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she thought that the concern in the previous overlays that were in place in Crabapple and Birmingham do prohibit those, so she would just suggest that we as a Council and Mayor if we are going to consider incorporating those that we do have very specific language as to where, when and under what circumstances those would be allowed. It would be in addition to the wall signs and in addition to freestanding signs, etc. Councilmember Thurman stated she believed this item probably needs some more research done on it and what she would like to suggest is that staff look into this, and if we needed to make a change at another time to the Sign Ordinance, we could make the change at a future date if we felt like it was in keeping with the intent of the overlay. Community Development Director Wilson stated we could probably do that. Mayor Lockwood stated yes he would recommend that too. Councilmember Mohrig stated that by leaving it here essentially we are prohibiting it across any other area unless we specifically state it in a historic area or the Crabapple. So we are covering this and we do not want these general signs unless we specify that specifically and decide one in one of the overlays, is that correct? Community Development Director Wilson responded we are saying we do not want them until we have further consideration on whether or not it might be appropriate in a historic area. Councilmember Mohrig stated so we can leave it as is? Community Development Director Wilson responded we can leave it as is and we will take a look at this, and maybe get you something out on this, and bring this up at a later time. City Manager Bovos stated the next change he showed was Section 17, subsection 8, from Councilmember Zahner Bailey. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated again initially it is not a change it is just a question. It currently reads, this is on portable signs, section H page 15, “Portable signs, including signs attached,” this is a prohibited sign currently, “Portable signs including signs attached to any parked vehicle or trailer so as to be visible from a public right of way, except that signs posted in the rear window of a vehicle totaling 3 square feet shall be permitted”. She believes that that got added after our discussions during a Work Session. Therefore, she has a question, several questions. One is what the intent of this exception is, and then the second question has to do with the risks that she thinks that this creates. She knows that in the past there have been code enforcement issues around what used to be unincorporated Fulton where certain areas would have parked cars and instead of just an individual parked car suddenly a vacant lot became a dealership-like environment. There were a lot of concerns from citizens that that not become an unintended consequence so when she read this her question is what is it meant to allow and then does that allowance present risks that maybe we have not thought through. Community Development Director Wilson stated that he believes it is intended to allow people to put signs in their car that say “for sale” or “this car for sale.” He thought what she was saying is that it sometimes be misused and we will have cars sitting along the right of way with “for sale” signs in them and he has often seen that. One thing we might consider is allowing a sign for the car for sale, but just not allow it to be parked within 100 feet of the right-of-way. In other words, people could drive around with the sign in their car, but they could not park it next to the street, which he thinks is what she was saying. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that would be what she would hope we could avoid. If she may give an example with that 100 foot, what if you have a large retail development, would that 100 feet put Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 16 of 102 you in the middle of the parking lot, would the language you just recommended Mr. Wilson, preclude them 10 cars from being parked in that parking lot and, therefore, be in a kind of mini car dealership unofficially. Community Development Director Wilson stated no, it would not preclude that. He would, however, say that the property, whenever you get into around 10 cars or up above that if the property is not properly zoned for a car dealership, which would be a C2 zoning or IC-1 zoning, you would have reason to enforce against that because that would be a use that would be improperly zoned. Councilmember Mohrig questioned so it would become a Code Enforcement issue at that point. Community Development Director Wilson stated not knowing if it were one car, two cars or ten cars, he could not say what that is. Councilmember Zahner Bailey questioned if there was anyway to further define that in addition to that 100 sq ft, effectively not to avoid people from having a “for sale” sign, but to avoid the risks that she mentioned that you have acknowledged does in fact sometimes exist. Community Development Director Wilson stated he thinks you can say that you could allow the sign in the car windows, but not have them parked on commercial properties with the intent to sell the car. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that would satisfy her, may that be my motion on that item? You stated it so eloquently she hates to even attempt to restate it. Community Development Director Wilson stated he is going to restate the last half of that sentence. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to allow the for sale signs in car windows, but not to have them parked on commercial properties with the intent to sell the car. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Mohrig stated as another Point of Clarification this does not preclude somebody having on the side of their vehicle their advertising as in like Reliable Renovations and Repairs. You could have that on the side of your car as long as you are not parking it out using it as advertising and asked if that was correct. It does not preclude parking, if this was on the side of the car as a business owner, in a parking spot, it does not preclude from having that on the car, correct? Community Development Director Wilson responded no, it does not preclude this from being on the car, but there is another part in this that says that in those districts those sorts of automobiles with signs on them cannot be parked within 100 feet of the right-of-way. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she felt the point on this though and maybe the distinction on this is because it says the rear window of the vehicle and she thinks that Mr. Wilson’s language will help distinguish between what Councilmember Mohrig just mentioned and mitigating the risks of dealership- like activity. Community Development Director Wilson stated, except that signs posted in the rear window of the vehicle totaling 3 sq ft shall be permitted, but not when parked in commercial or O&I districts with the intent to sell that vehicle. Councilmember Zahner Bailey questioned do we necessarily want to limit to, if you said O&I, commercial should we include a mixed use district as well, should we include districts other than residential and then move on? Community Development Director Wilson said all nonresidential districts. So that would read except Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 17 of 102 that signs posted in the rear window of a vehicle totaling 3 sq ft shall be permitted, but not when parked in nonresidential districts with the intent to sell that vehicle. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated does that satisfactorily give you what would be needed for enforcement purposes? Community Development Director Wilson stated yes. Councilmember Zahner Bailey then that is her motion. Councilmember Lusk stated that he had a Point of Information, why are we specific about rear windows. Community Development Director Wilson responded that was the Planning Commission recommendation. It is not even a good idea, is it? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated what if we remove the word rear, would that accommodate your point Councilmember Lusk. Community Development Director Wilson stated can we make it 1 sq ft? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated whether it is on the front window or wherever, but it is not posting a for sale sign. Community Development Director Wilson stated let us say 1 sq ft and we will say all nonresidential and agricultural districts. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated in other words you do not want any lot to become a dealership-like activity that is the point; we just want to make sure of the occasional misuse of that and, hopefully, nobody will misuse that. Community Development Director Wilson stated the problem he had in enforcing that in the past is that somebody may have that strictly for the intent of parking in their own private driveway to sell this car. Then they get up and they run out to Target for a few minutes and they are parked in Target and the sign is in the car and suddenly my Code Enforcement officer is giving them a ticket. That happens a lot. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes and we want to avoid that, we also want to avoid 10 cars for sale in a place where that is not supposed to be approved. The motion as modified with that 1 sq ft and a modification of the rear window sign is her motion. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to amend Section 17, subsection H, Portable Signs, to include except that signs posted in the window of the vehicle totaling 1 sq ft shall be permitted, but not when parked in nonresidential or agricultural district with the intent to sell that vehicle. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Bovos noted there were no changes in Sections 18, 19 or 20. The next change is Section 21 subsection C, from Councilmember Thurman. Councilmember Thurman stated under Section C, it says all signs shall be set back greater of 10 feet from the right-of-way or 20 feet from the edge of the pavement. Her concern here is a safety and asked is this a safety hazard. She has a question of staff of what is a typical right-of-way on some of our larger public streets here, and how far actually from the pavement could signs be if there had to be 10 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. She asked would that make some of these signs almost at the front door of the Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 18 of 102 business itself. Community Development Director Wilson responded that in almost all right-of-ways the right-of-way extends at least 10 foot from the pavement or the back of curb at least, and in some places it is more. Councilmember Thurman stated at least and what would be the maximum it would be. Community Development Director Wilson stated there is no maximum. Councilmember Thurman stated but are there some places it could be 20 ft from the pavement. Community Development Director Wilson stated absolutely and there is even more than that. Councilmember Thurman stated in this case that would mean that the sign could be 30 ft – 40 ft off the pavement. Community Development Director Wilson stated it could be and what this is saying is that the sign must be and would be 10 ft into your own property. Councilmember Thurman stated and that means it could be 40 ft from the edge of the pavement. Community Development Director Wilson stated it could be. Councilmember Thurman stated that could be a safety hazard if you are trying to see a sign on the other side of the road and it is 40 ft off the pavement. It would be very difficult to see a sign that is that far into a parking lot and that could be at the edge of the parking lot and it would be very significant. She thinks people do not understand when they hear 10 ft, they think 10 ft from pavement, but in this case it could be actually 30, 40, maybe even 50 ft from the edge of the pavement just because it is 10 ft from the right-of- way, and her concern is that could pose a safety hazard being that far off the street. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated would that be more the exception than the rule? Community Development Director Wilson responded Fulton County for many, many years has required a 10 ft setback from the right-of-way. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated but that has been a standard. Community Development Director Wilson concurring that has been a standard for many years. Councilmember Thurman stated so the 10 ft, thinking it was currently in Fulton County 5 ft from the right-of-way. Community Development Director Wilson responded that he believed it was still 10 ft. It was 10 ft some years ago when he was there and yes it has always been 10 ft. Councilmember Thurman stated that if it was 10 ft in Fulton County then she was fine with that because obviously it should not be a safety hazard as her concern was that if we were changing it that we might have a safety hazard. Councilmember Mohrig stated he guessed the question was where did the greater versus… Community Development Director Wilson stated at least, they came from the Planning Commission, stating to him it means the same thing. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 19 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated as a reminder that we have already approved that if there is a variance that represents a hardship. We have just said that the BZA has the authority to review any such hardship, so it would seem that that would be the appropriate appeal process if there is an unusual exception. Community Development Director Wilson stated yes he agreed with that. No motion was made concerning this matter. City Manager Bovos stated that the next change he showed was Section 22, Changeable Copy Signs, page 19, Councilmember Zahner Bailey. Community Development Director Wilson requested that he short cut this a little bit, and stated changeable copy signs are prohibited in all three overlay districts. It is also prohibited in part of the first 25 sections. There is a conflict there in whatever section it is that both allows it and disallows it in the same section. With permission, he would just clean up that conflict and take out the one that says that it is even allowed. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated absolutely and that was the point of her bringing that forth. Just to clarify staff will be amending the language so that there is no conflict with changeable copy. Community Development Director Wilson stated that is correct and it would continue to be prohibited in all districts. Mayor Lockwood requested a Point of Order. City Manager Bovos stated we need a motion and a second and a vote on that please. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she has moved to put forward a motion that staff be allowed to make the change to this document to remove any inconsistency with the language regarding changeable copy. Community Development Director Wilson stated for the record that is Section 22C. City Attorney Scott said Point of Order asking that the Councilmember rephrase that to have the actual language be stated rather than delegating it to the staff, stating you really cannot do that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey concurring with the suggestion she moved to change item Section 22 C page 19 and any other section that are in conflict with subsequent section to ensure that changeable copy signs are not allowed in any district as is consistent with our current overlays and documentation from Fulton County. Councilmember Mohrig questioned is that enough for staff to be able to write that? Community Development Director Wilson answered yes. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to amend Section 22 C page 19 and any other sections that are in conflict with subsequent sections to ensure that changeable copy signs are not allowed in any district as is consistent with our current overlays and documentation from Fulton County. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion was passed unanimously. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 20 of 102 City Manager Bovos stated that the next change he showed was Section 23, Councilmember Thurman with a question regarding signs mounted on a pole. Councilmember Thurman stated her question here was just a question of staff. She knows that one of the sign types that we are promoting here are the sign types that hang down from a pole with an arm out and she just wanted clarification to make sure of how the height restrictions apply. If it is from the top of the actual words of the sign not including the pole, she just needs clarification on that. Community Development Director Wilson responded that the sign height is measured from the highest point of the sign board, not the mechanism that holds the sign up. Councilmember Thurman stated she wanted to make sure that it was not the top of the post and we ended up having people hitting their head on a sign hanging down. Community Development Director Wilson stated no it is measured from the top of the sign board. Mayor Lockwood stated he thought there were pictures of that. Community Development Director Wilson stated there were some pictures in there that was already in the definition section. City Manager Bovos stated that he noted three changes to Section 24. Unfortunately, on some of these there will not be subsections going forward so he will do his best to direct. There were two changes in Section A one from Councilmember Thurman, one grammatical correction from Councilmember Lusk, and a final change in construction of bases from Councilmember Zahner Bailey. He requested that Councilmember Thurman ask her question first. Councilmember Thurman stated her question simply was all these restrictions in all the additional requirements in order for the engineering design, and asked is that something that is in this Sign Ordinance that was in Fulton County or is this something that we are adding to our Sign Ordinance to make it more difficult for people to obtain the sign. Community Development Director Wilson responded that it was added by the Planning Commission to ensure that signs had suitable foundations that would not be subject to being blown over and blown away in strong winds. Councilmember Thurman stated her concern was this may be a little bit of overkill and she would ask the construction person on the board about that and that was her concern that this may be overkill. Councilmember Lusk stated he believed it was onerous the way it was written and he would propose that it be rewritten to say on line 24 starting on 23 “for any sign that is greater than 4 ft in height and greater than 32 sq ft in area”. City Attorney Scott stated from a legal perspective, he was concerned that the insurance certificate requirement is a bit onerous for someone who is erecting a sign on private property. We do not require anything like that unless the City is directly involved. Just because the City has approved a sign does not mean somebody is going to sue the City. As a general statement of law it is not that it is impossible, but there are many parties that someone would go through before they get the City under a circumstance like that. Councilmember Lusk stated he thinks we are talking about a different point, are we not? City Attorney Scott stated he was sorry, you are right, he had jumped ahead. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 21 of 102 Councilmember Thurman so what are you saying Councilmember Lusk. Councilmember Lusk starting back on line 23 again for any sign that is greater than 4 ft in height, he would also add and greater than 32 sq ft in area and would even like to see it a little bit greater than that, but he would defer to experience. Community Development Director Wilson stated he actually had a conversation with people in the sign industry and they felt that it was unnecessary on signs under 32 sq ft in size, that the wind load just was not there. They also felt that it would really become appropriate about 8 ft high that under that 4 ft high just was not enough wind down at 4 ft high to be, and that was their conversation. Councilmember Lusk stated he would like to make a motion on… Councilmember O’Brien questioned have you seen such a descriptive passage in your experience anywhere else. Community Development Director Wilson responded we routinely ask for the foundation plans on a freestanding sign and we review them. If we have any question about them before we permit them we ask for a structural statement on them, and have that authority to do that. This would just simply require it up front, and he thinks it is normal. He thinks it is routine in the business whenever a sign gets to be 32 sq ft or larger. Alpharetta has that 32 sq ft and he thinks it is either 8 or 10 ft in height. When we start thinking about these signs blowing around, we have many signs out there in the overlay districts which are just hanging down signs those are the ones you really need to worry about not the foundation blowing over, but those things that are unlashed and blowing around. Councilmember O’Brien stated to understand you have existing latitude to address the concerns that might be taken by this and if reading between the lines you think it may be a bit ambitious as well. Community Development Director Wilson responded we are going to get it no matter what and we are going to get the engineering we need to feel comfortable before we issue this permit for a sign. Councilmember O’Brien stated that is pretty typical in the industry too. Councilmember Lusk stated he would like to make that motion to read in that second sentence “for any sign that is greater than 8 ft in height and greater than 32 sq ft in area the permitee, and there is a misspelling there, the permitee must submit with its application and so forth. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to amend the second sentence to read, “For any sign that is greater than 8 ft in height and greater than 32 sq ft in area the permitee must submit with its application…” Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Bovos stated that the next change was actually included in the last motion from Councilmember Lusk regarding the spelling correction. Staff does concur with that spelling correction and would be happy to make that and your final change is in Section 24, page 18, subsection D, Construction of Bases. Councilmember Zahner Bailey is next. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes and this is a Point of Clarification that she spoke with staff about this and perhaps they could help expedite this as well. Noted in the right hand column it shows where the construction of base and the type of base in reference to the material for those bases was removed. Her question was in particular because we want our signs architecturally to be pleasing, would we not want the construction of the base and the material to be used to be defined so that we do not leave Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 22 of 102 that to chance and she would ask that she would like staff to respond to that. Community Development Director Wilson replied that often sign bases are required to be consistent or compatible with the structure itself. In other words a brick building gets a brick base or a stone building to be compatible he thinks would be a smart idea and he would call that compatible with the main structure. Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated with that input from staff she would make a motion to expand the language of Section D page 21 which is actually Section 24, item D, under Construction of Bases, on page 21 to add back the reference to acceptable materials to include language wood or other material which has the appearance of distress the sandblasted wood or brick or that which is compatible with the building and/or at the discretion of the Community Development Director. Discussion on the Motion: In summary, that motion is intended to give definition to the base of those signs so that we do not have a plastic base to your sign. Mr. Wilson would that motion be reasonable based upon his professional input. Community Development Director Wilson replied yes. Second: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. Community Development Director Wilson questioned if he could read what he though he heard her say, “Except in the overlay districts, freestanding signs shall have a base not less than one-third (1/3) the width of the sign face and be wood or other materials or brick and compatible with the main structure as determined by the Community Development Director. Councilmember Zahner Bailey concurred perfect. Councilmember Thurman stated she had one question of clarification would that be brick or stone? Councilmember Zahner Bailey interjected yes thank you, so that motion with the insertion of stone as well or some other material compatible with the main structure and that allows it to be consistent across overlays and it is at your discretion so that it can be consistent. Mayor Lockwood stated we have a motion and a second, any other discussion. Councilmember Lusk stated yes does this preclude use of synthetic materials? Community Development Director Wilson stated it does not. Motion to Amend and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to amend Section 24 page 18 subsection D Construction of Bases, to read except in the overlay districts, freestanding signs shall have a base not less than one-third (1/3) the width of the sign face and be wood or other materials or brick and compatible with the main structure as determined by the Community Development Director. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Scott stated he would briefly like to ask the Council to go back to Section 24a because there is a legal issue that he was concerned about and that is for those of you who have the lined page that has the line numbers. He was concerned that as the Planning Commission presents this to you and it says a certifying engineer must also be able to provide an insurance certificate indicating it carries a minimum of one million dollars of professional liability insurance and that is fine, but then naming the City of Milton as the named insurer he felt was going to be extremely onerous for any engineer. They are not going to be willing to do that; we are not going to be able to get engineers to certify these things because they are not going to want to have the City named as an additional insurer. That is, frankly, too onerous so he would Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 23 of 102 ask someone to make a motion to that affect. Councilmember O’Brien asked if it was in our best interest just to leave that line for certifying engineer as the named insurer. City Attorney Scott stated he thought it was fine to leave the insurance requirement, but after the words liability insurance he would ask for a period and delete the rest. Councilmember Thurman stated she did have one question that she noticed a lot of these signs are actually done by sign companies, so they typically carry the one million dollars professional liability insurance or are we going to be putting any of the small sign companies out of business that do not have the million dollars. Most likely, if a sign falls over it is not going to do a million dollars worth of damage. Community Development Director Wilson stated they have neither a construction, meaning a structural engineer, nor that insurance, what they do is they go out and they get that certification and pay from it from a structural engineer who does have that insurance. Councilmember Thurman stated she would make a motion then that we stop that sentence after the one million dollars of professional liability insurance. Councilmember Lusk stated he saw a point of onerous imposition also here. He did not believe that what they had talked about up on lines 23 and 24 with a sign that is 8 ft high and less than 32 sq ft should be designed by an engineer. He did not see the necessity of it for somebody to carry that much coverage just to design a sign of that size. Councilmember O’Brien stated that he would say that the way the whole thing is written it implies that anything that is less than that is not required, and that is the way he read it. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend Section 24A stopping that sentence after the one million dollars of professional liability insurance. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Bovos stated that we have 18 changes under Section 25. We can do our best to present those in order to you, the first change in Section 25 which is on our page 19. Councilmember Thurman stated that her question was that notwithstanding the foregoing banners that do exceed 4 sq ft and are mounted so that the top of its banner is no more than 4 ft above grade at all times may be displayed continuously, and her question was do we want banners being displayed continuously. It looks like basically we are just giving them another sign. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would agree she had the same comment so we can consolidate these believing that what transpired is that the Planning Commission made this recommendation before we had the benefit of Ms. Henderson’s letter to us as Council. Thinking that the 4 sq ft banner, which was applicable to residential areas, is now handled through the addition that staff incorporated in our residential component where we now have up to a total of 12 sq ft with not one of those three signs at more than 4 sq ft, so believing based on that we could easily delete this and it would still be accommodated and we would still address the concerns of the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Wilson stated actually he thought they put this in here for those tour of home kind of banners that you put out in the flowers in the springtime and those little decorative flag- like banners that they have all over the place. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and that is now covered in our residential section under that new Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 24 of 102 language. Councilmember Thurman stated that she would like to move that we delete that last sentence in its entirety. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would second that motion. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend Section 25 regarding banners by deleting the last sentence starting with “notwithstanding the foregoing standards that do not exceed 4 sq ft and are mounted so that the top of its banner is not more than 4 ft above grade at all times may be displayed continuously,” deleting that sentence in its entirety. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Bovos questioned if Council was aware of any other changes in Section A. The next thing staff shows is actually subsection D paragraph 1, subsection D, again Councilmember Thurman with respect to a question on signs mounted on a pole. Councilmember Thurman stated she believed the question had already been answered. That was a question concerning the measurement of signs. City Manager Bovos questioned if there were any other changes in section D. Councilmember Thurman stated yes, for those in the audience whose documents have a lot of numbers, a lot of conflicting numbers, Section 25, Section B under the Agricultural District, and asked are we at that Section. Again this goes back to an earlier discussion about wanting to ensure that we do not have conflicting language between the overarching ordinance and specific overlays. This in particular references window signs, the northwest overlay, the Birmingham overlay, and Crabapple overlay preclude window signs. Again, this is not applying to Highway 9. Highway 9 allows for window signs, but the language in Section B Agricultural District, and staff has confirmed earlier today that that was an unintentional inclusion under item B Agricultural District at the bottom of page 22, item A2, where it talks about window signs being allowable in the agricultural district. Community Development Director Wilson questioned can you tell me that paragraph again? Councilmember Thurman stated yes sir, Section 25, item B under Agricultural District and then scroll down to 1.b.2.a. (There was discussion to clarify exact location of section in multiple documents.) Community Development Director Wilson stated so here are window signs in the agricultural zoning district in what used to be the Northwest overlay district, not the Crabapple, Birmingham, it allows three window signs for nonresidential development. Councilmember Thurman stated that is correct, and that was in conflict with the Northwest Fulton overlay and the others. This is the same theme that exists in some of these other districts and she thinks that when these documents all got merged this was one of these items that was supposed to remain in Highway 9, but it was not to remain in within the sections of the other overlays. Again, this is not impacting Highway 9 and is simply a contradiction that is now inserted in this merged document that is in conflict with other language that we have adopted. Community Development Director Wilson stated he could not confirm that is how it got there, but what you are suggesting is elimination of window signs in nonresidential districts in… Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 25 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey interjected where they had historically been prohibited, that is correct. Councilmember Thurman stated but are they not already prohibited in the overlay or are not they already regulated under the overlay. Community Development Director Wilson stated they are, but this is in a section that is not overlay; this is what historically had been the Northwest overlay and the larger part of Milton. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and Robyn MacDonald had confirmed today that the Northwest Fulton overlay prohibits window signs in that area, which was the Northwest Fulton overlay. This section inadvertently pulls window sign language into this document and it is in conflict with the Northwest Fulton overlay, which we adopted when we first became a City and adopted it as part of the plans that had been put in place for our area. She did not want to overcomplicate this, but believes that this is language that was inadvertently brought to this section when the documents were merged and it should have been in fact not there. Community Development Director Wilson stated Robyn MacDonald is verifying that the original and long time standing Northwest Fulton overlay district did not allow window signs in nonresidential districts. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is correct and so all she was trying to do is make sure that this new document is consistent with what citizens and this Council and Mayor had always related that was that this merged document would somehow now allow things that had always been prohibited. The same comment will be true not just in the agricultural district, it also will be in that single family residential district, which would have been covered under the Northwest Fulton overlay and then…asked if she was going to get a Point of Order. Councilmember O’Brien stated he was just going to ask if she was going to make a motion to delete that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes. She was first clarifying with staff and then she will make a motion so that hopefully we can cover all these sections in one motion. That would be her goal if we can do it. Councilmember Mohrig stated just a clarification for terminology, we no longer have the Northwest overlay and asked is that correct. Community Development Director Wilson stated no, essentially the first 24 sections of this is what used to be the Northwest overlay regarding signs. Councilmember Mohrig stated so what we can refer to now is the City of Milton, and so we are talking the same thing. It sounds like we have got a separate overlay, but we do not; we have three overlays and we have got the Sign Ordinance. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated the trick is making sure that this new document does not have unintended consequences simply because of the merger process of these various documents into now one. So after tonight it will be the Milton Overlay which will incorporate various overlays, but right now she needs… Community Development Director Wilson interjected and stated we do have a Northwest overlay that does not pertain to signs. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated correct. She still needed to be able to refer to that Northwest Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 26 of 102 Fulton overlay because that has been a longstanding ordinance in law of this area. Community Development Director Wilson stated but it does not have anything in it now about signs. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated no because it has been moved to this document. Okay her motion she thought was to remove from Section 25 in all of the appropriate districts, remove the window signs that were inadvertently put into this document, so to delete those to ensure that this document is consistent with the prior language from the Northwest Fulton overlay. She asked if that was specific enough. Councilmember Thurman questioned if we needed to know what sections they would be deleting it from before we… Councilmember Zahner Bailey interjected that it would include Section B the Agricultural District, which is B.a.2., it also included section DC Single Family Residential item 2 and, again, these have been confirmed with staff earlier. She is happy to give these hard copy documents. Community Development Director Wilson added Section A and B and in C, which is single family. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes sir and then if you go to page 24 she believed, and she asked for his clarification, that under, and this is where we had a question under apartment and town home residential districts, initially she was under the premise that we needed to delete it from that as well. She believes that staff’s response was that in apartments and town homes in order to provide that same 12 sq ft with a maximum of any one side being 4 sq ft that we would need to allow for window signs in apartments and town homes. She would ask is it just apartments since they do not have any land associated with their apartment because a town home would have a parcel in theory where they could have those residential signs. Community Development Director Wilson stated all town homes do not. Some town homes have condominium ownership and they have a common land and those associations would probably prohibit outdoor signage anyway. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so would your recommendation be in this district to leave the window sign? Community Development Director Wilson replied yes. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated okay she had another Point of Clarification. In a mixed use district where we will have potential town homes such as Crabapple and Birmingham because those mixed use districts separately prohibit window signs, if we allow window signs in this section will the overlay still supersede this language. Community Development Director Wilson stated yes, this is the overlay language. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was just wanting to be very clear so that we do not end up with a consequence. Let us say she buys a town home in Crabapple and she has a town home that is part of a mixed use district that overlay does not allow for window sign by keeping it in this language that says that you can have an apartment or town home with a window sign not to exceed that 5%, are we not conflicting with the existing language. Community Development Director Wilson stated you are correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated for Point of Clarification, Northwest Fulton overlay prohibited sign types that windows shall not be used for advertising purposes. Windows may permanently display Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 27 of 102 proprietors name, business name, and address for identification purposes only. Signs placed inside of a window with the intent of being seen from the outside are prohibited is the way that the Northwest Fulton overlay stated the prohibition of window signs. Community Development Director Wilson stated yes and he thinks that is where we are going and the only place we are going to allow them would be in those apartment units where there is no associated land with it for posting… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is what she just wanted to make certain, as long as we are, and thank you for that clarification. Are any of these sections that we just talked about, agricultural districts or single family. Community Development Director Wilson stated all sections except multi-family shall have it removed. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is my motion. Councilmember Thurman stated all sections that include O&I? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes with the exception of Highway 9 that allows them. Mayor Lockwood stated to have the motion restated as interpreted by Community Development Director Wilson. Community Development Director Wilson stated he thinks the motion is to remove where appropriate all window signs in all districts except apartment and town house residential districts. Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to remove where appropriate all window signs in all districts except apartment and town house residential districts with the intent being to remove any conflict with other language. Mayor Lockwood questioned do we have a second? Second and Vote: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Bovos stated next thing staff shows is Section 25 which is from Councilmember Lusk, regarding covering architectural features. Councilmember Lusk stated bear with him on this one please, directing a question to Mr. Wilson, Section 25 subsection D.2.g. all the way down through i.2.g as relating to wall signs. There are a couple of issues here, one is consistency in the terminology of an allowance for wall signs, which is in another section, but he will address what is in this section first at these various subsections. It reads now wall signs shall not cover architectural features or detail and not extend beyond the roof line or outer edges of the building. He did think that was very descriptive really so he proposed to rewrite it to say wall signs shall no cover architectural features or details and not extend above the roof line. He omitted any reference to projecting out from the actually it is from the exterior façade, exterior plane of the building. As it relates to Section 17G, which covers roof signs kind of addressed it under roof signs also and it reads there roof signs which extend vertically above any portion of a roof or parapet of the applicable wall. He thinks in his rewriting the terminology in 25 that kind of makes it consistent with Article 17G. Community Development Director Wilson stated that he believes that is true and he believes that it just makes it clearer and consistent. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 28 of 102 City Manager Bovos requested a second to the motion. Second: Councilmember Thurman stated she would second the motion. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated if she may ask Councilmember Lusk a quick question so when you talk about it not going above the roof line would it allow a sign then to go beyond the size of that architectural feature. Councilmember Lusk responded yes. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated good because she had thought that the intent would be you do not want it to go beyond or above. Councilmember Lusk stated he was not sure what they were really getting at when this was originally written, but what he thinks that this allows is the old daggers sign or the hanging sign or the projecting sign perpendicular to the exterior plane of the building, if we omit that part of the language. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she just wanted to make sure. Community Development Director Wilson stated you do not want a sign bigger than the building that is essentially… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated correct you do not want it to go beyond the sign. Community Development Director Wilson continuing - you do not want it to go beyond the edges of the building or the edges of the roof. Councilmember Zahner Bailey questioned would it be acceptable Mr. Wilson to include the above and beyond. Councilmember Lusk stated maybe he was not making his point clear. What we are talking about is a sign perpendicular to the face of the building, which would be kind of a hanging sign similar to the post signs that you see in the historic areas and he believes Eddie West down in Crabapple has one on their building. Councilmember Thurman stated it is sticking out from the corner of the building. Councilmember Lusk replied right. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated her only question is that this specifically refers to architectural features, not a sign that is separate from the building, but maybe she would defer to staff to make sure that we are not creating… Councilmember Thurman stated she thinks what Councilmember Lusk was saying is that it does not refer to perpendicular to the wall signs and that sign is actually coming out of a corner so it is not really perpendicular to anything, but it is the kind of sign that in Crabapple that she thinks we would like to promote where it is hanging down. She does not think that you were wanting big billboard signs hanging off the edge of the buildings, but what you are wanting to make sure is that we do allow for this hanging type sign. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she agreed with that and she was just wanting to make sure that we allow for that and not also allow for something we had not intended so she deferred to staff. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 29 of 102 Councilmember Thurman stated yes she would like to defer to staff too. Mayor Lockwood requested Tom Wilson clear this matter. Community Development Director Wilson stated we will change the word beyond to above, and he understood what that means - that same sentiment is also expressed in the roof style and when you say extend above the outer edges of the building, he thinks you are talking about a sign that is attached to the wall of the building that would extend outward perpendicular to that wall and be further extended than the roof line or the corners of the eaves. Councilmember Lusk stated he wanted to omit that clause in its entirety so that it allows dagger board signs. Councilmember Zahner Bailey questioned could we just add that additional phrase to the earlier motion to say what the intent was for the… Councilmember Lusk stated well he was not sure what the original intent was when they wrote that, but he thinks this is somewhat restrictive and it is vague. He thinks that just by deleting it due to the fact that it is vague he thinks helps clean up that part of the … Community Development Director Wilson questioned are you suggesting that we eliminate everything after the words roof line. Councilmember Lusk stated correct as he has re-read them. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that her only concern is she agrees with that sign that we are talking about and extension in Crabapple at the historic structure, and she agrees we want to make sure we can allow for that, and that there is not any conflict. Her only question is that if you had some other architectural feature, we want to make sure that this does not get misused to have things that are beyond the edges of that architectural feature. Councilmember Thurman stated that sign is like the perpendicular sign but because it comes out of the corner it is not perpendicular or anything, but it is like a perpendicular… Community Development Director Wilson stated it is oblique and it stands out from the face of the wall and do you want to allow that or prohibit that? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated to allow that but we do not want a big wall sign sticking out off the edge of the building. Community Development Director Wilson questioned could it extend out there 20 ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey responded no. Community Development Director Wilson stated could it extend out there further than the roof overhang? Councilmember Lusk stated well what if it is a building with just a parapet on it and there is no overhang. Councilmember D’Aversa questioned that is a hanging sign, right, so why not just not include hanging signs or allow hanging signs and not extending a sign from the side of the building side including hanging signs. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 30 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey questioned except for hanging signs? Councilmember D’Aversa stated so you would allow for the hanging sign, but you would still leave above and beyond the building, extending above and beyond the building, but allowing for the hanging signs or allow for it in another section. Community Development Director Wilson stated he knew what that means and yes you do allow for those hanging signs. Councilmember Lusk stated he would propose that we modify this as he has rewritten it and without getting into any further complicated discussion of any other remote possibilities. Mayor Lockwood asked that the motion be restated. Motion Restated: Councilmember Lusk stated he proposed to rewrite paragraphs in Sections D.2.g through I.2.2.g. wall signs to read “wall sign shall not cover architectural features or details and not extend above the roof line.” Continued Council Discussion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that her other point would be that it extend not in the hanging sign, but in the instance that you would have signs that would go beyond that is my concern. City Manager Bovos requested as a Point of Clarification, this applies to Section D.2.g.e., 2.g.f., 2.g.g., 3.g., h.3.g. and i.2. Councilmember Lusk stated that is correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if she could just ask one example of our staff. I you have a wall that is considered an architectural feature by removing the word beyond does that mean that you could have a sign on a wall that goes beyond the building of the wall, it would hang over separate from the hanging sign because currently that is not allowed, you cannot have a wall sign that goes beyond the wall. Community Development Director Wilson stated to him this means that you should not have a hanging sign that hangs further than the eave of the roof from which it is hanging, is that what you are saying, is that what you want? Councilmember D’Aversa questioned what if this is your wall and you have a sign that starts on the wall and it hangs out to the right hand side that is what this is allowing now. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is correct. That is her concern is that we have accounted for now the hanging sign that we want to allow, but that that we may have an unintended consequence of a sign extended beyond the wall that is a hanging sign, that is my concern. Councilmember D’Aversa stated if you just want to disallow than to extend above and beyond and then allow for hanging signs. Councilmember Lusk stated how would you recommend addressing that Mr. Wilson? Community Development Director Wilson stated he was not sure he understood Councilmember Lusk and asked what it is that you want to allow. He understood totally what he means if we put that period at the end of roof line, he knows exactly what that means. There is nothing in that paragraph that prohibits a sign as you described from extending on past the front of the building, if you would like to do that then we Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 31 of 102 should do that by saying or the outer edges of the building, which is what this says. Councilmember Lusk stated outer edges of the building or the roof line? Community Development Director Wilson stated well the outer edges of the building. You do not want put a sign on the front of the building bigger or longer than the building, so that it extends out there, not that he had ever seen anybody remotely try to do that. Councilmember Thurman stated she thinks we all know what we want. We do not want wall signs hanging out further than the building, but we want to allow for the signs that hang down similar to the sign that is in Crabapple that may not necessarily be perpendicular. Community Development Director Wilson stated hanging signs he understands, that is not what this is about. Councilmember Lusk stated he thinks our restriction on size of wall signs is probably restrictive enough you are not going to have, whatever the size of the wall sign is 12 sq ft certainly most building out there are greater than 12 ft in width and length. Community Development Director Wilson stated he really has never seen anybody even try to do that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she guessed she was not sure why we were removing the word [inaudible] Councilmember Lusk stated he would just leave it off. Councilmember Thurman stated she thinks if we leave it off the fear is that somebody will do what just sounds totally unreasonable to have a wall sign stick out further than the size of the wall. Councilmember Lusk stated he would propose to amend this to say, wall signs shall not cover architectural features or details and not extend above the roof line nor beyond the vertical face of any exterior wall. Councilmember Mohrig questioned does that change any intent there or is it the same. Councilmember Thurman stated she thinks the intent was that somebody does not take their whole big wall sign and move it over so that it hangs out off the wall. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated to get a little bit more visibility. Mayor Lockwood stated we just need some clarification on the best way to describe that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey questioned if she could recommend that we in addition to that not extend above and then the additional language. Councilmember Lusk mentioned the roof line and then just keep the nor beyond the outer edges of the building so that it adds his line. Councilmember Thurman stated but then it does not allow the sign like we have it in Crabapple because that sign is not perpendicular. Then we would have to do an “except for” at the end of that if we are going to get that to work. Councilmember Zahner Bailey questioned do we need to add another clause, except for the perpendicular hanging sign. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 32 of 102 Councilmember Thurman stated but it is not perpendicular though. Mayor Lockwood suggested is this something that we can amend later and give staff time to work with. Community Development Director Wilson stated he would really like to do that and get some illustrations so that he understands exactly where we are going. Councilmember O’Brien questioned if she can jump in as far as that particular [inaudible] that to him is not a wall sign, that is a hanging sign, that is something totally different so he was not sure that we need to address signs like that in the context of… Councilmember Thurman stated that wall signs right below that talk about perpendicular hanging signs. She guessed that is what was confusing to her because it says if you are having two wall signs one of them has to be perpendicular, which really is not really a wall sign, but that should be clear, so that is why she was confused. Councilmember D’Aversa asked can we take a break and then figure this out. Mayor Lockwood stated he thought you would probably need more time than just a break. Community Development Director Wilson stated he could do anything you want to do. Motion to Amend: Councilmember Lusk stated he would propose that we go ahead and accept it the way that he has rewritten it and he would defer to staff to research and come up with additional verbiage or language to address the second part of that issue. The Motion to Amend died for lack of second. City Manager Bovos stated on Section 25 there are a lot of changes. Five Minute Break: Motion: Mayor Lockwood moved for a five minute break. Councilmember Lusk stated Point of Information. The amended motion was turned down, does that go back to the original motion. Councilmember Thurman stated it goes back to the original motion. Councilmember O’Brien questioned well who made the amendment. Councilmember Thurman answered Councilmember Lusk. Councilmember O’Brien stated he was not sure he can make his own motion. City Manager Bovos stated so it died. Second and Vote: Councilmember Thurman seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting Reconvened: Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood moved to reconvene the meeting. Councilmember Thurman seconded. The motioned was passed to reconvene (6-0-1), as Councilmember Zahner Bailey was not present for that vote. City Manager Bovos stated Mayor and Council we are still on the discussion sponsored by Councilmember Lusk if there are any other additional comments, questions or motions we will be happy to Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 33 of 102 take that. Mayor Lockwood stated he would like to make one comment and he would like to apologize and thank the public for being here. Obviously, this has gone on and it has taken a lot of time, but it is important and we are willing to spend all the time that we need to. He appreciated everyone’s patience and also appreciated the patience of Council. He wanted to make sure everybody sticks with our decision on two minutes (2) and taking one turn per issue. He asked that we try to move it along as efficient as we can being productive. Councilmember Thurman stated she would like to make a motion on the sections that Councilmember Lusk had previously stated. Motion: Councilmember Thurman moved to say wall signs will not cover architectural features or details and not extend above the roof line, except for hanging signs typically seen perpendicular to the building, which would allow for the hanging signs that are not necessarily perpendicular like the one that is in Crabapple, but it would keep us from having a wall sign just stick out over the building. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she had a question, did you mean to say… City Manager Bovos interjected and requested that we get a second? Second: Councilmember Zahner Bailey. Mayor Lockwood stated you can now have discussion. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated did we mean to say above the roof line except for perpendicular signs, meaning we would not want a perpendicular sign to be above the roof line, correct. Councilmember Thurman stated she stated above the roof line or outer edges of the building except for. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she did not hear that part of the phrase, but if that was your intent could you restate your motion please. Councilmember Thurman stated wall signs shall not cover architectural features or details and not extend above the roof line or outer edges of the building except for hanging signs typically seen as perpendicular to the building. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she seconded that motion. City Attorney Scott stated he had a Point of Order, is that to be included in all the portions where it currently reads as we discussed earlier. Mayor Lockwood questioned does that make sense to you? Community Development Director Wilson stated no. Mayor Lockwood stated is this something that staff can spend some time and we can clarify where we can amend. Community Development Director Wilson stated if you are trying to allow those things that are perpendicular to the building, just say perpendicular or oblique. Councilmember Thurman stated she liked that word. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 34 of 102 Community Development Director Wilson questioned so could we not go back up to number C in that section which says the second sign that is used shall be perpendicular to or oblique to the wall. Councilmember O’Brien stated and then what do you want to do? Community Development Director Wilson stated allows that oblique side. Corrected Motion: Councilmember Thurman stated so moved. Community Development Director Wilson stated and we do not have to do anything. Accepted Second: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she seconded that motion. Continued discussion numerous voices. City Attorney Scott stated let us do this procedurally correctly is there unanimous consent to allow the motion to be withdrawn? Motion Withdrawn: The motion is withdrawn with unanimous consent of the Council City Attorney Scott asked now rephrase your motion Councilmember Thurman please. Councilmember Thurman stated she was going to so move as Mr. Wilson had stated. City Attorney Scott stated let us be clear. Community Development Director Wilson questioned should he restate that? He stated under all of those sections instead of it being G or where appropriate the second sign that is used shall be perpendicular or oblique to the wall. City Attorney Scott asked in Section C. Community Development Director Wilson stated nothing in G. City Attorney Scott stated and then G. Community Development Director Wilson stated nothing in G. Councilmember Thurman stated and it does say to not extend above the roof line rather than beyond the roof line, she notes that was a question. Community Development Director Wilson stated that is already under the adaptation of roof sign that is not really going to ever be a problem. Mayor Lockwood stated okay, think we have a second, any discussion? Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman said so moved. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Aaron Bovos stated Mayor and Council the next discussion continues in Section 25; Councilmember Thurman has a question about businesses on corners that have entrances on two sides. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 35 of 102 Councilmember Thurman stated her question was it says that businesses may have no more than two wall signs except where a second sign that is used shall be perpendicular to the wall. Her question was what about businesses that are on a corner, how does this affect them, can they only have one wall sign and then one perpendicular sign and the other side of the building can have another wall sign. Community Development Director Wilson stated yes that is what that means. Mayor Lockwood questioned was that typical Mr. Wilson? Community Development Director Wilson stated you did not give a paragraph number on that. Councilmember Thurman stated well that statement is in about three or four different places. Community Development Director Wilson requested to give him just one of them. They have no more than two wall signs. Councilmember Thurman stated it said one sign shall be flush against the wall the second sign that is used shall be perpendicular to the wall. Her question is what about a business that is on a corner lot has entrances from both sides of the business or from. Community Development Director Wilson stated they only get two sides one on the wall and the other that usually perpendicular or oblique. Councilmember Thurman questioned is that standard for corner businesses to only be allowed to have one wall sign or it is typically are they allowed to have a sign on each wall which is facing a major street? Community Development Director Wilson stated typically they are allowed to have a wall sign on any wall that faces the street. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated then the question becomes is it an exterior street or is it an interior street and just for the question that was asked some of the existing overlays that have been in place for a long time have been very specific about the number of wall signs. Community Development Director Wilson stated he understood, this is what this is, this came from something that has been in an overlay district for some time. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so maybe that is the way to put it is that this has been in the overlay as an example since 1999, it was adopted and then we had adopted it again and so she thinks… Councilmember Thurman interjected and so her question is, is this a safety hazard if people are trying to get to a building and there is no sign on the building for them to know what the building represents. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated they also have freestanding signs correct? Community Development Director Wilson stated Robyn MacDonald has just pointed out to him that in the overlay districts Crabapple, Birmingham, a business may have one wall sign. The sign shall be placed against the wall or it can hang from the building. The sign shall be 3% of the applicable wall area. Corner buildings may have an additional wall sign. Councilmember Thurman stated she believes that for safety reasons that a corner business should be allowed to have an additional wall sign. Community Development Director Wilson stated in those overlay districts that is written in there on the Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 36 of 102 other parts where they are not in that overlay district… Councilmember Thurman stated she believes that should be, it is in an overlay, it also should be in the rest of the City. Corner businesses should be allowed to have an additional wall sign similar to what it says in the overlay. Mayor Lockwood stated Councilperson Thurman do you want to make a motion? Councilmember Thurman stated exactly how it is worded in the overlay because she would like to have her motion be consistent with what we already have wording wise. Community Development Director Wilson stated we can add the statement corner buildings may have an additional wall sign to commercial O & I mixed districts. Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to add the statement “corner buildings may have an additional wall sign to commercial O & I mixed districts. Councilmember Lusk seconded. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey questioned can we use an example of new business that is going in that is being, can we just talk about a corner building, can we come up with an example that is currently in place that is in a district where this was not in place before. Thinking about larger buildings where that 3% suddenly is not just a cute little sign, but it is a big sign and the Highway 9 area is the place where, she just wants to make sure we are not going to created an unintended consequence where you have a large building with a large wall sign already and that we are now going to introduce a second large wall sign and maybe like the one that has recently been approved for Target. If Target were on a corner, let us just say… Councilmember Thurman stated it is already in an overlay, correct? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated no, well it is in the Highway 9 overlay. Community Development Director Wilson stated it is in the Highway 9 overlay that allows two wall signs. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated the Highway 9 overlay does, but this if it is a corner lot that would be a non-issue on Highway 9, correct, because she is trying to understand… so Highway 9 already allows that which would address the concern of the corner lot. Councilmember Thurman stated she has made a motion that she feels is consistent with the overlay. Mayor Lockwood requested a Point of Order because he thinks we have a motion and a second on it already, so if there is any discussion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated then this is discussion and she would just ask for staff to try to give an example where this would not exist already and that we are not providing yet another wall sign. Community Development Director Wilson stated it does exist at the bank at the corner of Birmingham. Is it a SunTrust or a Sun-something bank, that has a wall sign and a perpendicular sign, but on the Birmingham Highway side it probably does not have a sign. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and by adding this language would we then be saying that that would not be permitted? Community Development Director Wilson responded yes. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 37 of 102 Mayor Lockwood stated but due to the [inaudible] you said that in the overlay district that was already permitted, correct? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she wanted to be very sure that we are not creating a conflict. Her concern is that we do not create something that has already been prohibited or specifically addressed in the overlays that did have extensive community input. Councilmember Thurman stated well the overlay would overlay whatever is in this. This would just pertain to areas not in the overlays. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was asking for staff, and she was not trying to provide comment and was just trying to get from staff what is the unintended, what is the potential risk of adding this relative to the other overlays. Mayor Lockwood stated he did not know if they could answer that and asked Mr. Wilson if he needed more time to answer. Community Development Director Wilson questioned this is from what district? A business may have one wall sign. He does not know why it is written this way, but a business may have one wall sign the sign could be flush against the wall or hang from the building. The sign shall be 3% of the applicable wall area. Corner buildings may have an additional wall sign, they already have two. There is another statement businesses may have an additional sign perpendicular to the wall with a maximum sign area of 2 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey questioned, so is it already covered in this overlay? Councilmember Thurman stated what she is trying to do is get the general to be consistent with the overlay district. Mayor Lockwood stated is it your opinion that most areas have that ability at this point already preexisting? Community Development Director Wilson stated he thinks it is very reasonable for a building to have a wall sign on the side that faces the street. You can only see one at a time. Mayor Lockwood asked for any further discussion. There was no further Council discussion. Vote: The motion passed (6-1), with Councilmember Zahner Bailey voting in opposition. City Manager Bovos stated Mayor and Council the next change is to Section 25 A actually are all sponsored by Councilmember Zahner Bailey. The next one he was showing was actually on page 23, Subsection B and C. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated this again is more of a Point of Clarification with staff, and she did speak with staff today, as she was going back through to try to catch any text amendments. In the single family it references, on page 23, Section 25, item D1C where it references freestanding signs and it says the maximum size shall be 32 sq ft. What she wanted to be certain of is that when we are thinking about the other overlays Birmingham and Crabapple and the language that we have merged from the Northwest Fulton Overlay all of those documents indicate that a multi-tenant building would be 32 sq ft, but that a single tenant would be 20 sq ft. She is concerned that this language only references the maximum size shall be 32 sq ft and does not distinguish between multi-tenant versus single tenant and those existing documents that are part of this document we reference that distinction. So she is asking for staff weigh in of whether or not that represents a need for clarification. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 38 of 102 Community Development Director Wilson stated under 25 D1 C that is an apartment and a town house residential district when would that ever have multiple tenants? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated on the Birmingham Southeast quadrant where you have mixed use district. Community Development Director Wilson stated that is not a mixed use district, this is apartment and town homes. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated but if it has a town home component to it? Community Development Director Wilson stated if it is in a mixed use district then it would be over here in the mixed use. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is why she was asking the question, is that you have some mixed use that also includes potentially a TR and she is wanting to make sure that we are very certain that we do not… Community Development Director Wilson stated mixed use district likewise has a maximum size of 32 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and therefore her same question of why is it to those other districts. Just like the window signs, she is wanting to make sure that in these districts where we have an existing overlay that was very specific about multi-tenant being 32 sq ft, but that the maximum, that that language, the additional distinction she thinks needs to be inserted in order to be clear and she is asking for your… Community Development Director Wilson stated would you like for that to say the maximum size shall be 32 sq ft for a multiple tenant and 20 sq ft for a single tenant. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes because that would therefore be very consistent with the language that is later in the documents. Community Development Director Wilson stated he guessed he had a hard time understanding when there will ever be a single tenant in a mixed use district. Councilmember Thurman stated so basically you are changing this to be just say 20 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated no, she will give you an example. You have a mixed use district, but you have different owners and so as an example you have the Rejonte Brothers on a corner who are not a part of that mixed use district and just as a point of order this is the matter of text amendment to make sure we do not have a conflict so she would hope that part of this two minutes applies to Mr. Wilson and staff. This is a staff document and if there is a conflict we should not be approving an ordinance if there is a conflict with other overlays. She sees everybody looking at their watch, but this is really discussion for staff also to give input. Councilmember Thurman stated but she thinks the overlay overlays this so this is not anything in an overlay and basically supersedes it so it cannot be in conflict with an overlay. Community Development Director Wilson stated anything that we have discussed at this point can be superseded by an overlay standard. Councilmember Thurman stated so even if the overlay says something completely different it is not in Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 39 of 102 conflict it just supersedes it. Community Development Director Wilson stated that is correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so now we have clarified that the overlay will supersede this. Community Development Director Wilson stated anything in the first 25 sections. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated then her next question becomes what is the current town home/apartment square footage for apartments or TR as an example like in the Crabapple district in the overlay. Again, her intent is to make sure that that 32 sq ft is not larger than what is intended. Because she thought that anything residential even if it was multi-tenant was not as large as 32 sq ft and she wants to take that sentence, and the reason for the question is to therefore see what would be applicable in the more residential areas of the Highway 9 overlay. Councilmember Thurman stated but they are covered by the Highway 9 overlay anyway, so it does not matter. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated well it does from the perspective that there were changes to the Highway 9 overlay and we have heard tonight from citizens that said that they were concerned about those signs that would be near residential areas. As an example some of the pictures that were shown earlier… Community Development Director Wilson stated Crabapple a multi-tenant unit is 32 sq ft; a single tenant is 20 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated correct and does it distinguish between the TR districts or are those all mixed used districts. Community Development Director Wilson stated it is in nonresidential. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and currently in the Highway 9 overlay for town homes and apartments, and she would just refer back to some of the pictures that were provided by staff is that many of those single home subdivisions were much less than 32 sq ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated in the Highway 9 district the multi-tenant sign is 32 sq ft; single tenants are 24 sq ft. Councilmember Thurman stated is that what is proposed or is that what we have already currently in place? Councilmember Lusk stated he guessed what was proposed. Community Development Director Wilson stated 64 and 32. Councilmember Thurman stated she thinks 20 sq ft would be a safety hazard on a 45 mile per hour road. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was not suggesting 20 sq ft for this, she was trying to make sure that first of all we did not have a conflict with the other overlay as that has been resolved that the overlays would supersede. The next question was to find out if a singular freestanding sign needed to be as large as 32 sq ft for an apartment or town house, which is effectively a residential area. Community Development Director Wilson stated that is what it is. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 40 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated you are saying that it is currently that 32 sq ft. Councilmember Mohrig stated he thinks those examples you showed us, do we see anything that is that large today? Community Development Director Wilson stated we certainly see many signs that are as large as 32 ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated on the residential element though those signs were all smaller, were they not. Councilmember Thurman stated they were all subdivisions they were not town houses or apartments. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated then she guessed her next question is does the apartment and town house need to have a significantly larger sign. We do not have that handout. It would help her if she had that handout of those pictures that we had earlier because this is where it is most applicable. Community Development Director Wilson stated do we need to go through it again? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated again she is using her two minutes and she would hope this would be staff’s two minutes because they are your pictures. She just would like to see as a matter of record and she needs to have that information so she can refer to those signs that were photographed in the area. Can you just pull those up and we will move on and come back. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was happy to come back to that. She would just like to be able to reference those signs maybe we can move on and come back to that. It is just hard for her to have that discussion without those references. Mayor Lockwood stated we do not have a motion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated no we can just come back to this one. Comments to proceed with this matter. Councilmember Mohrig stated Mr. Wilson when you look at those signs we are not talking about the monument or the [inaudible] the sign itself. Community Development Director Wilson stated that is correct we are just talking about the sign face. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she did not know how many homes are within Fairmont. Community Development Director Wilson stated there is a subdivision sign that is 20 sq ft; both of those are 20 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated those are residential so those are 12 sq ft, 15 sq ft, so keep going. Crooked Creek is 27.6, that helps the point of that is she was trying to see what other residential signs were for comparative purposes and she did not see any that were as large as 32 sq ft. Councilmember Thurman stated they were all single family residential. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she realized that she was just trying to understand in her mind why an apartment complex would want something significantly larger. Councilmember Mohrig stated 32 sq ft correct? Is that what it is for single family and town homes? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 41 of 102 Community Development Director Wilson stated that is right. Currently it is either 32 sq ft or two 16 sq ft on either side of an entry to a subdivision. Councilmember Mohrig stated which subdivision would then include, is that only single family or would that also include town homes. Community Development Director Wilson stated it would not include town homes. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she could not hear Councilmember Mohrig’s question about what did not include town homes. Community Development Director Wilson stated single family subdivisions are allowed 32 sq ft of signage at their entrance or two 16 sq ft one on each side. Councilmember Mohrig stated so we are saying single family detached. Community Development Director Wilson stated single family subdivisions. Apartment complexes are not subdivisions. They do not subdivide the land. Councilmember Mohrig stated but town homes are considered like Pulte and some of these others are subdivisions are they linked together. Community Development Director Wilson stated apartment and town homes shall be 2 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated would that give them that same ability to break it into two 16 sq ft. What is the rational for never having that breakdown? Community Development Director Wilson stated that the rational was that you treat an apartment complex or a multifamily complex just as you do any other commercial complex. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated okay let us move on. City Manager Bovos stated Councilmember Zahner Bailey if you could just continue with your changes that would be great. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated again here as a matter of clarification on anywhere we made the earlier change with regards to billboards that 120 sq ft that that would be applicable here. She does not believe we have addressed yet, however, was the height of the billboard and so she does believe that we need to cover the height. She believes that the example from which we drew that 120 sq foot that those were used as a reference had the 6 ft columns. Now would that translate, just to make sure she is understanding how that measurement was provided, that they were 6 ft off the bottom of that began at 6 ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated some of them did. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated but in those examples we were looking at that 120 sq ft. She would propose that the current height of 20 ft is too tall for a billboard and would suggest that we lower that and go with a lower profile billboard as was the example on the Arnold Mill case. Again, we used all that same rational from Ms. Henderson having comparable and we do have photographs of billboards that are 120 sq ft, and we have approved that, she would ask that we similarly support the 6 ft height to make that consistent with those same examples. That would be her motion is to have the height of the billboards at that 120 sq ft parallel to 6 ft base, 6 ft height… Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 42 of 102 Councilmember Thurman stated if it is a 6 ft height and we have a 120 sq ft billboard, it is going to be partially underground. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she wanted this to start and that is why she was struggling… City Attorney Scott stated it is not really a 6 ft height then… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so it is not a 6 ft height, it is a 6 ft pile on or other similar beginning forms. Community Development Director Wilson stated just think about the height of it - do not worry about where it starts off the ground. That would be his recommendation. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated but as an example if the pole as an example rather than to have it. Mayor Lockwood stated are you saying to the bottom of the pole. Community Development Director Wilson stated he is recommending that you just simply regulate how high it extends into the air. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated the total. Community Development Director Wilson asked the top of the sign. Mayor Lockwood asked what is existing? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated if we were to look at that same example from Arnold Mill which had, that is okay and she was sure Mike Tuller has some good input so she is surely receptive to that, is that the billboards on Arnold Mill that were smaller in size and were not as tall. She is trying to language a motion that would be synonymous with how those appeared since those were the same signs we were using in that earlier motion to approve the 120 sq ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated you can certainly do that, you can certainly say a billboard can start at 8 ft off the ground and extend up to 15 ft and be no greater than 120 sq ft, if that is what you want to propose. Councilmember Thurman stated is that how things typically are worded or are they just worded with the maximum height. Community Development Director Wilson stated he had never seen them in any way other than the maximum height. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and in Alpharetta the maximum height is at 15. Community Development Director Wilson stated no he thinks it is like 12, maybe 10; they are lower to the ground. He would prefer them all to start at the ground… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was trying to arrive at that place that we have a measurement that is more commensurate with the photographs of the smaller billboards that are lower profile on Arnold Mill and Cherokee. That we use as our example to provide a legal support and so whatever staff’s recommendation would be for that maximum height, either way she believes that the 20 ft is too tall a maximum height. If anyone else on this Council has a suggestion about language she is receptive to that. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 43 of 102 Community Development Director Wilson stated if you said that a billboard can be a 120 sq ft and no higher than 10 feet then we are talking about a 10 x 12 ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and would that be commensurate with the photographs that we saw and the city attorney… City Attorney Scott stated he would suggest that in line with the photographs that you saw you go for a maximum height of say 15. If you want to make it smaller than 20, but that still allows somebody to get it off the ground somewhat, it can still be 120 sq ft. It is going to be roughly 10 x 12, no matter if you - it can be 10 x 12 or 12 x 10 for the most part. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and thank you for that input, but the other reference you made was that Alpharetta had a maximum of 12 feet. Community Development Director Wilson stated he thinks so. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would recommend, and shed asked staff one more time, would you recommend 10 ft or 12 ft as the maximum height? Community Development Director Wilson stated for a 120 sq ft sign. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes sir. Community Development Director Wilson stated he would say 12 ft. Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved that we restrict the height of our billboard signs of 120 sq ft to a maximum of 12 ft. Councilmember Thurman stated she would like a Point of Clarification with the City Attorney and asked is that something based on the information we have received from the outside counsel, and she believes that she felt like that the height would be so low that we could be subject to lawsuit. City Attorney Scott stated what he would say is again, just as he said the lower you go in maximum size then the more risk you take, and he would say the same thing applies here. The lower you go in maximum height, the more risks you are taking. His recommendation would be if you do not want to go as high as 20 ft, he understands that, but his recommendation would be a good compromise and that would be closer to 15. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated her motion was for 12 ft and she would just say that again the premise being, and she understand trying to find that balance, the premise was not that we were looking for a lower profile billboard that is different and distinct. The attorney that we met with in Executive Session suggested that if we could find similar billboards that were low profile that were more in keeping with our more rural Milton, which is the goal is to be distinctive. Therefore, she would still support 12 ft with all due respect and understanding that we are trying to find that balance. City Attorney Scott stated his only concern would be that we did not see any pictures of signs that were that low tonight. Councilmember O’Brien stated one other comment he might have and not that he is proposing raising it, but also a safety factor if you have it too low it is blocking your vision traffic wise, you know it probably needs to be up enough so at least you can see under it. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated her only thought would be that we still have that appeal process. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 44 of 102 Mayor Lockwood stated so we have a motion, restate your motion. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to restrict the height of billboard signs of 120 sq ft to a maximum of 12 ft. Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-3) with Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Lusk and Councilmember O’Brien in opposition. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and for the record she was assuming that that will be reflected in any place that a billboard is referenced so that we do not have to go through that discussion. Community Development Director Wilson stated not to exceed 12 ft in height. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is correct. Councilmember O’Brien requested a Point of Order from the City Attorney and asked did we just modify a motion after it was passed? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated no it was the same motion. City Attorney Scott stated just to bring to your attention you earlier passed a resolution or an amendment defining billboards as no larger than 120 sq ft, there are within section g, and he thinks at least one other section it still says 128 ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is correct and that is why she just asked staff whether or not we needed to move to make separate motions or if the motion we just made could simply be applicable any place that we have reference to billboards. City Attorney Scott stated but he did not think that was done for the 120 sq ft definition earlier on. He thinks you need to do that now. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated it was not the time, but she was happy to do it. She put forward a motion that would say any reference within this document that references billboards can now reflect 120 sq ft with a maximum height of 12 ft, and she would ask that that be reflected in the definitional section, as well as any subsequent section throughout this ordinance and that is her motion. Councilmember Thurman stated that she would like the record to reflect that she thinks that this could be a real safety hazard to have 120 sq ft billboard sign, which would be basically on the ground and it could be a safety hazard, she just wanted to make sure the record reflects that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated do we have a second. Mayor Lockwood stated we do Councilperson D’Aversa. Councilmember O’Brien stated could you restate the motion please. Restated Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated the motion was simply that the earlier motion that applies to billboards be consistent throughout the document. She asked if staff was clear. We are just trying to be consistent. Community Development Director Wilson stated billboards will now be 120 sq ft. Councilmember O’Brien stated his recollection was that we at least spoke about a ratio of height and width, do you recall, is that in fact in the document to avoid potentially a banner style. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 45 of 102 Community Development Director Wilson stated there is a place in here where we say a sign can be no longer than 6 times. The length can be no longer than six times the height to keep some proportionality to these signs. He is glad you brought that up because he was going to ask you to take another look at that when the time came. He has taken a look at some signs around. There are plenty of signs out there that exceed six times as long as they are height, and he would recommend maybe that we take a look at 10 times just to keep from getting a 1 ft high 32 ft long sign. If we could change that they can be no longer than 10 times the height. Councilmember O’Brien stated he would be glad to address. Councilmember Thurman stated she thought that was one of her points was it not. Mayor Lockwood stated are we getting out of order here. Councilmember Thurman stated yes that Section 26.1 subsection J. Councilmember Mohrig stated can we pause for just a second our PCs are dying up here. Community Development Director Wilson stated in Section 25 it appears many times that the signs can be no longer than 6, but we will need a motion please. Mayor Lockwood stated can he have a motion to change 6 times to 10 times. Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend the section from 6 times to 10 times. Councilmember Lusk seconded. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember Thurman stated can we make that also where it appears in Section 26. City Attorney Scott stated did we have a final vote on Councilmember Zahner Bailey’s motion; he just wanted to be certain. Councilmember Mohrig stated he believed there was a motion that was passed and then a brief discussion that we decided was superfluous, right. Mayor Lockwood stated he believes we have a motion and a second. City Attorney Scott stated we did not get a final vote on Councilmember Zahner Bailey’s motion that all references to billboards stated 120 sq ft maximum and 12 ft high. Councilmember Mohrig stated essentially we are saying let us make those measurements that we amended earlier consistent throughout the document, is that what we are putting forth. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated correct. Councilmember O’Brien stated we are getting muddled up with more than one motion pending at one time. Councilmember Thurman stated she would like to divide the two because she will support the 120 sq ft, but she will not support the 12 ft high. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated but we have already approved it… Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 46 of 102 [Multiple speakers inaudible.] Councilmember D’Aversa stated the consistency motion that is what we are voting on. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated well if we have defined billboards as 120 sq ft and 12 ft, can we have an ordinance that has them conflicting. Councilmember Thurman stated we have not defined them as 120 sq ft and 12 ft high, we just defined them as 120 sq ft in the definition section, correct. Councilmember O’Brien stated we did the height as a second motion, but he thinks the point is now that we do need to make sure that it is consistent throughout the document. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so is that not a staff issue. Community Development Director Wilson stated that it is my understanding that your intent was to make it 120 sq ft not to exceed 12 ft high everywhere that it shows up. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is correct and that was the intent as stated in the motion if it was approved. Councilmember O’Brien stated he thinks we need to vote on that to make sure that we are totally consistent. City Manager Bovos stated we have a motion and a second on the floor. Mayor Lockwood stated would you restate the motion. Restated Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the motion was simply to make the document consistent with the earlier approval of a billboard of 120 sq ft and a maximum height of 12 ft. Motion to Divide the Question: Councilmember Thurman stated she has asked that that be split and moved to divide the question. City Attorney Scott stated we have a motion to divide the question. Second: Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated was there already a second on the floor? City Manager Bovos stated correct. Councilmember Thurman stated and you can make a motion to divide the question. City Attorney Scott stated a motion to divide the question is in order. Mayor Lockwood asked is there any discussion on that? Councilmember Lusk stated he agrees with Councilmember Thurman as to the height of the signs. He thinks it creates a hazardous obstruction particularly if it is in the right-of-way, a sign that is low conceivably if it is 10 ft high, the bottom would only be 2 ft off the ground and extend up to maximum height of 12 ft. He thinks that is an obstruction out there that we need to consider this from a safety Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 47 of 102 standpoint. Mayor Lockwood asked Tom Wilson did you mention earlier what the maximum height of Alpharetta was 12 ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated his understanding is that is how they control their billboards there; they do not have any signs higher than 12 ft period in the City. If you want a billboard you have got to pretty much find a place that you can put it on the ground that is visible and useful to you. Councilmember Thurman stated but she believes we were also told by our outside counsel that she felt that the Alpharetta billboard ordinance would not hold up well in court because of certain things like that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is because they prohibit billboards all together, which is what she specifically said. Mayor Lockwood stated okay he thinks that we are getting off track. We have got a motion and he believes we have a second, is there any more specific discussion. Councilmember O’Brien stated his concern is if we are still weighing the merits of the 12 ft restriction is similarly that, he is not convinced that it is a full drawn conclusion that it is more attractive and beneficial to Milton, and he thinks there is a significant safety implication. He is also somewhat concerned that our attorney seemed to have reservations and he senses he may be talking about a motion that is not a Point of Order. Councilmember O’Brien stated he has been looking for this and he got the answer, a motion to divide the question is not debatable, so we need to move to the motion. Vote on Motion to Divide the Question: The motion passed (5-2), with Councilmember Zahner Bailey and Mayor Lockwood in opposition. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved that the billboards be consistently reflected at 120 sq ft throughout the document. Councilmember Thurman seconded. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated the second part of the motion for consistency purposes and the earlier motion that did pass with a height of 12 ft, that we simply, as a matter of housekeeping, make sure that the document reflects that consistently throughout the document. She will just state as part of that motion, that motion for 12 ft already passed earlier, so this is simply to make sure that it is consistent throughout the document. Councilmember Thurman stated and she will state once again that she believes that this could be a safety hazard and she cannot support it because of that. Mayor Lockwood stated he had a question to the City Attorney since it has already passed how does this motion affect… City Attorney Scott stated well it does not resend the earlier motion, it would require further action afterwards though. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved that the billboards be consistently reflected at a maximum of 12 ft high throughout the document. Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed (4-3), with Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Lusk and Councilmember O’Brien voting in opposition. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 48 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she thinks we have already addressed the window signs and if staff would just look at that next Section 15, item 3, but again, the premise being that any place that previously, with the exception of… Community Development Director Wilson stated we eliminated… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so that she thinks we have already handled. There was a Section 25, less than 20 ft and the premise of this clarification is to make sure that it is consistent with the Northwest Fulton Overlay language, Crabapple and Birmingham overlays, and that we let her get back to the very top Section 25. City Attorney Scott stated he thinks this is consistent with what you brought up before. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she thinks so too, she just wants to make sure that is the case. She will just read from these notes that in that mixed use section under 15.f page 27 that would help her a lot. Community Development Director Wilson stated you are using different page numbers. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she knows, but for her it gets her to the right page so thank you. On page 27, so it is Section 25.F, she thinks it is actually item C, and it goes back to the same clarification of wanting make sure that wherever there is a reference within the overlays that the 32 ft multi-tenant sign is clear and that this single tenant sign of 20 sq ft is appropriately reflected. Community Development Director Wilson stated would you mind saying what you want there. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated, but for consistently purposes, the language that references multi- tenant signs that would apply to those areas outside of Highway 9, she guessed it is not even outside of Highway 9. It is language, she is sorry guys, it goes back earlier we wanted to consistently make sure that the language from the overlay, the Crabapple master plan, the Birmingham master plan, which are very clear in saying multi-tenant structures should be no greater than 32 sq feet and that the single tenant should be no greater than 20 sq ft. She believes in this section it does not distinguish between those two and all she was trying to do was make sure that it is reflected and distinguishes those two to ensure consistency with those other overlays. Community Development Director Wilson stated the Crabapple master overlay district divides multi, it is formatted quite differently than this, and it is not the same. If you will on his page 33, he does not think it is your page 33, but 26.2.A.2. City Manager Bovos stated we are actually in Section 25. Community Development Director Wilson [inaudible] the same thing to have 26 and put it into 25. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she wanted to make sure that we are consistent, that is her goal, but she is on page 23 now, she means 33. Community Development Director Wilson stated on his 33 if you are using the document that was distributed to you as part of your agenda packages it is on page 33, if you are using the one that has got line items… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated this is the one that Carol Haag sent to her because her computer was not working, that Aaron Bovos sent out on Tuesday, so that was the merged document. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 49 of 102 Community Development Director Wilson stated let us go to 26.2.A.2. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated 26.2.A.2, nonresidential multi-tenant or development. Community Development Director Wilson stated also in the Crabapple district it has nonresidential multi-tenant building. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated okay, this is helping me, she needed that. So in the overlays it addresses that, separate from Crabapple and Birmingham you have the rest of with the exception of Highway 9, because you have the rest of the Northwest Fulton overlay that similarly had language that said a multi-tenant should, even if it outside of those overlays, so for some future neighborhood activity node perhaps over on Arnold Mill. Community Development Director Wilson stated it does not say that though. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated the Northwest Fulton overlay. She asked Robyn MacDonald if she had the original Northwest Fulton overlay. She believes that it did in fact distinguish between multi- tenant. Councilmember Thurman stated but it did not cover all of the areas. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and this is separate from Highway 9, because Highway 9 overlay applies. She is simply trying to make sure because this is a merged document of the Northwest Fulton overlay, the Birmingham Crossroads, the Crabapple Crossroads and that Highway 9 overlay, we have now got all of those in one document. Councilmember Thurman stated she thought we decided when we discussed Section 25.D.1.C that it was just 32 sq ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated the old Northwest overlay district when it had signage in it. It did not distinguish between multi-tenant and single-tenant signs. He is looking at it and it just says the maximum size shall be 32 sq ft, which is exactly what it says here. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so the distinguishment was only within the Birmingham overlay and the Crabapple overlay and the only thing that was beyond those neighborhood activity nodes would revert to that 32 sq ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated that is correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated in the instance that we end with a neighborhood activity note on our CLUP over on Arnold Mill at that time that would then have to define itself either similarly to Crabapple and Birmingham or differently. Community Development Director Wilson stated or we would have to make some sort of amendment to this section. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated to address any future neighborhood activity node. Okay that clarifies her question, thank you. She thinks it did. The same thing on the wall signs, actually she should not say the same thing. Robyn MacDonald brought up today an example about the Arby’s and the wall signs, this is Section 25.F, page 27 and this is a clarification or a question for staff with regards to wall signs as it relates then to windows. She thinks she may be able to tell us where it is particularly in the document. It was the concern that the window sign in certain districts could suddenly become a third wall sign and you used the example of Arby’s as an example. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 50 of 102 Planner Robyn MacDonald stated the only area that allows window signs now is Highway 9 and that is where the Arby’s is located. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and so in that could you maybe expand on that example where the window sign could become a wall sign. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated based on their Fulton County information and permits they installed an interior window sign that appears from Highway 9 and maybe Windward as a third wall sign. So she guessed what you are trying to do is address that issue. Councilmember Thurman stated would not that be covered under the Highway 9 overlay rather than this section here. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that is correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated but it is not and this is the first place that it is mentioned, which is why we talked about needing to address it tonight. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated but there are no window signs. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated in Highway 9 there are. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated right, but we are not in Highway 9 yet, so we cannot really start addressing that until we get to Highway 9. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated when we get to Highway 9 can we come back and also address this because let us just say for the non-Highway 9 areas, if you will clarify this for her since those other areas including the Northwest Fulton overlay area, Birmingham and Crabapple because they do not allow window signs. The conflict in those areas will not exist and this will only be applicable when we get to Section 26.1, is that correct. If we can then hold this thought and make sure we address it when we get there. She thinks staff brought up a great point of potential conflict with three wall signs, so we are coming back to this. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated this was a request of staff actually that we incorporate and this may be under window signs about the LED light, that the prohibited. Is this the time to talk about this or is this… Planner Robyn MacDonald stated no it would go back to Section 26. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated okay, she thinks that takes us out of 25. Community Development Director Wilson stated he had one other change that he wants to ask Council to consider in 25. The size of a flag, the flags that are on the market are usually 4 ft x 6 ft that is 24 sq feet, yet we restrict them to 20 ft. There is no real magic in that number 20 and he is asking Council to consider changing the flag sign so that it would be consistent with those that are on the market to be 24 sq ft everywhere and in every district in which we allow those signs. Councilmember Thurman stated so moved. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to change the allowed size of flags from 20 sq ft to Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 51 of 102 24 sq ft as suggested by Community Development Director Wilson. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Community Development Director Wilson stated we are in Section 26 and are now going into the overlay districts. City Manager Bovos stated in Section 26, we have three specific sections inside 26, Section 26 itself, 26.1 and 26.2 we do not have recommended changes. He has two in Section 26 alone, both from Councilmember Zahner Bailey. Mayor Lockwood stated could you clarify that again Mr. Bovos, Councilmembers Thurman and Bailey. City Manager Bovos stated no he has got Councilmember Zahner Bailey; he has got two, one on window signs and one on… Councilmember Thurman stated there is no 26 by itself though there is only 26.1. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes she thinks she just put that there because she probably did not have the section at the time and she was making sure to get these details in here. It is in Section 26 on page 34, which will only reflect on this document, she believes it is under section 26.1 item M where it currently reads “Window signs with neon fluorescent, or tube lights are prohibited”. Staff had requested that we also include or LED lighting because there were some examples where the LED lighting needed to also be noted. Her motion would be to adjust Section 26.1 item M to include in that list of prohibited types of lighting the LED. That is my motion and again that was at the request of staff. Motion and Second: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to add “or LED” to section 26.1 Item M to read, “Window signs with neon, fluorescent, tube lights or LED lighting are prohibited.” Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember Thurman stated the discussion she would have is that we have received some emails from people that had been working on the Highway 9 signs in the past that we ought to allow neon signs that say “Open” in the windows and only allow those to be on at the times that they were open obviously, but that we had received email in opposition to that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she did not believe we can address that because of our language we have discussed that before, is that correct. Community Development Director Wilson stated that is correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so legally we cannot distinguish between opened and closed. Mayor Lockwood stated can we distinguish between sizes, probably not neon. City Attorney Scott stated you can only distinguish the size, but he was not sure that would take care of the issue. He would also endorse Councilwoman Zahner Bailey’s LED because of safety issues. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated thank you. Community Development Director Wilson stated for clarification he would like for you to know that that was not a staff recommendation. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was sorry Tom Wilson was out of town and Robyn MacDonald Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 52 of 102 had mentioned that the Arby’s situation with the LED so if she misspoke forgive her. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated we discussed it. Community Development Director Wilson stated this is a new technology you need to determine if you want to accept it or not. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is fine, she removed that statement. She is putting forward because it is her motion and staff was supportive of including LED. She will put it that way when we discuss it but thank you for that clarification that Item M Section 26.1 should not read according to my motion, “Window signs with neon, fluorescent, tube lights or LED lighting are prohibited.” Mayor Lockwood stated we have a motion on the floor do we have a second? The motion was seconded by Councilmember D’Aversa. Councilmember O’Brien stated would you mind repeating your reference again. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes sir, Section 26.1 under the State Route 9 Overlay District Sign, Item M where it just has the list of prohibited lighting. She asked Councilmember O’Brien it is just to insert LED as one additional item in that listing. Mayor Lockwood stated he had a question. What does that do to businesses, what is typical in that area for the Open signs? Community Development Director Wilson stated well it is very common to have an Open and Closed sign of neon. He thinks that Planning Commission thought that that was unnecessary and they may have even taken that out. Councilmember Thurman stated for businesses that had those in the past they are grandfathered in. Community Development Director Wilson stated anything that is out there that has been permitted or that was installed whenever no permit was required would be grandfathered to the degree of which we can determine when it was installed. Councilmember Thurman stated and this would be something they could now come before the BZA for variance on. Community Development Director Wilson stated no something that is prohibited there is no variance for it. Councilmember O’Brien stated so this would essentially eliminate any type of illuminated open sign, any neon sign. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated it prohibits neon signs. Community Development Director Wilson stated it prohibits any neon sign in the future. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and just to refer back to some of the citizens that we have heard from, as we talk about improving the look of Highway 9, this has always been one of those comments and topics about prohibiting fluorescent neon signs. That is consistent with other prohibitions for other areas of Milton. If you would look at national standards, etc., there are many other sign ordinances that prohibit neon signs. She thinks the challenge here is because we have the legal question of needing to keep this content free, you cannot limit neon signs to open. She would just say there are some really good looking Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 53 of 102 open and closed signs that are not neon or internally lit, and it can still reflect if a business is open or closed. Community Development Director Wilson stated sometimes they often use neon on internally lit signs, so he thinks you need to say if you are going to eliminate neon you need to say visible neon tubing. Councilmember O’Brien stated stand alone or something like that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated does not a tube light cover that? Community Development Director Wilson stated yes and often they light signs internally with neon tubes and fluorescent tubes. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and that is why this includes that already. Councilmember Lusk stated it excludes them in fact. Community Development Director Wilson stated this is window signs. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes. That the window signs that are allowable there basically are not to be neon internally lit signs that was the point of this. She thinks the motion has been have and has it been seconded yet? Councilmember Lusk stated is the motion just… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated it is just to add LED. Councilmember Thurman stated is the motion for 26.1, 26.2 and 26.3? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated to insert LED… Councilmember Thurman stated anywhere where it states neon, fluorescent or tube lights are prohibited and we can go ahead and get rid of it. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that would seem to make sense. Community Development Director Wilson stated now we are just talking about just prohibiting it in window signs. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes and the only reason she had not mentioned there is that those others did not allow for window signs. She thinks this is the only applicable spot, but she sure understands your point. Councilmember Lusk stated aside from the staff’s favorable thought on this apparently, he asked what is the downside of a LED sign. City Attorney Scott replied safety, it is distracting. We have eliminated changeable copy signs in terms of billboards in terms of all kinds of others. He would recommend that we be consistent, it is a distraction to drivers. Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any more discussion he thinks we have a motion and a second. Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 54 of 102 City Manager Bovos stated Mayor and Council he showed two changes recommended in Section 26.1 subsection B. one from Councilmember Thurman and one from Councilmember D’Aversa Williams. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was sorry again, we are at Section 26.1. City Manager Bovos states Section 26.1.B. Councilmember Thurman stated where it says shall not exceed a maximum surface area of 32 sq ft and a maximum height of 6 ft this is different from what was originally wording in Fulton County. She believes due to safety reasons, we need to go back to a maximum surface area of either 48 sq ft or 64 sq ft and a maximum height of either 10 ft or 12 ft. Since Councilmember D’Aversa also has this she will defer it to her as far as what she feels like as far as the… Councilmember D’Aversa stated she had the same concerns. She thinks that, after speaking with staff Tom Wilson, we are limiting going from 64 sq ft as a maximum height down to 32 sq ft is a little dramatic and would ask Mr. Wilson to state his expert opinion for the record as well. Community Development Director Wilson stated well quite often when signs are reduced in size and they are in this long history in many places in which the sign has just been over a long period of time reduced from large sign to small sign. Generally, you would do it in small increments and during a period of several years the larger sign faces are replaced and will eventually go away. If you went from 64 sq ft to 50 sq ft for a number of years the 50 sq ft signs are fairly capable of competing with the 64 sq ft signs, but everything that was out there at 64 sq ft would immediately become legal nonconforming. That means that they can stay there, but it also means if they make any changes they will be brought into compliance and you get all of your signs brought down into a compliant range. Then you step it down again and you do that same thing again. Over a number of years you step them down from 64, to 48, to 32 and you can go as far as you want to, but it keeps a person from having to compete with a 64 sq ft sign with a 32 sq ft sign. It keeps a little bit more of a balance. Councilmember Thurman stated so you are basically stating it is too big a drop to go from 64 to 32. Community Development Director Wilson stated he is saying it is often done in much smaller increments. Councilmember Lusk stated so a fifty percent reduction in size and seventy percent reduction in height is a rather aggressive change. Mayor Lockwood stated what would you recommend then that would be a normal reduction. Community Development Director Wilson stated he thinks that if you went from 64 to 50 or 48 and sometime in the future you go from 48 to 32 that is what happens in many other situations. Councilmember Lusk asked what about height? Community Development Director Wilson stated the height was 20. Councilmember O’Brien stated 12. Councilmember Mohrig stated and are these are freestanding signs we are talking about. Community Development Director Wilson stated he would hope you would not go any higher than 12, but he would think 8 or 10 would be fine. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 55 of 102 Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved that they shall not exceed a maximum surface area of 48 sq ft and a maximum height of 12 ft, which she believes is consistent with a lot of the Deerfield area. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. Mayor Lockwood called for discussion. Discussion on Motion: Councilmember O’Brien stated he had one question for Tom Wilson. The signs we have out there today, are we looking at are most of those in the range of 48 sq ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated they range anywhere from 32 sq ft actually some of them are actually smaller than that, but there are many of them out there that are 32 sq ft. There are many of them out there that are 64 sq ft. There probably are not many out there that are greater than the 64 sq ft unless they are very old signs. Mayor Lockwood stated he has a question, and he certainly would appreciate the concerns of our citizens, but also heard from a lot of business owners, and in your opinion would that affect them unfairly obviously going to 32 sq ft over 48 sq ft as the motion is. Community Development Director Wilson stated he thinks 48 will affect them less harmful than 32. It is just hard to compete with a 64 sq ft neighbor whenever you only have 32 sq ft, but 48 sq ft would seem to be more reasonable in his opinion. Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any discussion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated one she would like to acknowledge the citizens that we have heard from and two your point Mayor, we have heard from citizens and businesses and the question is how do you balance those two. She believes that we have received letters, we have received comments tonight, we have received comments at our last meeting a week ago, and we also received comments back in December and subsequently have received commentary. She does believe that making a transition from what has been Highway 9 to something that will be a better Highway 9 is what we are about. If we do not take an opportunity this evening to be more aggressive about improving that Highway 9 area, she thinks that we will miss an opportunity. She understands the step down as an approach, but still believes that 32 sq ft is absolutely economically viable. Peachtree City and Roswell have smaller signs than the 64 sq ft; there are other national standards that are out there. As an example Peachtree City some of their O & I have 35 sq ft, parts of Roswell have 18 or 24 depending on the district, again if our goal is to step down and improve Highway 9. When she says step down she means step down some of that signage, she thinks that it is a misconception sometimes that smaller has to be bad for business she also spoke to Lou Oliver, who was a town architect for many cities including Roswell right now and you may have read about a lot of areas within Roswell where they are trying to improve the look of Atlanta Street and Highway 9 which is an extension of Highway 9. She had left him a message and he called back and left her a message and he said that 32 sq ft is in fact too large. When you try to improve the look of a corridor the goal is not to have signs large enough for fast moving cars. The key is to try to encourage cars to slow down and to improve the look of that “corridor” and so she would just say that in keeping with the citizens’ requests that we improve the look of the area that she thinks we do need to incorporate smaller signs in the Highway 9 area. He believes that there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that they are economically viable. We have other areas of Milton of course that have 32 sq ft signs. She does not think that anyone wants to disenfranchise a business. We also have the opportunity, as we saw from residential areas when Cary Schlenke highlighted in her comments, that some of the areas that are not yet developed which is what we are really talking about are across from the Orchards they are next to Laurel Springs, they are next to Crooked Creek. We are not talking about developing more on Deerfield, those Deerfield signs are there, and this is an area that is further north on Highway 9 that is not yet developed. That is when we have the opportunity to improve the Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 56 of 102 look of this area and so she respects other opinions, we have heard from different opinions from business owners, as well as from residents, but she strongly supports the opportunity before us tonight to reduce that sign face and the height. She would ask that instead of 12 ft we consider a 6 ft height and those are the end of her comments. Community Development Director Wilson stated he has some information that might be helpful, which is from the Florida Department of Transportation and published by the American Planning Association, that is about sign size and height on different highways. Councilmember Mohrig stated he thinks that the difference here is that we have got a… Community Development Director Wilson stated on a 45 mile an hour highway a sign they suggest should be between 36 - 50 sq ft the lower number is institutional and residential areas. The upper number should pertain to commercial and industrial areas so on a 45 mile an hour two lane road it is suggesting between 36 sq ft. – 50 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and this is from what document, Florida? Community Development Director Wilson stated on a 45 mile and hour four lane road they are suggesting 64 – 90 sq ft. Councilmember D’Aversa stated and height? Community Development Director Wilson stated only letter height is quoted here, height of the letters, sizes of the letters. Councilmember D’Aversa stated and just as a Point of Clarification did we not just approve for our billboards our larger signs 12 ft height. Community Development Director Wilson stated we did. Councilmember D’Aversa stated her comment would be that she would prefer for us to have a lower height for these smaller signs and it seems like that would stand to reason. She thinks in your point you said 8 ft would be acceptable height from your point of view. Community Development Director Wilson stated he thinks most of your jurisdictions around here are capping all of the signs at 8 ft these days. Councilmember D’Aversa stated she would rather support 8 ft. Councilmember Thurman stated her question is going from 20 ft to 8 ft is a pretty substantial drop and it is her understanding that there are a lot of signs in Deerfield that are 12 ft. and even 15 ft. We are talking about a very significant change and she would prefer to keep it at the 12 ft, which is consistent she believes with a lot of the signs in the Deerfield area that allows you if you would like to do some landscaping stuff below the signs you could do that which she believes is what they have done there. Community Development Director Wilson stated it has certainly been his experience that these sizes of signs and heights of signs have come down gradually year after year after year in Roswell it went from 96 to 72 to 54, 48 to 32. Now he understands they are trying to get them down even lower than that so it has been a progression over the years to do that, no real change has ever been that drastic. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated if she may say that Roswell has in some of their multi-tenant signs 6 ft high. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 57 of 102 Councilmember Lusk stated he wholeheartedly supports Tom Wilson’s evaluation, his analysis and his proposal to do a progressive decrease in sign size. He thinks it makes a lot of sense. He thinks it would look kind of foolish out there if we have all 64 sq foot now and then have 32 sq foot intermixed in between. He thinks a progressive or digressive approach to this sign issue here is probably the most logical reasonable approach to take after having heard and interviewed several business people in the Highway 9 corridor out here. He thinks they need that kind of support to promote their businesses out here. After all they are paying the taxes out here. Mayor Lockwood stated he would also say after hearing both sides this certainly would be a compromise showing our citizens we are trying to work with them, but also respect to the business owners that have to keep their lights on and serve the citizens too. Councilmember Lusk stated one brief one, one comment one size does not fit all, what works in Birmingham, Crabapple Crossroads, and Hopewell should not be applied to an established commercial corridor like what we have out there right now. Councilmember O’Brien stated as far as the sign design itself, if we had the Design Review Board in place would that also encompass the look of the sign or is the sign totally separate from a design standpoint. Community Development Director Wilson stated if the Design Review Board did review signs it would be the esthetics of the sign, it could be the size, the shape, the proportion, color it could be all of those things now and they just make recommendations. Councilmember O’Brien stated and he guessed the reason for that question is what we have seen in some cases along Highway 9. We have had signs that do not fit the building, and we have seen buildings that we do not want to see those types of buildings. Again, he thinks that one of the things we are going to cover, he does not know if it is going to be discussed tonight is getting Highway 9 overlay as part of the Design Review Board so we in fact will look at those architectural. Community Development Director Wilson stated signs were exempted from the Design Review Board and have been since we first did this on December 21 that was to take all the discretion out of the sign operation. City Attorney Scott stated that was a constitutional issue. Community Development Director Wilson stated now one thing that you can do, and he does recommend this and you will see this coming forward on any rezoning opportunities, is that we will put a condition in there that gets their agreement to take their signs to the Design Review if they agree to it then it is nondiscretionary. We can do that and then on future rezoning we can get the signage reviewed by the Design Review Board and he would rarely recommend that we do that. He will make a condition that way. Mayor Lockwood stated does anyone else have any comment before we vote? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was unclear about where we are in height. Councilmember D’Aversa stated are we doing size and height together? Mayor Lockwood stated let us clarify Councilwoman Thurman. Councilmember Thurman stated it shall not exceed a maximum surface area of 48 sq ft and a maximum height of 12 ft. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 58 of 102 Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved a motion to state “Shall not exceed a maximum surface area of 48 square feet and a maximum height of 12 feet.” Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember Zahner Bailey voting in opposition. City Manager Bovos stated Mayor and Council the next four items are actually consistent in their nature, however, they do cover three different sections. Councilmember Thurman and Councilmember D’Aversa Williams with discussion in Section C, D and F with respect to maximum surface areas of 24 sq ft, Councilmember Thurman. Councilmember Thurman stated C states multi-tenant developments on corner lots are allowed an additional monument sign on the secondary street at the project entrance which shall exceed a maximum surface area of as it is currently written in here 24 square feet and a maximum height of 6 feet. This is previously was 32 sq ft… Community Development Director Wilson stated monument signs are always 24 sq ft and 4 feet high, that is not a change. Councilmember Thurman stated so has this always been 24 sq ft for the second sign? Community Development Director Wilson stated yes, what we changed about that was 6 ft in height which at one point was 4 ft in height. Councilmember Thurman stated and is that for all C, D and F. Community Development Director Wilson stated no, D was 32 sq ft and reduced to 24 and E was always 24 not to exceed 6 feet in height as an addition. City Manager Bovos stated what about Section F. Community Development Director Wilson stated F used to be 32 and we are recommending changing it to 24. Councilmember Thurman stated once again her question is concerning safety on a 45 mile per hour road if a 24 sq ft sign is would that pose a safety hazard when we have already taken them which may be at times 45 feet off the road a 24 sq ft sign is pretty small when you are looking at it from 60 to 70 ft away. She would prefer to leave these as they were originally stated and let the community work together, both the business community and the residential community, to see if these need to be changed over at a later date as she originally stated prior as of December prior to these last changes. Mayor Lockwood stated is that a motion. Councilmember Thurman stated does she need to do them for C, D and F or do each of them individually. Community Development Director Wilson stated well you can make your motion that way, but let me just detail it. Under C it would remain 24 sq ft and it would go to 4 ft in height that was the original December 21 standard. Under D it would go back to 32 sq ft and remain 6 ft in height. Under E it would remain 24 sq ft in size and there would be no height. Councilmember Thurman stated she did not think she had E, she just had F. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 59 of 102 Community Development Director Wilson stated and F it would go back to 32 sq ft and remain 6 ft in height. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so would you repeat that Mr. Wilson. Community Development Director Wilson stated it would be 24 sq ft and remain 6 ft in height. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so F does not change based on what you just said. Community Development Director Wilson stated and that would all be consistent with the December 21. Councilmember Thurman stated with C with the 4 ft in height is that consistent with what was in there under Fulton County. Community Development Director Wilson stated well it was not under the Fulton County. Councilmember Thurman stated it was under the overlay. Community Development Director Wilson stated okay then it was it was 4 ft. Councilmember Thurman stated it was 4 ft under Fulton County. Community Development Director Wilson stated yes and we changed it to six feet. Councilmember Thurman stated she was thinking over under Fulton County it was six feet and maybe we had changed it back in December to four. She wants clarification on what it was under Fulton County. Community Development Director Wilson stated that may be the date. Councilmember Thurman stated which is what the community and residential community had worked together on and that is what she wants to make sure that. She does not want to go making all these changes without… Community Development Director Wilson stated Robyn MacDonald is going to go look that up. Councilmember Mohrig asked and how do we address this. He wants to make sure we also come back to E because we do not have a height and he thinks we need to have a height or keep it as the Planning Commission put in. Councilmember Thurman stated she agrees with the 6 ft height. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated to Councilmember Thurman, under the original Fulton County ordinance when the signs were under 12G which was the State Route 9, it states that multi-tenant developments on corner lots are allowed an additional identification monument on the secondary street which shall not exceed a maximum surface area of 24 sq ft, maximum height of 4 ft. Councilmember O’Brien stated so that is the secondary sign. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that is the secondary multi-tenant sign that was allowed only 4 ft and it is from Fulton County. Councilmember O’Brien stated is that consistent with the Fry’s. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 60 of 102 Planner Robyn MacDonald stated she suspects so unless they got a variance and she does not know if they got a variance on height or not. Councilmember Thurman stated what she was going back to what was originally with Fulton County other than under E to change and put in maximum heights in there and rather than making all of these changes without all of the community input. Councilmember O’Brien stated that sign was fairly small. In fact, if he can make an observation and if it is relevant that your sign presentation he was kind of impressed by the fact that in some cases the smaller signs depending on how they were presented and how their bases were set up were not that attractive. Interestingly some of the most appealing looking signs were in some cases not all, but in some cases were larger so he does not think the determinant necessarily is always size. His goal when we discussed this was to try and find consistency and he thinks the trend in general and the preference he thinks in the community is to go trending smaller, but he does not think that is always the case. Mayor Lockwood stated he was actually surprised to see some of the signs were smaller than he had thought they were. Community Development Director Wilson stated some of them were 20 and 22 sq ft. But you can see through all of that that it is truly the context in which you view that sign really how big it looks or how small it looks. Mayor Lockwood stated as a Point of Order do we have a motion. Councilmember Thurman stated she had made a motion yes. Mayor Lockwood stated can you repeat the motion. Community Development Director Wilson stated a motion was made to go back to what it was in Fulton County. Councilmember Thurman stated except for E to add the maximum height to 6 ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated in E to add the 6 ft in height. Councilmember O’Brien stated and would that afford us some consistency as well. Mayor Lockwood stated we probably need to get a second and then have discussion on it. Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman made a motion to amend Section 26.1 back to what it originally was in Fulton County with the exception of Item E where the maximum height of 6 ft would be added. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember O’Brien stated would that then afford us some consistently? Community Development Director Wilson stated well all of those signs are 6 ft and they are all going to be 32 to 24 sq ft. Councilmember O’Brien stated so either 32 and 24 and 6 ft. Councilmember Mohrig stated and 24 are just the side entrance signs, 24 ft with what has been proposed. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 61 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated is not one of those 24 sq ft signs 4 ft high back from Fulton County. Councilmember Mohrig stated the side entrance because that is how we would leave that at 4 ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated in a side entrance at 24 sq ft and 6 ft high there is a single-tenant sign at 24 sq ft and 6 ft high, gas stations get an additional sign 24 sq ft and 6 ft high and if two or more single tenants are limited to one monument sign, it is 24 sq ft and 6 ft high. Councilmember Thurman stated but not under Fulton County it would be less than 32 sq ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated it was multi-tenant and 32 sq ft. Councilmember Thurman stated single tenant is 32 sq ft with a 6 ft. Councilmember Mohrig stated the proposal that Councilperson Thurman did is D and F would go back to 32 sq ft instead of 24 for the primary signs, the single sign monument sign, correct? Community Development Director Wilson stated D would go to 32 and F would go to 32. Councilmember Mohrig stated and then we would change up on C - we would change the height back to 4 ft so we are lowering that, correct? Community Development Director Wilson replied yes. Councilmember Thurman stated she was okay with this if there is somebody who wanted to make an amendment. Councilmember Mohrig stated and on E we are going to keep the 6 ft … Councilmember Thurman stated she is okay with 6 ft if somebody wanted to change that. Community Development Director Wilson stated he finds it hard to make a distinction between any of those signs between 4 and 6 ft. Councilmember Mohrig stated except for he still likes the idea of side entrance is a lower profile because it looks good in what we have seen right now for a secondary sign rather than put up at 6 ft. Councilmember O’Brien stated so we may need to just to amend E to 6 ft. Councilmember Mohrig stated to leave it as stated. Mayor Lockwood stated let us just for clarification state the motion one more time. Community Development Director Wilson stated the motion would be to amend 26.1C, no it would not be to amend C at all, and it remains 24 and 6 to amend D. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is not correct. Councilmember Mohrig stated we would be going down to 4 ft. Community Development Director Wilson stated you want to go down to 4 ft. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 62 of 102 Councilmember Mohrig stated yes. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is what the motion was. Councilmember Mohrig stated an additional monument we are lowering that side. Mayor Lockwood stated let us do that. Community Development Director Wilson stated alright C 24 sq ft and 4 ft height. Mayor Lockwood stated do we have a motion? Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked are we still going to have discussion. Mayor Lockwood replied yes. We are talking about C right now, correct or do we have the motion on that. Councilmember Thurman asked if she should withdraw her motion and do them each individually? City Attorney Scott stated you would need consent, unanimous consent, to withdraw the motion. Mayor Lockwood stated do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the motion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated sure. Motion Withdrawn City Attorney Scott stated now you can make your new motion. Councilmember Thurman stated actually she would leave C the way that it, if somebody else wants to make a motion they can. Community Development Director Wilson stated it used to be 4 ft now it is 6 ft. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to amend Section 26.1 C to reduce the height to 4 ft. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend Section 26.1 D to a maximum surface area of 32 sq ft and a maximum height of 6 ft. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. Discussion on Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated if our goal is to as staff suggested step down the size of signs over time, her question would be for us to consider a similar step down on these other single tenants and other sign types to be consistent with the rationale that we just put forward when we went from 64 to 48. As part of that discussion, she would ask whether or not Tom Wilson might have some perspective or input on that, that if we are going to apply step down we would need to apply that step down approach potentially across all of those categories, could you comment. Community Development Director Wilson stated well that would seem reasonable if we were trying to take a sign, if we were trying to over time reduce the sizes of the signs and we have for some time had a sign that is 32 sq ft now it would seem reasonable that we would take this opportunity to reduce it somewhat consistent with what we said earlier. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 63 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and so she would just say for the record as part of her 2 minutes of discussion point that if we just said that step down over time is important she would ask us to please consider that before we proceed with a motion that would be inconsistent with the statements made just a few moments ago about the need to step down over time. Councilmember Thurman stated and with her time she would like to say that she believes that it is true if we choose to definitely do a step down on every single sign, but she is not sure in this case she is comfortable doing a step down without getting any input from the community, which includes our business community before we do a step down. Mayor Lockwood asked are there any other comments, discussion? Councilmember Lusk stated just one question when you gave us the size of 32 to 50 the standards he knows that is Florida, but it was talking about different highways that was where you had the 45 mile per hour speed limit and saying that was acceptable that was a safe standard for signs. He guessed that is the only thing he wants to make sure we clarify also that it is not just a matter of going down in size it is a matter of what is also safe that you actually that you actually see the sign, is that correct as far as the speed for two lane 45 mile per hour what was the size again? Community Development Director Wilson stated 36 to 50. Councilmember Lusk stated and we are saying this is a single tenant of 32 is what the motion is 32 and 6. Community Development Director Wilson stated now he did say that commercial and industrial areas would be on the high end of that thread. Councilmember Lusk stated which is in 64, but we are not even there we just have to downsize that. Mayor Lockwood stated and to clarify what in Fulton County was 32. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated yes this is to down size. Councilmember O’Brien stated he wanted to make a comment that is relevant. He really feels that we do want to be mindful and not capricious, as we look at this and as Mrs. Thurman has pointed out, there was a pretty sufficient basis as he understands it. He was not part of the process, but he thinks some people in the community were very involved spent a ton of time and like Councilmember Lusk and he would agree that if it is in the best interest of the community and in consistent with the desires of the community, he would favor an incremental step down. He thinks a capricious or inconsistent step down perhaps based on a few comments one evening may not be in the best interest of the process so he would respectfully express that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would surely support the statement about a step down and she thinks that is a very wise element of input, thank you Councilmember O’Brien. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend Section 26.1 D to a maximum surface area of 32 sq ft and a maximum height of 6 ft. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed (6-1), with Councilmember Zahner Bailey in opposition. Community Development Director Wilson asked what was the motion under D 32 sq ft and 6 ft high. Councilmember Thurman stated under E it is just to add at the end of the sentence and not to exceed 6 ft in height. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 64 of 102 Councilmember Lusk stated essentially just leaves it as stated Councilmember Thurman stated F maximum surface area of 32 sq ft and, once again, this is because she believes that we ought to leave it as it is until we can let the community work to determine if this needs to be changed looking at what is good for the City as a whole, and what would be including any safety hazards that might be caused by signs being too small to be able to be read safely on a 45 mile per hour street. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she has a question with regards to the desire to have another community input rather than to have that as generic terminology she guessed she would ask this Board if that is truly the intent that as part of this motion there be direction to staff to engage the community both the business community and the citizens from whom we have heard. We can talk a lot and she has not heard anybody say let us make sure to incorporate all those letters that we have gotten not just from the business community, but also from those citizens that live here that have said consistently before December 21 again on December 21 and on and on and on that if we are going to truly address those citizen concerns and balance them with the requests of the businesses. If we have just said that we want to have a step down then she would ask that the motion include some direction to actually engage the community to tackle this and not leave this for another five years. That would be my commentary. Councilmember Lusk stated he guessed the question is how we do that. Mayor Lockwood stated he thinks it needs to be a separate motion. Councilmember Lusk stated a separate motion, but we could do it. Councilmember O’Brien stated he thinks it is fair to say that that would be the consensus of the body and he would bet that that will be a part of the projects that are under way so he has a sense that that is already a part of the landscape for us and for the staff. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would ask that we consider a more specific motion after either as part of this motion or … Councilmember Thurman stated no it cannot be part of this motion… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated it could have been, but if you choose not to that is separate. Councilmember Thurman stated it is not part of this motion her motion has been made and seconded and we have had much more than 2 minutes of discussion per person. Councilmember Lusk stated the only thing he will say is before the night is out he thinks we have got the commitment here. We are going to come up and formally say that we are going to have form or at least come up with a proposal on this is how we are going to do a public forum to gain community input including public safety so we take a look and we look at all factors when we do that. Mayor Lockwood stated he thinks we are getting off track so let us we have got a motion and a second is there any other discussion from anyone that has not spoken on this issue. Vote: The motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember Zahner Bailey voting in opposition. City Manager Bovos stated next change is in 26.1 subsection G we have two changes to discuss in that section, one dealing with minimum setbacks the second dealing with illumination, Councilmember Thurman if you would like to discuss that. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 65 of 102 Councilmember Thurman stated she believes we have already discussed most of this when we discussed the setback previously from 10 foot to 5 foot and asked if that was correct. Community Development Director Wilson stated other places we have left that at 10 feet from the public right of way. Councilmember Thurman stated then that will be fine. Community Development Director Wilson stated do you wish to make changes to this section. Councilmember Thurman replied no, she would like to be consistent so if that is what we have done in other places then let us leave it. City Manager Bovos stated Councilmember Zahner Bailey discussion on illumination. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated Section 26.1 T. Councilmember Thurman stated she had one for 26.1 J. City Manager Bovos stated go ahead with yours. Councilmember Thurman asked if it was section J? City Manager Bovos stated well he has M, he has got a J. Mayor Lockwood stated let us do it in alphabetical order let us do J first. Councilmember Thurman stated J, it says the length of the sign shall not exceed 6 times the height of the sign and she has got several examples of ones that are greater than the 6 times the height of the sign in historic areas. She believes that these need to be changed to 8 times or 10 times and she believes. Community Development Director Wilson stated we did it already. City Manager Bovos stated he has got an M from Councilmember Lusk window signs with neon, fluorescent or tube lights are prohibited. Councilmember O’Brien stated we have already discussed that. City Manager Bovos stated he has got and undefined and a T, so both of them from Councilmember Zahner Bailey. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated okay she will start with the 26.1 T on her page 35 it currently says monument signs may be either indirect or internally illuminated. Her suggestion would be that the signs need to be externally illuminated again that would be the premise of having monument signs and freestanding signs. Externally illuminated is more architecturally pleasing it is more in keeping with a goal of trying to improve the look of an area versus to continue with that which we have heard from citizens that say it is not so good looking. She would recommend that under Section 26.1 T that the language be changed to say, that the signs need to be externally illuminated, i.e. no internally lit signs. City Manager Bovos stated is that a motion. Motion and Second: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved that under Section 26.1 T that the language be changed to say, that the signs need to be externally illuminated, i.e. no internally lit signs. Councilmember Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 66 of 102 Lusk seconded the motion. Mayor Lockwood stated there is a motion and a second, is there any discussion. He further stated that he would like to ask Tom Wilson if he agrees that externally lit signs look a lot better, but he would like to ask the logistics of that of what the majority what exists now. Discussion on Motion: Community Development Director Wilson stated there are a lot of externally illuminated, there are a lot of internally illuminated and he does not know that one is any better than the other. Councilmember Lusk stated he believes Crabapple and Birmingham overlays have required externally. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and all the rest of the North Fulton overlay areas so the only area that does not require externally lit signs are Highway 9 which is the reason for her motion. She thinks we have a primary and a secondary motion on the floor. Vote: The motion passed unanimously for those present. Councilmember Thurman was not present for that vote. (6-0-1) City Manager Bovos stated the last section he has is Councilmember Zahner Bailey prohibited signs, signs placed within 24 inches and conflict with Section 26.3. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and we addressed this early on, but she just wants to make sure that we agreed early on that we would come back to this. This is specifically in the Birmingham overlay and expressly there are two sections one of which refers to the 24 feet from the window and yet the other section talks about the 5 feet. This is just a text amendment to ensure that those two are not in conflict and that it is consistent with the Crabapple which is 5 feet from the window. So her motion would be in order to make it consistent that the language be changed in that item D let us make sure that we have got the right page, and she apologized she did not have that page she believes it is Section D page 45 on her document, but item D under item 1 instead of saying signs placed within 24 and this is specifically in the Birmingham overlay that it would just be consistent with the earlier paragraph that says 5 feet from the window. That is her motion and it is just prior on item 8 Tom Wilson that it reflects the 5 feet so she was trying to make those two consistent. Community Development Director Wilson stated he was trying to find where it says 2-24 inches where was that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated subsection 26.3 item D under Prohibited Sign Types item 1 prohibited signs types it says “Lollypop signs, temporary signs, signs placed within 24 ft, that is supposed to read within 5 feet to be consistent with the prior page that expressly says any sign within 5 ft is also consistent with the definition we have already approved. Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to amend subsection 26.3 item D Prohibited Sign Types to reflect the distance 24 feet of an exterior window… to 5 feet of an exterior window. The motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember D’Aversa asked to revisit that issue. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated this is an amendment to the text that is in conflict to an existing overlay in the Birmingham area. She will restate the motion it is on page 45 it is section 26.3 Item D, Item 1 and it is simply to replace where it says signs placed within 24 feet because it is inconsistent with the prior page that says a window sign is within 5 ft. We cannot approve an ordinance that is inconsistent with its own language. That is my motion. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 67 of 102 Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to amend subsection 26.3 item D Prohibited Sign Types to reflect the distance 24 feet of an exterior window… to 5 feet of an exterior window. Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. Discussion on Motion: Mayor Lockwood asked Tom Wilson if he concurs with that. Community Development Director Wilson stated yes, that is fine. There was another place that that occurs in. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and earlier this evening we said that that would be cleaned up. Councilmember Lusk stated is that something that we can just have staff clean up? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would be happy to amend the motion that anywhere else that there was that inconsistent language if we could leave it to staff to ensure that it is consistent. Motion to Amend and Second: Councilmember Zahner Bailey amended her motion so that anywhere else that there was that inconsistent language staff would ensure to correct for consistency. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. Discussion on Amended Motion: Councilmember Mohrig stated he really has a problem with this portion of the code and thinks it is restrictive. He thinks it is onerous on retailers by restating that any sign within 5 feet of the window is considered a window sign. He thinks 2 feet is more reasonable and this impacts their retail space in the store. He thinks it is restrictive, and is somewhat of a restraint of trade. Mayor Lockwood stated as a Point of Order he thought we had voted and it passed, correct. Councilmember Thurman stated but we cannot vote without people having a chance to speak. Councilmember O’Brien stated we have a motion and a second on the floor let us revote. City Manager Bovos stated any other discussion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated her discussion point is this is consistent with the other overlays and this is simply to make it consistent. The Planning Commission also reaffirmed this, it is also what is in the Crabapple overlay, and this was always the intent because window signs are prohibited. Mayor Lockwood stated any other comments. Councilmember O’Brien stated yes this has always been a point of contention in the overlays. When he was on the Design Review Board that it was restricted and he will go on the record to say that he will maintain his position. Councilmember Thurman stated she guesses she needs a Point of Clarification on this. If somebody has a sign within 5 feet of the window that is clearly not for an advertising purpose, but for the purpose of a display that they might have there, is that prohibited. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated if the intent is to advertise as a window sign that is the prohibition. Councilmember Thurman stated no now that is not exactly what it says so that is why she is asking for a Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 68 of 102 Point of Clarification from staff because it does not say if it is just with an intent to be advertising. Community Development Director Wilson stated if you have a display selling Revlon hair products within 5 feet of a window facing outward it is a window sign by this definition. Councilmember Mohrig stated you may end up eliminating any other window signs that is going to reduce if you have got something that is visible from the street within 5 feet. Councilmember Thurman stated it basically says you can have no sign within 5 feet of a window. Councilmember O’Brien stated so a retailer would essentially lose the opportunity to… Community Development Director Wilson stated basically window signs are prohibited. Councilmember Thurman stated so you can have no signs within 5 feet of a window. Councilmember O’Brien stated and here we are talking just the Birmingham Crossing overlay. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is correct. Councilmember O’Brien stated that is the one we are discussing right now. Councilmember Lusk stated further comment if he may on that language it does not define whether it is on the interior side or the exterior side. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would be happy to amend the language to say and add something about if the intent of that sign is to create a window sign, which otherwise would be prohibited and that gives the intent the specifics that are needed. Community Development Director Wilson stated but that does not give staff enough direction to enforce this. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated her motion stands she leaves her motion on the floor. Councilmember Lusk stated he would like to defer to the City Attorney and possibly some comments on Sandy Springs ordinances to clean up their signage on their main thoroughfares. City Attorney Scott stated he was not sure he can comment on that and he does not have a lot of information on that. He knows that Sandy Springs has basically redone their entire sign ordinance and adopted essentially the same thing we did because they had problems, they were sued just as well as Fulton County was. He does not have any other information. Councilmember O’Brien stated he is struck by the fact that a large number of merchants have recently been establishing their businesses in Birmingham, and he is not sure that they perhaps have had the opportunity to be heard. It seems that this would be a very easy clean up item. We have had several issues that would probably be addressed in the very near future hopefully and he wonders if perhaps in the interest of fairness that we consider by voting against this we would defer it perhaps briefly so that those people could be heard, and we could make sure that we are fair as we exercise in this role. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that her motion stands. Mayor Lockwood state we have a motion and a second, anymore discussion, and called for vote. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 69 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated it was intended to clean up the text of this document in keeping with 10 years of the overlay that has been in place. Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey amended her motion so that anywhere else that there was that inconsistent language staff would ensure to correct for consistency. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed 4-3, with Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Lusk and Councilmember O’Brien voting in opposition. City Manager Bovos stated Mayor and Council your next changes are in Section 26.2 we have three in Section A all from the Councilmember Thurman. Councilmember Thurman can you please explain your first. Councilmember Thurman stated and to that she would like to add sign structures should be constructed of wood, brick or stone or other materials that have the appearance of wood or stone just so that we could allow some of the materials that have the appearance of wood, but last much longer than wood and require a lot less upkeep than wood, so she would like to add other materials that has the appearance of wood or stone. Community Development Director Wilson stated you want to add that to what Section A (1) (c). Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend Section 26.2 section A (1) (c) to include or materials that look like wood that lasts longer and require less upkeep than wood. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. Discussion on Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she would just ask for consistency if Councilperson Thurman would consider including at the discretion of the Community Development Director. She believes that elsewhere where we discussed this we included that language to make sure that nothing that was unintended is made allowable. Councilmember Thurman stated she would be glad to add as approved by the Community Development Director. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated Tom Wilson did you confirm that that would be consistent with the other language. Community Development Director Wilson stated actually consistent with D below that about the sign face. Motion to Amend and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend Section 26.2 section A (1) (c) to include or materials that look like wood that lasts longer and require less upkeep than wood. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Thurman stated the next one she thinks we have already taken care of prior and that was just a question concerning measuring and then the last one was a (4) (B) and (C) that says the maximum size shall be 16 square feet. Councilmember Mohrig stated could you repeat the location again. Councilmember Thurman stated it is 26.2 A(4)(B) and (C) and her question here is if we are only allowing only having and C says each residential development may have a maximum of one sign per entrance. Once again, she is worried about a safety issue if you do not have a divided center there so you Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 70 of 102 only have the residential sign from one side of the entrance how will people coming from the other direction going to see the sign. She would like to say that each residential development may have two signs per entrance with an overall maximum of 24 sq ft per entrance with no sign greater than 16 sq ft, so you could either have two 12 sq ft or one 16 sq ft. Mayor Lockwood stated could you clarify that please. Councilmember Thurman stated each residential development may have a maximum of two signs per entrance with an overall maximum square footage of 24 square feet per entrance with no sign greater than 16 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so the total not per item, if you had two they would be 12 each. Councilmember Thurman stated so two 12 sq ft or one 16 sq ft. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated because the written language is not quite as expressed as what you just described. Mayor Lockwood stated if you want to make a motion we can… Councilmember Thurman stated Tom Wilson can clean up the wording however it needs to be as long as the intent is either one 16 sq ft or two 12 sq ft. Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend the text in section 26.2 A (4) (B) and (C) to state that either one 16 sq ft or two 12 sq ft signs with staff ensuring that the wording meets the intent. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. Discussion on Motion: Community Development Director Wilson stated he wanted to be clear about what we are changing on this document. If we are going to do he thinks what he heard Councilmember Thurman say, we would eliminate B in its entirety and C would say each residential development may have a maximum of two signs per entrance with an overall maximum of 24 sq ft with no single sign being greater than 16 sq ft, does that mean you could then have a 8 sq ft on one side and a 16 sq ft on the other? Councilmember Thurman stated yes, she does not know why anyone would be but she guessed you could. Councilmember Mohrig stated are you suggesting that you add verbiage to make sure that the signs are equal on both sides. Community Development Director Wilson stated he is not suggesting that and is just wanting to be sure, maybe you have a 16 sq ft on one side that says the name of the subdivision and then you got an 8 ft on the other side that says lots for sale. Mayor Lockwood stated yes he thinks that could be at the discretion of the developer. Community Development Director Wilson stated okay then he understands her motion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she has a question thinking about Six Hills as an example where you have one entrance that is not divided and they have one attractive freestanding sign that is just north of the overlay, but that is Crabapple rather than… Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 71 of 102 Mayor Lockwood stated can he ask a question to that rather than the sign he guessed that would count as two sides theirs is two sided. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated but the maximum has to be the 16 and if the premise is that we are not going to change Highway 9 overlay with a lot more input she would say that the Crabapple overlay has not had… Councilmember Thurman stated the Crabapple overlay allowed two signs per entrance. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated but the maximum size is 16 sq ft. Mayor Lockwood stated can you confirm what we are changing here Mr. Wilson. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she is unclear about the differentiation between what it was and what was… Community Development Director Wilson stated on December 21, 2006 we allowed two signs for subdivision entrance. During our discussion during the work session, he thought he understood you to say that you were leaning toward a single sign. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and what was it historically before December 21. Community Development Director Wilson replied two. Mayor Lockwood stated and what were their sizes. Community Development Director Wilson stated 32. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and she thinks what we started to talk about was that instead of the intent of being 16 total that if you could allow for two at 16 it was too much signage, is that correct, and is that why we are headed now towards… Councilmember Thurman stated right now she is heading, instead of doing what we originally had which was two 16 sq. ft, now we are allowed to have either one 16 sq ft, or two 12 sq ft. Councilmember Mohrig stated is that why we want to state it so a maximum of 24 but then you keep it no greater than 12 sq ft per sign. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated correct. Community Development Director Wilson stated well then he would like to rewrite this to say that each entrance may have either one 12 square foot sign on either side of the entrance or a single 16 square foot sign. Councilmember Thurman stated that is fine. Mayor Lockwood stated no he does not think that is keeping in our desire to slowly come down on signs, we had that motion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was sorry, one more question is that consistent with the original Crabapple overlay in terms of the total maximum size for the residential. Councilmember Thurman stated total was 32. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 72 of 102 Community Development Director Wilson stated no he thinks it is less than… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated no it was less than, in Crabapple it was less than and 32 is in Highway 9, but she wants to make sure that the total maximum allowable has not just gone up and she does not think it has but she is just wanting to clarify. Community Development Director Wilson stated he thinks it went down. Mayor Lockwood stated we have a motion do we have a second. Anymore discussion? Restated Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to amend the text in section 26.2 A (4) (B) and (C) to state that either one 16 sq ft or two 12 sq ft signs with staff ensuring that the wording meets the intent. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Thurman stated her last item was dealing with the sandwich signs in the historic areas. Community Development Director Wilson stated it was suggested that we study that for a little bit and then come back to you with the recommendation. Councilmember Thurman stated she would stand with that on this one too. City Manager Bovos stated he had no more submitted changes from the Council. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated you said there are no other ones? City Manager Bovos stated not that have been submitted. Mayor Lockwood stated we have to pass a motion to approve all those changes. City Clerk Marchiafava stated this is a motion to approve the text amendments to the sign ordinance as amended. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the text amendments to the Sign Ordinance as amended. Councilmember Thurman seconded. There was no Council discussion. The motion is passed unanimously. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated a question to our City Attorney are we under obligation to go forward with unfinished business that was the first reading on April 12 this evening? Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that she thinks that this one is all tied together, all the amendments to the text. City Attorney Scott stated yes, you are talking about the rest of the zoning items. Councilmember Lusk stated no she was talking about the rest of the agenda. Councilmember D’Aversa stated her question is about the unfinished business on the rest of our agenda. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated her question is how late are we going to go tonight. City Attorney Scott stated it occurs to him that those items probably will not take very much time. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 73 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated the noise ordinance? City Attorney Scott stated well the noise ordinance will. Councilmember D’Aversa stated she just has to say for the record that making decisions on matters of these legal matters after 12 o’clock midnight after a full day’s work after five hours on one particular ordinance in her opinion is unacceptable. Councilmember Mohrig stated in looking over the agenda he thinks there is one item we have got to get a noise ordinance in place because we do not meet until after the police are deployed. If we do not do it tonight, we are going to be open for a noise ordinance. Mayor Lockwood stated let us move forward and try to be as efficient as we can. Councilmember D’Aversa stated we might consider having meetings once a week then. Councilmember O’Brien stated at the very least he thinks out of respect for the people that have been five hours waiting if they were not going to get their items heard it is incredibly disrespectful to them to have had them camped out and waiting for this long and then decide we are out of gas and that is another endorsement why we need to be… Mayor Lockwood called for order. City Clerk Marchiafava stated she thinks Community Development staff has not completed the zoning agenda. City Manager Bovos stated correct so please move forward. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated we gave them maps to replace the old one. Community Development Director Wilson stated can we have a motion to replace the maps in the document that is before you. Motion and Second: Councilmember Mohrig moved to replace the maps in the Sign Ordinance. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. Discussion on Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she has one question for Ms. MacDonald, does this reflect the 27.1 acres in the specific parcels. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated it represents 27.1 acres. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and are we clear that they are parcel specific. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated whatever parcels are there she feels comfortable with those parcels. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she did not have any evidence that this ties to the specific parcels so if there is away that we can make a motion that if this map is approved with the intent of that 27.1 and that beyond this evening that staff just as part of the clarification will tie this parcel specific locations. Community Development Director Wilson stated we have to tie it to the legal description. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 74 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that would be fine. She just wants to make sure that beyond a picture we have documentation that corresponds to the 27.1 bi-quadrant bi-parcel. Community Development Director Wilson stated we have a legal description. City Attorney Scott stated the legal description will take precedent over the map anyway. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she just wanted to make sure it was attached. Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Bovos stated anything else. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated yes we have overlay. Article 12 G which is State Route 9 Overlay District, she will just overview the basics it says that we are inserting Highway 9 allowing it to go into the Design Review Board and then we have cleaned up different items, changed resolutions to ordinance. Basically, six things so that it is in the overlay district and that is the gist of the document. Councilmember Mohrig stated and we can get opinion of the Design Review Board. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated yes and that is what she meant the Design Review Board has been inserted as part of the review process. Also that it covers everything except for single-family detached dwelling units on State Route 9 so it will only cover everything else except for single-family detached. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated Ms. MacDonald is this where we had the question about that single family with regards to the DRB as it relates… Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that is incorrect. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated okay thank you. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated you will also insert that Highway 9 map into this 12G. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated can she ask a quick question of clarity since Crabapple and Birmingham are going to have this question. If the intent of the Highway 9 Overlay in a mixed use development is to have the DRB review it and if a component of that mixed use were to involve town homes and let us say there was a mixed use that was going to be office retail and then some either over retail, residential and/or town homes was in it would the language that you just mentioned preclude that portion of the mixed use from being reviewed by the DRB in that overlay. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated as long as they were attached town homes or flats they would be reviewed but if single-family detached would not be reviewed as this stands. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she is going to go ahead and make this comment now so that the Mayor and Council understands where her question is coming from within Crabapple and Birmingham the DRB had always been intended to review mixed use development because you have retail office and then obviously that residential component. The idea was never to disassociate a residential component if it was within a mixed use because tonight by adding the DRB to the Highway 9 area. She just wants to make sure that we are all thinking that through and that it could be a situation in a mixed use district on Highway 9 whereby we would want the DRB to review that component of it. Councilmember Mohrig stated he guessed he would add that into the motion we are crafting also. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 75 of 102 Planner Robyn MacDonald stated so you would want the DRB to review single-family detached when it is within a MIX district and based upon some of the unique single-family detached that we have seen go up recently to include mixed use also. Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked would there be any other categories other than mixed use in which that same intent would need to be conveyed other than mixed use. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated she did not believe so. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated then her motion would be perhaps that for this overlay, but then for all of them under the DRB standard that any nonresidential development is reviewed by the DRB and any single-family that is within a mixed use district within any one of those overlays, Birmingham, Crabapple and/or Highway 9 would be reviewed by the DRB, does that capture it? Planner Robyn MacDonald stated she believes so. Mayor Lockwood stated before we vote are we voting on this one. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is my motion. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated so can she clarify that we voted for Highway 9, Crabapple and Birmingham? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that would be her motion assuming that we can do that as a point of order and cover it one time versus three separate times. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that she needed to make a point that in Birmingham that is not before us at all because we had made no changes so the Birmingham overlay district did is not before you tonight. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated it will be this and Crabapple, thank you for that. Mayor Lockwood stated he thinks he has a second. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to amend Highway 9 and Crabapple overlay districts that for the DRB standard that any nonresidential development is reviewed by the DRB and any single-family that is within a mixed use district within any one of those overlays, Birmingham, Crabapple and/or Highway 9 would be reviewed by the DRB. Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated the second item is Article 12H Northwest Fulton Overlay District. We have also changed the map because we wanted to cover the newly annexed areas along Arnold Mill and Cox Road so we can ensure they are being within the Northwest Overlay District so the new map applies. Also at first we were going to change the name of the DRB or this overlay district to Milton but we realized that that would cover Highway 9 and that would inappropriate so we kept the same Northwest Fulton Overlay District name throughout and then again just six items like resolution and county to Milton just cleaning up the document and then also in this item the way it is written, it says except for single-family residential land uses and/or dwelling units, but we would change it as you had made the motion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so the neighborhood activity on Arnold Mill as that would evolve that same language would apply to that or that would apply generically to this overlay? Planner Robyn MacDonald stated if we referenced the Northwest, yes in that previous motion. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 76 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated does she need to make a motion to that effect? Planner Robyn MacDonald stated she thinks it was covered prior, so she guessed just a motion to approve these changes. Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the noted changes to Article 12H Northwest Fulton Overlay District. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. Discussion on Motion: Councilmember Thurman stated as a point of discussion it is her understanding that the bill did pass the Senate today for the newly annexed area so it will hopefully officially be part of Milton within 30 days. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and we have got a map to prove it now. Councilmember Thurman stated and they will part of the Northwest Fulton Overlay. Mayor Lockwood asked if there was anymore discussion. Councilmember O’Brien stated quick question, this is our overlay correct. Can we name it anything we want? Planner Robyn MacDonald stated yes but it would not include Highway 9. Councilmember O’Brien stated could we perhaps, not necessarily tonight but at some date, consider touching this up and calling it the Hopewell Overlay or something that has historical significance to Milton and also de-links from Fulton for subsequent purposes? Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated the last item is Article 12H1, Crabapple Crossroads of the Northwest Fulton Overlay District, again just cleaning up items within as well as changing or fixing the map with any kind of inconsistencies there were and then under Design Review Board we had stated except that they would cover, shall review all plans for development except detached single family residential but he believes that we have fixed that again under that previous motion to just allow it to cover MIX for single- family. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so you are confirming what that earlier motion covers. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated just understand that this way if there are other single-family detached residences like down Charlotte or some other area that is not a part of a mixed use they can do whatever they want to within, actually still the standards will not go before the Design Review Board. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated correct. Councilmember Thurman stated it looks like to her that we did not make a change on the trees and the landscape strips to a maximum distance to every 20 feet from 30 feet, which is on A(2) and her question was is that at the recommendation of the arborist or… Planner Robyn MacDonald asked which section? Councilmember Thurman stated 12H.3, .1(a) (2). It says trees shall be planted in the center of the landscape strip at a maximum distance of every 20 feet and it looked like it had been 30 feet. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 77 of 102 Community Development Director Wilson stated 12H3(a). Councilmember Lusk stated 12H (2) (1) (a) (2). Councilmember Thurman stated she just wanted to make sure that that was something that the arborist was in support of. Councilmember Thurman stated under Landscapes and landscape strips, Northwest Fulton Overlay, her question was just strictly is that something that the arborist has given us his blessing on… Planner Robyn MacDonald stated you are looking at Northwest Overlay correct? We were looking at Crabapple that is why we could never find it because did we not already approve Northwest. Councilmember Thurman stated but she did not think we had mentioned that this had been a change to it and she wanted to make sure if we were making a change to it... Planner Robyn MacDonald stated it was made during a Planning Commission meeting and she is not sure why it was. Councilmember Thurman stated then her only question would be is this something that the arborist is comfortable with because she just wants to make sure that if he is fine with it and then she is perfectly fine with it. Community Development Director Wilson stated it is denser than it was. Councilmember Thurman stated she just wants to make sure this…certain trees you cannot plant 20 feet apart or else they are going to be on top of each other…too close together for certain kinds of trees so just wants to make sure that the arborist has approved this. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated he would have to review this anyway… Mayor Lockwood stated is that something that he actually reviewed and if not can you confirm that and we can always make an amendment. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated well her only point would be that if something comes forward and if Mark Law felt that they were too close, he could then make that recommendation and the Design Review Board could make a recommendation that that particular specimen tree was too close so. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated they would have to go for a variance. Councilmember Thurman stated they would have to get a variance and what she is just saying is she does not want to make changes to landscaping things without the arborist having looked at them. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated he was here, she did not remember why, she thinks there was a good reason why but to be honest she cannot remember. City Manager Bovos stated did Mark Law look at it though. Did Mark look at the change. Councilmember Thurman stated she would think that we would want the arborist to look at any kind of changes we made to anything that dealt with landscaping. Community Development Director Wilson stated he was not sure that he did. He would recommend that you do not make that change. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 78 of 102 Councilmember Thurman stated you would recommend that we do not make that change until he looks at it, if he likes it then we will make it in three weeks. Community Development Director Wilson stated yes. Councilmember Thurman stated okay. Then what do we need to do to do what you are recommending. City Manager Bovos stated was that passed already? Planner Robyn MacDonald stated yes it was Northwest we already got through that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated may she make a suggestion if we have already passed a motion can we simply deal with Mark, talk to Mark if he has an issue with it we can reverse it back so we have already got a motion that has been approved legally and that we will all agree as professional adults that we will talk to Mark Law after today and make sure that he is comfortable. Mayor Lockwood stated he will take care of that. Councilmember Thurman stated but she wants to make sure we are not approving things because that was not mentioned when we were approving it that we were making that change it was just clerical changes we were making. Now we find out we were not just making clerical changes and we were actually making other changes so she wants to be careful with that. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated but she thinks we were talking about Crabapple at the time were we not, that is why we got so confused. City Attorney Scott stated his only question is does somebody think they need to do a motion to reconsider? Councilmember Thurman stated she is fine for letting it go as it is. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated she will check will Mark Law and will talk to him tomorrow, so basically she was explaining the Crabapple change so again allowing currently as it reads now it is excluding all single-family detached, but the other motion and approval was to change it to include single- family detached when it is within a MIX district. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated just a point of clarity, that was detached or attached or attached was already covered. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated okay thank you. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated and that is it for this. Mayor Lockwood stated Councilmember Lusk. Councilmember Lusk stated are we through with this issue one point of information. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated she was finished with that. Mayor Lockwood asked if we need a motion. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 79 of 102 Planner Robyn MacDonald stated yes, please unless you had a question. Councilmember Lusk stated not concerning this. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to accept the changes to maps to Article 12H (1), Crabapple Crossroads of the Northwest Fulton Overlay District. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion . There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lusk asked are we through with this. City Clerk Marchiafava stated yes. Councilmember Lusk stated on page 85 of 265 where it references the Design Review Board, is this language consistent with what we have here on the maps, the City of Milton Overlay District Design Review Board? Community Development Director Wilson stated we changed the name of the Design Review Board from the Northwest Fulton Overlay District Design Review Board to the City of Milton Design Review Board. City Attorney Scott stated that makes it generic for all the overlays right. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and the overlays separately are named. Mayor Lockwood stated that concludes our zoning agenda moving on to our first presentation will the clerk please sound the next agenda item. FIRST PRESENTATION 1. Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11, Business Licensing, of the Code of Ordinances. 2. Approval of an Ordinance Establishing Mayor and City Council Committees of the City of Milton. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the First presentation items listed above. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Lockwood stated moving on to unfinished business will the city clerk please sound the next item. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Offenses and Violations, Article 2, False Alarms, of the Code of Ordinances to the City of Milton, Georgia. Ordinance No. 07-04-23 City Treasurer Wolfe stated Mayor and Council the recommendation before you tonight is to approve the revisions to Chapter 12, Article 2, Code of Ordinances relating to False Alarms on the initial approval of this ordinance back in November, since then we have put processes in place and in reviewing the ordinance we just have some clarifications to make in the document throughout the Ordinance we have replaced the word “burglar alarm” to monitored alarm systems to allow for the enforcement of both false alarms for criminal and fire emergency calls. We have made some minor changes clarifying the registration process moving that from the Public Safety Department to the City Treasurer Department and reference a fee schedule in the Ordinance instead of a fee itself in the Ordinance. Those are the changes that we recommend your approval for tonight. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 80 of 102 Mayor Lockwood stated is there any public comment on this item? City Clerk Marchiafava stated she has received no public comment sir. Mayor Lockwood stated does he have a motion and a second. Motion and Second: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve an Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Offenses and Violations, Article 2, False Alarms, of the Code of Ordinances to the City of Milton, Georgia. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. Mayor Lockwood stated we have a motion to approve an Ordinance to approve and Ordinance to amending Chapter 12, Offenses and Violations, Article 2, False Alarms, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Milton, Georgia. Is there any discussion? Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she just wanted to ask a quick question. She wants to make sure she is reading correctly on Page 3 of 27 under the Alcohol related offenses. Her question was just where it references the 100 feet of any retail store from an alcoholic beverage that was a very timely pickup, that was good comic relief thank you, you could not have planned it any better, she just wanted to make sure that that is not a change that that 100 feet of alcohol related offenses… City Manager Bovos stated that is correct, no change. Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Lockwood stated will the City Clerk please sound the next item. City Clerk Marchiafava read the next item. Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10, Taxation, Article 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Milton, Georgia. Ordinance No.07-04-24 City Treasurer Wolfe stated again Mayor and Council the recommendation is just to approve minor revisions to Chapter 10 regarding taxation, it is just a further clarification of the State statute defining the State Statute specifically on pages 3 and 5 as 48-13-51(a)(1). Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the Ordinance Amending Chapter 10, Taxation, Article 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Milton, Georgia. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Marchiafava read the next item. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 6, Ethics and Standards of Conduct, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances. Ordinance No. 07-04-26 City Manager Bovos stated changes to the Ethics and Standards of Conduct really equate to matching the ordinance that created the committee with the actual ordinance itself. Three changes, the first in Section A, in reference to a five member board in the ordinance has been changed to reflect a seven member board which was created. We also deleted the verbiage associated with two alternates. Section C we added language requiring members to live in the electoral district from which they were nominated. In Section A, we changed the terms of the members to equal the terms of the elected official who nominated the member, will be happy to answer any questions. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 81 of 102 Mayor Lockwood stated is there any public comment. City Clerk Marchiafava stated no sir. Mayor Lockwood asked if we have a motion and a second. Motion and Vote: Councilmember O’Brien moved to approve the Ordinance Amending Chapter 6, Ethics and Standards of Conduct, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Marchiafava read the next item. An Ordinance Establishing Noise Control within the City of Milton, Georgia. Ordinance No. 07-04-27 Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated Mayor and Council just very quickly he will touch on the major concepts of the Noise Ordinance and then look for public comment which he thinks there is some and then hear a discussion. The Noise Ordinance comes to you this week the same as it did at the last Council meeting with the idea that likely some of the things would change and we would do those tonight by your amendment here in the meeting. We have proposed a measured noise ordinance, as well as an apparent noise ordinance that has both components, speaks to exemptions and then a variance process and without going through it line by line he thinks we have spent several meetings doing that so that having been said he is happy to answer any questions that we might get to as we discuss the sections independently. Mayor Lockwood stated he has had several requests for Council to take a break. Can we get a motion to take a break? Five Minute Break: Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood moved for a 5-minute break. Councilmember Thurman seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting Reconvened: Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood moved to reconvene the meeting. Councilmember Thurman seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Lockwood stated we are at public comment. City Clerk Marchiafava stated Mr. Cramer has a handout and we went to make a couple of more copies. Could you state your name and address for the record. Joe Cramer,125 Winstead Court, City of Milton, stated he was here before you several months ago to talk about the then proposed noise ordinance and at that time he urged the Council not to consider any exemptions to any ordinance that would be passed for noise. He shared with you a sound study that he had done on his own with a certified sound engineer of sounds emanating from the stadium at Milton High School and that study shows noise levels reaching 86 decibels on the night of a football game commonly around 75 decibels. Since that time, he knows the proposal has gone through some changes and he understands now there is an exemption proposed for school and that exemption would allow noises to reach 75 decibels. What he has given you here is a further submission by the sound engineer which kind of explains what the 75 decibels mean and you can see down this first page 75 decibels is in some cases is akin to a vacuum cleaner noise from 10 feet, a food blender from 3 feet and he wants the Council to imagine what it is like sitting on his back patio trying to have a nice quiet evening with his wife on a spring day and then having the noise of the vacuum cleaner sound off right next to us as we try to have a Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 82 of 102 conversation, that is what 75 decibels is coming from that stadium. On the second page there is another chart that gives you and idea of other types of sound. If you look on the left hand side of that page it shows the decibel levels and you will see the decibel levels between 7 and 8. If you go to the right hand side of the page it gives you the general type of community environment for those decibel readings and you will see for decibels between 70 and 80 it is a major metropolitan area during the daytime and he can assure you 15 years ago when he bought that house in Nelson he did not plan to be living in a major metropolitan area during the daytime in terms of noise. The problems with the sound coming from the school are the sound system and it is the fault of the Board of Education because they will not fix it and you as a City Council should not reward their failure to do that by giving them exemption and he urges Council not to do that. Thank you. Paul Moore, 15291 Columns Drive, Milton, Georgia stated he would just like to make three comments this evening. First, he is really disappointed that at this hour we are addressing an ordinance of this significance. He thinks it has really been a disservice to the community who did assemble here this evening with the intention of hearing something that was important and it is this late in the agenda; he thinks it should have been moved to another meeting. Second, he would like to ask that Council reconsider, he thinks that the Noise Ordinance originally had addressed a 7:30 start time for raised decibels it has now been moved he thinks to 7 a.m. and he encourages Council to reconsider that and move it back to 7:30 and lastly he is in opposition to what was shared a moment ago let us not let the feelings of a couple of community members who are close to the high school impose their restrictions on the lives of thousands of children who are going to pass through that school now and in the future; let kids be kids, let sports be sports, let band be band and let that be part of the growth experience that our youth of Milton can enjoy here and let that be the wish of the greater community rather than those who happen to be nearby. Thank you. City Clerk Marchiafava asked if Bob Delbridge were present. Unknown person stated he would like to give a comment if he can because of the hour he told me what his comments were and asked that he just briefly explain to Council what they were when this part of the meeting came up. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was sorry who is this? Unknown person stated Robert Dellbridge is the name, he is the owner of a company called 404-Cut-Tree and regularly conducts business in the City of Milton by removing trees. His concern was that our ordinance in no capacity would allow for a professional tree removal company to operate in the City of Milton and in looking through it he thinks he can kind of see where he had a point. His recommendation and he will read to you what it was would be to change Section 7(A)(1) to read, from sounds originating from residential property relating to homeowner sponsored temporary projects for the maintenance and repair, etc. To change that paragraph to read sound originating from property originating from owner sponsored temporary projects for the maintenance and repair of existing homes and grounds, including but not limited to lawnmowers, saws, hammering and gardening, this exemption applies to the construction of such incidental there you go he would have never gotten that out at 1:00 in the morning for existing homes or fences, decks, patios, carports, swimming pools, ponds, walkways, private kennels and for commercial tree removal so that he would be able to have an exemption for an owner sponsored event if a tree needed to be removed just as a matter of practice and those were his comments. City Clerk Marchiafava asked if Peter Folger was present. Jim Lomenick asked if his comments could be read into the record. James Lomenick comments were read into the record: How was the 65 decibel limit arrived at there are basic outdoor appliances with higher decibels than that such as lawnmowers? Others with same or higher decibels, chainsaws, leaf blowers, weed eaters, and even an alarm clock and motorcycle, he would propose Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 83 of 102 postponing this vote until the next meeting when he and others can bring in the aforementioned items and or others with a decibel reading meter on hand to measure the decibel level and then be able to make a more informed decision on an acceptable decibel level to be set as the law in our fair city. Such a test on actual machines used outdoors is reasonable and a matter of common sense. , Respectfully submitted James Lomenick. City Clerk Marchiafava stated for the record some people did turn in a card and wrote their comments on the back. Peter Folger, 545 The Hermitage Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004, comments were read into the record. As published in the Atlanta Journal an allowed limit of 65 decibels daytime and 65 decibels nightly has been opposed in the pending Noise Ordinance, he is concerned that the hard limit of 65 decibels day and 65 decibels night may be set too low, questions that he has are: 1. What noise studies were conducted to arrive at the proposed limit? 2. What consideration was given to everyday living? 3. What level of enforcement will the City of Milton use with this ordinance? With some brief research on the Internet he was able to gather a short list of various sounds, their decibel levels, all of which exceed the proposed limit some examples are: 1. Normal conversation two people – 60 decibels. 2. Normal car – 70 decibels. 3. Lawnmower – 90 decibels. 4. Leaf blower - 102 decibels. 5. Cell phone or phone - 80 decibels. 6. Children playing in neighborhood – 90 to 120 decibels. These are all in violation of the proposed 65 decibel limit, all he is trying to say is that he feels the proposed hard limit is excessive and that further consideration be given to arrive at a more reasonable decibel limit that takes into consideration normal everyday living. City Manager Bovos stated next public comment is from Debbie Johnson 770 Colonial Lane; she would like to see appropriate measures provided to allow school activities for example sporting events and our marching band noise to be excluded from these restrictions. City Clerk Marchiafava stated that completes the public comment. Mayor Lockwood asked if we have a motion and a second? Motion and Second: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve an ordinance to establish the noise control within the City of Milton, Georgia. Councilmember Lusk seconded. Mayor Lockwood asked if there is discussion. Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember O’Brien stated he had a couple of amendments he would suggest if he may and he thinks he has provided Council with some of the suggestions if he may run through it. He invited consideration if this is the appropriate meter to approach this. On page 2, does everyone have this? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated sorry Councilmember O’Brien your changes or the original. Councilmember O’Brien stated and he wanted to for the few that have remained with us. In Section 3 under unlawful sounds, he would suggest just a couple of minor changes. It is unlawful for any person to cause sound or for any reason in possession of property to permit sound originating from such property and he would welcome the assistance of the City Attorney on this, such property or/including vehicles, so such property including vehicles to intrude into the real property or vehicle of another person, so he just wanted Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 84 of 102 to include the vehicle option into that and if he may he will just continue down. On the next page under Section 6, exemptions consistent with the Sandy Springs Ordinance… City Manager Bovos stated no he just wanted to see if they wanted to take these one at a time or you wanted all of them together. Councilmember O’Brien stated his guess is that there was a little bit of conversation, sorry Mr. Mayor. Mayor Lockwood stated no he was going to ask Chris Lagerbloom if he had a chance to review these changes. Public Safety Chris Lagerbloom stated he has had a chance just as the meeting started tonight to review them and we could do them either way. He would be happy to comment on them one at a time or we can do them collectively. Initially his thought would be this first one in Section 3, certainly would fit in the City Ordinance the sound that is received and/or made from a vehicle is a thing that is covered in State law so we will be double covering by putting it here so that is covered elsewhere and it will simply be up to you if you want us to cover it as well. Councilmember O’Brien stated he thinks several of the suggested changes, and there are not that many, that he would offer would reflect some of the input from our friends that are here with us. He has had a few conversations with other members of the Council so if it is perhaps expedient to do it this way, he would just press through this and then he would be finished for his input. Section 6 Exemptions, under D consistent with Sandy Springs he would just add the word church, sounds created by church bells, chimes or car alarms not operating for more than 5-minutes in any one hour. They reflected it for religious services and that sort of thing, but he thinks that it would serve the double purpose. He is a believer in buying into already vetted processes like theirs. They spent a lot of time on their ordinance, but also he thinks some people are troubled by the occasional neighbor who has 25 wind chimes on their back porch and that can be a nuisance if you do not enjoy that sound, so this would prevent the allowance of bells and chimes that are not really probably consistent with that ordinance at any rate. Under C, he would like to just clean that up to sounds originating from aircraft and watercraft and really that is just a simple catch all for he believes the intention of the previous article. Continuing down under Paragraph I, he would suggest that we just delete sounds produced as a result of construction activities because he believes that it may be at odds with the subsequent coverage of that, which he would go into. Section 7, we talked about sounds exempt during daytime hours, which essentially identifies daytime to 7 am to 10 pm and under Paragraph 1, sounds originating from residential property. He added a couple of phrases, this exemption applies to construction and he would like to add, including but not limited to and then we go into incidental pertinences for existing homes, fences, back patios, carports, etc., but also add he thinks any area such as Milton it is foreseeable that someone might want to add a small barn on their residence for personal use. He would suggest that we might add and barns for private use of the subject homeowner and he would welcome a suggestion if it is appropriate for the owner sponsor tree removal in consideration of the gentleman if that is considered reasonable. Continuing down, Paragraph B, he would suggest that we delete the term “temporary” because he thinks that offers a possibility of confusion so sounds originating from construction sites but adding the phrase under permit implying that that is a permitted site such as a construction of a home and that sort of thing, which seems to be the subject of considerable input from citizens that he has seen. Then, as a result of construction activity, add in the phrase “or commercial lawn maintenance would be exempt from the provisions of this chapter but only during the hours of and he would ask that we change it to 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays that would be consistent with Mr. Moore’s desires and certainly others including myself. Councilmember Thurman asked Councilmember O’Brien would this be an appropriate place to put the tree service here because she does not want trees being cut down at 10 o’clock at night. She asked could we add tree cutting, commercial lawn maintenance and tree removal, yeah, she would rather trees be between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. rather than 7:00 a. m. and 10:00 p.m. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 85 of 102 Councilmember O’Brien stated he would agree. Planner Robyn MacDonald stated permitted tree removal? Councilmember Thurman stated she did not think they have to get a permit. Councilmember O’Brien stated sounds originating from construction sites under permit or commercial lawn maintenance and tree removal so construction activity, or commercial lawn maintenance, and tree removal are exempt from the provisions, etc. at 7:30 a.m. by 7:30 p.m., which is consistent with Sandy Springs and it is he thinks consistent with the desires of the community, 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. rather than it was written at 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Skipping down Paragraph D, again consistent with both the needs of schools and so forth as well as some concerns in the community, and as we continue to build schools they will impact White Columns and other community nodes, he would offer that we consider that Paragraph D read as natural, un-amplified sounds emanating from a league school or church sponsored sporting or recreational event shall be exempt so long as they do not exceed 70 decibels exclusive of the playing or reproduction of the National Anthem. Councilmember Thurman stated that may need to be a little reworded because to me it says that you cannot play the National Anthem at 70 decibels. Councilmember O’Brien stated what he is trying to say it that it does not matter how loud the National Anthem is. Councilmember Thurman stated she thinks she knows what he is saying, but she thinks we may need to change the wording just a little when we get to that point. Councilmember O’Brien stated and he will move to Section 8 Variances, he tried to rework this just a little bit again indifference to without specifically targeting any one body, but really it is geared for Milton. We talk about the variance process and he would suggest that we rework it slightly to sound like this, variances shall be processed in the following manner: Variances will be requested subject to notice mailed to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the property line and application a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to commencement at the event. The City Manager may grant no more than two administrative variances during any six month period or no more than two consecutive days in those cases where unplanned, unusual, and so forth, that does not change. Variances shall be applied for and granted in advance, any period of violation is deducted. Then he again said the City Manager may grant no more than one administrative variance of longer than two days, but no longer than seven days during any six month period pursuant to this section, notice and so forth is the same and he added as such two to seven day variance will substitute in lieu of one two day variance as described above. Then he suggested that we add another category which would be the City Manager or their designee may grant no more than five administrative variances of one day during any rolling six month period pursuant to this section. Notice shall be mailed and so forth, such variances will substitute in lieu of variances described above and Subparagraph 5, therefore, the total variances available to an applicant in any rolling six month period shall consist of two 2-day, one 2-day and one 2-7-day or up to five 1-day periods in any application processes and so forth were the same. What he envisioned is a variety of methods by which people could seek relief from the Noise Ordinance and in so doing could accommodate a variety of activities and he thinks that it would fairly respond to some of the concerns that have been noted and the last item that he added hopefully not inconsistent with Chapter 1, Article 3 and so forth would be violations of a continuing nature each day during which it occurs shall constitute an additional separate and distinct offense, is that already reflected or would that be useful? Community Development Director Wilson stated that is useful. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 86 of 102 Councilmember O’Brien stated and he yields the floor. Motion and Second: Councilmember O’Brien moved to adopt the changes as briefed as an amendment to the motion. Councilmember Thurman seconded for discussion purposes. Discussion on Amended Motion: Mayor Lockwood stated he would like to make one comment and he certainly thinks he agrees with the majority of the changes and commends Councilmember O’Brien for doing that, but his concern is the Public Safety Director has been working on this for a long time and if he just got these. He does not know if he has had had time to digest them and he would hate to just approve something quick that might affect something later, so that is his comment. Public Safety Chris Lagerbloom stated he does have a couple of questions based on that and then maybe more or less just a statement. He would like to go to Section 6, letter I, which is recommended to delete, which is sounds produced as a result of construction activities. He is fairly certain that we need to keep that in this ordinance and the reason behind that is if we do not exempt them from the previous section, which is the decibel level we would be expecting at all times that construction would be done at 55 or 70 decibels, which just frankly is not possible and by not exempting them from the decibel and then controlling them by time, he thinks is more appropriate. We in essence would be saying that we just do not want construction to occur in Milton and he does not think that is what we are trying to say which is the purpose of that being there. Councilmember O’Brien stated his concern was that it would perhaps operate in conflict with the subsequent sections, so he actually did have a brief discussion with the City Attorney and he would defer to whatever the two of them decide and recommend. City Attorney Scott stated Mr. Lagerbloom and he discussed that earlier today so we are aware that that was a conflict. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated just one other one if he could in Section 7 D, talking to the schools where the recommended changes to natural un-amplified sounds emanating from a school league, school or church sponsored sporting or recreational event shall be exempt so long as they do not exceed 70 decibels, his question there would be what about the amplified sound? Councilmember O’Brien stated he would say that it seems as though one of the problems that has come to us is the suggestion that it is not the activities, it is not the band, the sports, the crowd, it is sometimes when nothing is going on, on the field and someone is in the press box of a stadium cranking the music on the loudspeakers and so forth. The other suggestion he had was and he believed that decibels are linear they are an exponential measurement, 70 decibels is consistent with our maxed level that is provided. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated his question is not with the 70 decibels as that number could be anything, the fact that we have now specified natural and un-amplified sound and what you described with the music coming through the loudspeakers would in fact be amplified sound. He just did not know what level they are being held to. Councilmember O’Brien stated his point was or his suggestion was that this accommodates the overwhelming majority of activities that have gone on and will go on in school but yet would have the effect of, exclusive of significant events like a varsity football game or a major event such as that that could be subject to variance through that rolling six month period that is provided. He would think that all it would do would be to essentially encourage activities consistent with what he understands to have been offers already on the table and discussion that has gone on with the principal and others. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated he wanted to input again he would defer to others as Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 87 of 102 well. City Attorney Scott stated he wanted to mention that part of the discussion of that particular Section 7D had to do with the discussion Mr. Hunter had with us that he had church dances at their place and he was concerned when he came here at previous discussion that that would not be a problem and he clearly those would be amplified sounds, not natural un-amplified sounds. They were hoping for a little bit of relief on that end. Councilmember O’Brien stated right and it was his hope that having reworked again with some discussion with others on the Council that the variance process would permit occasional activities or significant events. City Attorney Scott stated the other point that he wanted to make is the City Manager suggested to him that if we were to adopt that amendment we would need a definition of natural sound and what he has just come up with is natural sound means sound not amplified through a public addresser loudspeaker system. It is nice and simple. That is what it needs to say so we would suggest you include that if we are going to include the rest of. Councilmember Lusk stated he has a comment on that same Article and he had rewritten it a little bit differently, but he thinks with the same intent and the same goal and the way he wrote it and it may be a little more descriptive than what you have said, sounds emanating from a league school or church, sporting or recreational event shall be exempt as long as they do not exceed 70 decibels and as long as they do not transmit recorded music or sounds described as music which are not typically germane to the sporting or recreational event and he would like comment from the City Attorney. City Attorney Scott stated that simplifies it a bit. Councilmember Mohrig stated he had a couple of comments as far as time when we have had here between, he thinks we have received quite a bit of notes from concerned citizens regarding the starting time of the loud noises we actually gave another half hour on the front end and the concern is or he guessed the question is can we move that back to 7:30 a.m. instead of having it 7:00 a.m. and that would be under Section 5. [Discussion regarding the correct section] Councilmember Mohrig stated Section 5(A) and (B) say 7:00 a.m. and then down here we changed it in the daytime hours 7:00 a.m., so he is suggesting wherever it says 7:00 a.m. move that to 7:30 a.m. Councilmember Thurman stated she would agree with that just to be consistent with everything else. Councilmember Mohrig stated and then when we go over back to where we were discussing… Mayor Lockwood stated we need a Point of Order because we do not have a motion. City Manager Bovos stated we have two motions, we have a motion to approve as it is and seconded and then we have a motion to approve and a second for an amendment. [Multiple speakers regarding point of order] Councilmember Mohrig stated because that is what he would like to do as he is not saying throw this out, but there are some things that he thinks we ought to change here. Under 7(D), sounds are made from leagues, school, or church sponsored, he thinks there will be a need for amplified sound, he does not know if we want to go the route of doing a variance for every game requesting that, he agrees with the 70 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 88 of 102 decibels. He thinks that is the thing he would take away probably the natural and un-amplified to allow the amplified for that 70 decibels and he thinks that the discussion that Mr. Cramer brought up. The concern is the way that today at Milton where that system is being used and he thinks it is a design issue, we went over when we did our own. Councilmember O’Brien and he went and listened to a game just this past week and the concern is the way that the speakers are and the sound. They sat back off the road and you could clearly hear the sound was loud. He would have a hard time sitting if that was his home at that level and then we went and we sat in the stadium and it was very loud in the stadium also, louder than what was necessary. He guessed what he would like to do is just so that we could allow amplified sound we have the 70 decibel and then work with the school for a redesign of the system, because he thinks that is the issue when we talk specifically about the school. Councilmember Thurman stated she agrees and she thinks we have received an email from Mike Moss the attorney that she thinks that part of the problem is just is a sound engineering problem. If you try to understand the sound that is going on within the stadium you basically cannot understand anything they say, so that it just gets louder, for some reason another, some people think louder is clearer, but it is not always that way. You go outside of the stadium and a lot of times you can actually hear things clearer just because of the way the speakers are. She thinks if a good sound engineer could probably take care of at least seventy five percent of the issues they are having there. A good sound engineer she guessed is doing what he says because if the speakers were gunned in a different manner, there would be a different quality of speakers. She thinks the clarity would be much greater within the stadium and the sound could be decreased drastically. She did not know what you would do to get that done, but she has been there many of times and she has left games and not understood a single thing they were saying during the entire game announcing and by the time you get to your car in the parking lot it actually seems pretty clear, so that is a problem. Councilmember Mohrig stated again just to restate that he thinks amplified sound still should be allowed but he thinks the noise cap when we work specifically when we have got an issue that we are aware of that. We can work with citizens who live nearby a stadium or in this case a school, they do not have to stay in their house and listen to the noise booming past. He thinks there are ways to address it and still allow amplification. Councilmember Thurman stated there has got to be a happy medium where the kids and parents can actually enjoy the sporting events, but yet it is not a distraction for the neighbors. She really thinks we can come up with that, and the school can come up with that if they spent some time and money engineering it properly. Councilmember Mohrig stated may he ask Mr. Wilson one question too. The 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. even for construction noise and that seems pretty late, 10:00 at night is that what was allowed with Fulton County. Councilmember Thurman stated 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and 10:00 it is just for private noise right? Mayor Lockwood stated he would like to make a quick comment, he had the same thing along the construction noise. He knows we had a 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and he did get a lot of feedback from our citizens so he was to recommend 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. also. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated do we want to recognize City Attorney, did you have some. City Attorney Scott stated he was just going to say that if we are going to move forward with considering Councilmember O’Brien’s amendments it might be a good idea to divide the question so we could take up the individual sections independently. He thinks it sounds like the consensus is that some of these things people would support and others they are not quite so sure about. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 89 of 102 Councilmember Mohrig stated suggested a motion to divide the question. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she was sorry maybe but we have not had any discussion yet so she would like to have discussion. She has some questions of staff. Were we clear was that in order that we are still in discussion before we separate. City Manager Bovos stated he does not know that we have a motion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated the motion …if we went back to the original discussion and entered our work session one of the points was that whole decibel level and she believe that Mr. Lagerbloom and perhaps others of staff were going to go and get some decibel readings before we conclude our discussion. If staff could provide us some feedback about decibel levels that they have been out tracking. She knows that she had asked you to go out and track some specific activities even this week at Milton including the lacrosse game. If we could get those readings and then also there were some separate questions just from a legal perspective about enforcement, but if we could start with those questions of decibel readings. Her concern, of course, is balancing the concerns of nearby neighbors with the issue of what is the actual sound so that would be her first question for staff. Public Safety Chris Lagerbloom stated he guessed he would break it down into two different areas that he thinks you have asked for, one being some of the school activities and the second being as it relates to restaurant noise at Montana’s. He thinks that came out of the work shop as well so we could address both of those. We did attend the soccer game. He did late that evening and had the opportunity to do some measurements and he did not really think that soccer in the main field is going to be of issue to us. They bring in apparently an amplified system that is more aligned at the track level so that the sounds just are not near as loud. We had the opportunity to visit again tonight for a ladies lacrosse match, which was at the football field and got ambient ratings of 61, music on the PA average of 68, announcements at an average of 72, and crowd cheer with an average of 63 to give you an idea of what was heard. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated quick question on that ladies lacrosse, only because she does not say lacrosse so she does not know how the numbers of a ladies lacrosse not that that would not draw the highest number of people because they are pretty great lacrosse players. She is wondering how the size of that crowd compares to the size of crowds of other activities that are obviously there, obviously so varsity football may draw a larger crowd or maybe not… Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated the best answer he can give you there is when he checked with the school after your request earlier in the week. Their options were for the next three nights, it was soccer on Tuesday, it was baseball last night and lacrosse tonight and he indicated tonight would have been the loudest of the three nights. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would agree, now do we have other than this week do we have any readings from before during the football games and those things. Chris Lagerbloom stated since we have just started to discuss those ordinances we have not had a football game and our first opportunity to measure that will be this fall. Councilmember Thurman stated do we know if the girls run or not? Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated he did not know. Councilmember Thurman stated okay. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated okay let him just discuss he guesses just briefly as well Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 90 of 102 about the restaurant Montana’s that we have had several complaints from. After the workshop, we elected to deal directly with Carrie Eubanks as well as the president of the homeowners’ association up at Lake Creek Drive and we have actually facilitated a couple of meetings to have both of those people come together so that we could try to work through this, we elected to do that rather than sneaking around in the woods in the middle of the night hoping that we could catch somebody and we have been successful in getting both sides’ cooperation, even to the extent that we have had access to the sound controls at Montana’s and we can put them wherever we wanted to and we could stand wherever we wanted to test levels, so they have been open to working with us and he thinks that has gone a long way in us dealing with that situation rather than trying to combat it the other way. He can tell you that he stood in their restaurant yesterday, at about 3:00 yesterday afternoon and we did one final test where we turned the volume up as loud as we could, we turned the bass up as loud as we could and we put on a radio station that they told us would have the most base, which was a hip hop station and we got a decibel reading inside Montana’s restaurant right at 120 decibels and it was really loud, that is what that system is capable of producing and he can tell you that even at that level at their rear property line it read at 72 decibels, so there are some things in place that are helping absorb some of that sound, he does not know that they are necessarily enough to get it to where they would comply with this ordinance at full volume but he thinks that the decibel levels that we have established in here are sufficient that the neighborhood are going to see a substantial reduction in sound but also that the restaurant is not going to lose out on a lot of business because they have a system that is capable of suppressing a lot of that, so a 120 decibels is really loud, but at the property line again being an average of 72 decibels a lot of it was absorbed. Councilmember Thurman asked for clarification, have they done some things to help absorb the sound or is this or do you think in the past when we received all of the complaints it was based on the 72. Public Safety Chris Lagerbloom stated he did not know and he can tell you that when we talked to Cary Eubanks every time that he expresses that he is doing additional things to make the sound level less and that he wants to be more neighborhoods friendly. You can look at the walls and see that there is insulation and he is not an expert in sound management so he does not know that what he has done is effective or that there has even been that he has done anything in the last two months as we have been pursuing this noise ordinance. The system as it exists today he thinks is capable of coming into line with these decibel levels. The place that we would run into a risk if there was is as soon as 10:00 hit in order to get down to 60 decibels that is going to require, that is where the strong finger on the volume knob is going to have to be, he does not think it is going to be difficult for him to comply with the 65, but at 10:00 that would be a little bit more of a challenge. Councilmember Mohrig stated that when he thinks the complaints that were coming was after 10:00. Councilmember Thurman stated see her question was basically was 65 what they were complaining about or 72 what they were complaining about or is it that they were complaining about something higher and now it is down to 72 because we were trying to decide on what number to use [Inaudible] to that little chart, have some idea whether or not that 65 is a good number or 60 is a good number or whatever it is. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated the best answer he can give there is we have tried for the last three weekends to be there when Cary had scheduled a bank, which is what is the loudest. Unfortunately, we have been greeted a couple of those weekends with very, very, very cold temperatures and that did not happen. He can tell you that from his perspective he guesses there are a couple of different ways to deal with noise and he can kind of see in sitting in the cul-de-sac in that neighborhood he can understand that noise that is heard in the cul-de-sac while in some instances may be annoying may not be illegal, and he can tell you that 72 decibels that is measured at the property line the rear property line that sound is still audible in the cul-de-sac. It is not as though the sound disappears all together, so could you still hear the music in the cul-de-sac this afternoon when we were testing, again absolutely, but at the property line it was truly measuring 72 and that has, a lot has to do with the depth of that particular yard, it is not a very deep yard for those of you that have been, he thinks you know which yard he was in. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 91 of 102 Councilmember O’Brien stated that is just you are referring to the music or the system and the interior of the restaurant, you did not have the opportunity to examine the effect out in the greenhouse or whatever they call it that seems to have a lot of… Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated the greenhouse is where we were testing. Yes we were in the greenhouse testing. Councilmember Thurman stated but she assumed had the doors open which she knows a lot of time unfortunately it seems to get hot in summer and sometimes the door gets opened and obviously when the door is open the sound. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated and we opened them as well. We did a test with the doors closed as well as with the doors open. The only thing we could not simulate was crowd noise on top of music noise just because we did not have a crowd it was truly a controlled test on their system. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and she guessed along those same lines that was the question also, not only with Montana’s and first of all thank you for all the extra effort it obviously goes a long way when you bring folks together and try to work through those issues, so thank you. With regards to the school noises and that is why her line of questions about the 61, 68 and 72, just trying to get a handle on it, she knows you did some other studies both between our City Attorney and Chris Lagerbloom about looking even beyond these decibel levels here, other comparisons to other public school and other noise ordinances. The reason for her question is thinking about the next step of that is enforcement and making sure that while we are balancing the decibel levels that we also have thought through how we are going to go about enforcing that and making sure that it then would be, she is going to make up a word, “upholdable” if we were challenged by the public school system, so if you guys could walk through that part of the discussion. City Attorney Scott stated he has not found any authority that states that we cannot do this at this point. Certainly, if it was zoning we know we cannot, but it appears that it is silent to the maybe appropriate word for a noise ordinance regarding whether we can do this at best. He at this point does not think it is a problem and frankly if it was going to be a problem he thinks the school would have alerted us. As much input as we have had from them, they probably would have said well as much as we would like to be a good neighbor you know we do not have to do this. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and she just did not know because she knows obviously that Mr. Tecsh’s at least commentary to us as a Council has been that they want to work towards being the good neighbor and have tended to do that. Her question is also not just for Milton, but obviously for future school sites and that is why she is not sure if the involvement and Mr. Cramer may or may not have some input on this that whether or not the public, the school board at that level with James Wilson, etc. had been involved or that is why she did not know if it had really been handled at that local level. As we look at these decibel levels, do we need to anticipate the potential challenge from the school board and if so again, she is not saying that we do not have one, she is just trying to suggest that we think through the enforcement issue so that we do not later find that we cannot support the ordinance that we are looking to put in place. City Attorney Scott stated the thing about this is that it would if they challenge the enforceability it would not be like they would be able to sue us and recover over it. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated it is a function of whether or not it is truly enforceable over time. City Attorney Scott stated exactly so he did not think there was any harm. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated now with the enforceability question, as she thought through this Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 92 of 102 she is thinking okay she is a kid in the band and she is playing my instrument and it is over that decibel level, whatever that decibel level is, police officers go out and they say here is our decibel reading it is too high. Again, she is just trying to make sure she understands the facts, is the enforcement with that individual, is the enforcement with the band director, is it with the school, is it with Mr. Tecsh. She just does not know at any of their discussions if we had that discussion about how we actually go about enforcing, not just at Milton other future schools that we are about to have three more of. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated he thinks arguably you could actually cite any of those people that you listed from the principal of the school right on down to the person that was in violation of the noise ordinance and he thinks you could do that as the direct letter of the law but let me walk you through he thinks what probably the spirit of this law is and its actual enforcement would be what he thinks is two separate distinct things. He thinks what you mentioned is possible, he does not know that it is probable. In the instance of loud noise in a stadium obviously the intent would be to have the school come into compliance with the ordinance, and really the enforcement of the ordinance is a sure and swift way to generate compliance but he thinks the other way is to voluntarily generate compliance and he can tell you that in 99 times out of 100 that is very successful, what gives you the teeth to push it the extra step if you have to, but that is truly the goal, yet in the instance of a loud band he thinks the band, the person that is in charge of the band would be the person to contact. If it is the person in the sound box then that is the person to contact, he can tell you that if you approve an ordinance such as this tonight that has a component in it that deals with the school, you can rest assured that in each of the police supervisors cars and in each of the beat cars that service any of our schools there will be contacts for each of these events and who to notify and how to get compliance. That means that whoever is responsible for allowing people into the sound booth at the stadium at Milton High School, we will need to know how to get in touch with that person, and we will have access to that in the field. That is just something that you, when you have an ordinance like this you put together a cheat sheet for lack of a better term, so that when we respond there we know who to call and we know who can get results. He thinks that the other way is that we just work very openly with the school and work with them as opposed to against them, he would not want to cite the school, but… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated right, and that is why she just wanted to make sure, and she knew that we had. For the record she wanted to make sure that it is very clear that we are not looking to have enforcement issues that we are trying to have a collaborative approach. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated he wants them to do what you decide as a Mayor and Council is the right thing for them to do for their sound level. That is what we want and that is what our agency will want is for them to come into compliance and we will force the issue if we have to because it then becomes a matter of law, but certainly our first approach would be that they do it voluntarily. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated next question just in terms of the decibel levels, obviously, you and Mr. Scott had originally suggested 75 based on the things that you have been doing and conversations with Tecsh, can you maybe just speak of that … Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated where 75 came from. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated where it came from and where you are separate from suggestions we might make, where you are since you guys have the most vested interest so far in this ordinance. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated we initially started where we came up with the decibels and came up with the matrix that was in direct alignment with the City of Roswell which is our closest city that actually has a measured noise ordinance. The one that we had the opportunity to speak with their police chief and representatives of their city to find out that they were satisfied with the ability of a measured noise ordinance to work. In our research, we have not been able to locate another noise ordinance that specifically regulated school or league or church activity, considering the number of Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 93 of 102 complaints that we have gotten in this particular case. In Milton’s case, he thinks it is appropriate that we do that, he thinks we have just received one too many complaints. Very frankly when we brought this to you, it was brought with a number that was what we thought to be kind of a middle road between non- regulating at all and regulating in some capacity in the hopes that it would generate discussions, in hopes that it would cause us as a group or cause the Mayor and Council as a group to collectively make that valued decision. He can tell you that it was brought because it was kind of a middle road number between not regulating at all, which was what we saw in many cases or exemptions and then actually doing some regulating. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and do you have just any input about he 70 versus the 75 based on your evaluation? Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated either is enforceable and he does not necessarily have an opinion as to what number would be appropriate, but he can tell you that either is enforceable. It appears as though based on the numbers that we even have today that either is attainable and even the 70 is very attainable by the school. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated just in this next section about variances, again this is language that she thinks we are seeing for the first time, she knows the hour is late, but this is important so she is going to continue with her question. With regards to the number of variances, she just wondered how these would correlate as an example to actually understand the intent and she thinks it is a positive intent to try to outline these variances just when you think about whether, she guesses a lot of this is going to be stated towards the school most importantly but is the number of variances and she does not know if you have had a chance to compare it to maybe those scenarios where the school would be just say if we are the school and we are having to say okay let us look at our source of activities over the course of the six month period and we were to try to again with that balancing act try to identify them. Are these numbers in line with those number of home varsity games that she guesses are going to be louder than the lacrosse girls’ game…she is just trying to make sure that we are thinking about it. Councilmember O’Brien stated good question, there will be you know, several of us were talking and bouncing things back and forth and he just was concerned that even though 70 or 75 decibels is a pretty high level. He thinks that first of all he does not think we should be writing for Montana’s or Milton, but it is very important. He thinks this is essentially non-impacted at the level of a high school kid. He does not think any of this would affect the average athlete, band member or that sort of thing, however, at the very highest level, varsity football players that kind of thing. He thought that adding some additional days and opportunities would on a one day basis provide more flexibility particularly suited for Milton, and if they needed relief that that would be available. He guessed it occurs to him that we should probably verify this, but he is assuming the City Manager or designee could waive for schools and nonprofits a variance fee. He does not know if that is appropriate or not, but that was, he actually in looking at the 2-7 day deal. He thought that the single day option would accommodate a great number of activities remembering that is a rolling six month, so he thinks that it would essentially give the situation a nudge that exists, but still afford really no impact to the activity. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she does think that is a good idea to have those variances, just short of, she knows that Mr. Tesch when we all met with him we had that list of activities and she just did not know of those. Obviously, they are not all going to potentially need a variance and we would not want to encourage variances in all of them. She is just again for a reasonability standpoint have we done a comparison of this number of variances to the number of activities from the school’s perspective being sensitive of course to the neighbors, from the school’s perspective are these numbers kind of a gauge and did we engage the school on this. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated we did not and you will see that the variance process that exists in the ordinance that we started with tonight is different than the variance that is in the Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 94 of 102 potentially amended version. We did not have any opportunity in the first one for the five administrative variances that the City Manager could grant in a rolling six month period. That did not exist in the first one. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that adds more variances now correct. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated honestly he does not know he has not compared these side by side to figure out how many days one gives you versus the other, he believes… Councilmember Mohrig stated pardon me, have we divided the question? [Multiple voices discussing dividing the question] City Attorney Scott stated what he is about to suggest is perhaps given as late as it is getting what we might want to do is go ahead and pass it as written. Then put it right back on the agenda as soon as we can so that we can fine tune it a little bit more with some of these amendments. That is one suggestion for you. He thinks it is important that we get something passed so that when police force takes effect May 1, which is before the next council meeting you have an ordinance. Mayor Lockwood stated can he make a suggestion then, he does not know where we are order wise, but that we pass what we have existing and then we look at it and amend it. City Attorney Scott stated that is his suggestion. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated meaning not this amendment, but the one that was put forward and then takes all of these suggestions here and look over it and over the next couple of months because we may need to adjust it. City Attorney Scott stated no matter what you do, once it gets into practice you are going to have to make adjustments to it, and thinks Chris Lagerbloom would agree with me 100% on that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and the only question she would ask is to make sure because she agrees with the Mayor. She thinks that is a great idea at this hour if we could make sure that that 7:30 morning time is in the version because… Councilmember Thurman stated and she thinks you are making a couple of other small things that we had all suggested or others had suggested like the tree service, you know the church bells, aircraft and watercrafts, those are things that we may be able to take care of very quickly tonight without a whole lot of discussion and assuming so she would like to go ahead and get those approved. City Attorney Scott stated would you like me to make you some procedural suggestions about how to get there? Okay, would Councilmember O’Brien ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and then we can make a couple of little piece-meal ones and deal with them relatively quickly. Councilmember O’Brien stated if he may suggest just subject to the most constructive, but easiest fixes so that we might have the ordinance in place for public safety and so that we can all go home. Withdrawal of Motion and Vote: Councilmember O’Brien moved for unanimous consent to withdraw his motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed by unanimous consent. City Attorney Scott stated now then he did not know whether you wanted him to take the step in terms of some suggestions, Mr. Public Safety Director clue me in on exactly where the 7:30 time is. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 95 of 102 Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated that would be in Section 7 B. Councilmember Thurman stated do we need to wait and pass this… City Attorney Scott stated no he thinks we are back to asking for, we have a motion on the floor, what he is asking now is do we have a couple of little piece-meal amendments. [Multiple speakers inaudible] City Attorney Scott stated a suggestion would be this Paragraph B be amended to say sounds originating from construction sites as a result of construction activity, commercial lawn maintenance or tree removal are exempt from the provisions of this chapter but only during the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Does that meet with people’s desire? [Multiple speakers inaudible] Councilmember O’Brien stated are you starting at the beginning there was a quick one regarding vehicles that he thinks the Public Safety Director … City Attorney Scott stated we will do that next. Mayor Lockwood stated is there any discussion on this one? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated on which one? Councilmember Thurman stated 7:30 to 7:30 lawn maintenance and trees… Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to amend Section 7B to read as follows: sounds originating from construction sites as a result of construction activity, commercial lawn maintenance or tree removal are exempt from the provisions of this chapter but only during the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion and Second: Councilmember Mohrig moved to lower the decibel as stated in Section 7D from 75 decibels to 70 decibels. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. Discussion on Motion: Councilmember O’Brien stated do you want to take care of that entire paragraph? City Attorney Scott stated is that the wish of the Council or do you… Mayor Lockwood stated which one is that… City Attorney Scott stated his suggestion would be to just lower it to 70 decibels and then take up the rest later. Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig stated he would like to make a motion that we change the daytime hours instead of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and move it back to 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 96 of 102 Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to amend Section 5 A and B and Section 7A to change 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. in all instances. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion and Second: Councilmember Mohrig moved to amend Section 3 vehicles as discussed (1:04:01) a chance to reflect vehicles. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion.. Discussion on Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she did not really understand the motion on how we can regulate vehicles. City Attorney Scott stated it is for sounds coming from vehicles like mufflers… Councilmember Thurman stated to the Public Safety Director do we need to add vehicles. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated are we talking about loud music from a car, as the intent? That is covered…25 decibels that you can hear insider your car with the windows closed, but that is covered in the emergency exemption for lack of a better term, that is covered in State law so you can hear emergency vehicles. If you choose to include it, it is fine, we will be double covered, but if we ever cited somebody for that we would cite them to the State law as opposed to the City Ordinance anyway. Councilmember Mohrig stated includes dirt bikes or any loud noise producing devices, is that covered? Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated however we define vehicle. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated because we have not defined… Councilmember Mohrig stated and so it is not necessarily… [More discussion on the definition of vehicle] Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated so she guesses that would be her question, can we really approve this without defining vehicle, and she realizes there is a motion for this it is just her discussion and question based on the Mayor’s recommendation that we not get into things that are not defined because it is covered in State law, are we better to wait until we define vehicle. Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated either that or we could default to if there was a definition of vehicle in State law he does not know, he would defer to the attorney to find out if that would apply. City Attorney Scott stated he would have to look it up, it probably is, but he would have to look it up to be sure. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously by consent. Councilmember O’Brien stated Section 6, church bells, aircrafts and watercrafts, Section I deletion. City Attorney Scott stated he would suggest that we ought to do it later. City Manager Bovos stated what about Section 10. Councilmember Thurman stated she liked Section 10. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 97 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she guesses she has a question about enforcement just in terms of… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she just had a question under Section 10 about enforcement again, without further discussion she would like to get the input of the Public Safety Officer especially in light of this other idea of different variances and things of that nature, do we want to discuss that now or do we want to come back to this. City Attorney Scott stated are you comfortable with this now? Public Safety Director Chris Lagerbloom stated was he comfortable with that second sentence in Section 10? He is fine with that, yes. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to amend Section 10: Penalties to read as follows: Section 10: Penalties. Any person found guilty of violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be punished in a manner consistent with Chapter 1, General Provisions, Article 3, Violations, Section 1 of this Code of Ordinances. Violations of a continuing nature, each day during which it occurs, shall constitute an additional, separate and distinct offense. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Mohrig stated he would like to make a motion that we accept this revised Ordinance as we have discussed and passed individual amendments. City Attorney Scott stated you have made the amendments, now you just vote. Vote: The motion passed to accept the Ordinance Establishing Noise Control within the City of Milton, Georgia, as amended. Mayor Lockwood stated he does have a Point of Order since he is new at this and all of us are new at this, he knows Councilperson D’Aversa getting tired and he is sure the rest of us are, any suggestions for staff. Councilmember D’Aversa stated as a matter of record she is not getting tired. This is a mockery of this City that we would allow this meeting to be conducted this way and to make these types of decisions at 2 o’clock in the morning. That is why she is in opposition to it, so she again she would make a motion to adjourn and suggest that we do a better job of planning knowing we make a joke of the fact that we are going to be here like this, but this is just not good business. City Attorney Scott stated can he ask for one thing, could you pay my bill. City Clerk Marchiafava stated Tom Wilson has an item that he really needs passed tonight. Councilmember D’Aversa stated it is 2 o’clock in the morning it is not tonight it is the morning. Councilmember Thurman stated she think that most of the rest of the things we could probably get done in 10 minutes if we … Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she acknowledges the clerk for the record. Councilmember D’Aversa stated she would also suggest that some of these things that we are doing probably would not stand up in a court of law if somebody did question them. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would also just make the point that when we start about starting our meetings later this is the great example and it is not that we are wasting time we spend valuable time of Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 98 of 102 everybody’s intellect and input… Mayor Lockwood stated let us move to a couple of new issues. Councilmember Thurman no we need to go ahead…he left it with us… City Clerk Marchiafava called the next item - Agenda Item No. 07-226. This is the second reading. An Ordinance creating the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Task Force Ordinance No. 07-04-26 Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve an Ordinance creating the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Task Force. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. Discussion on Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated do we not need the sponsor, it is part of being here at 2 in the morning, if we rush our process she thinks we… Councilmember Thurman stated if we are legally voting on it she thinks… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated are we bypassing… City Manager Bovos stated we do not have a rule that requires sponsor to be here on an item. He can go find him if you want me to, he is sure he has not left. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she is just making sure she understands. Mayor Lockwood stated is there any discussion on this, we have a motion to approve and Ordinance creating a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Task Force is there any discussion. Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Lockwood stated that completes the unfinished business. Moving on to new business, will the clerk please sound the next agenda items? NEW BUSINESS (Agenda Item No. 07-243) Approval of Monthly Invoice for Legal Fees for February 2007 (Jarrard & Davis). City Treasurer Wolfe stated Mayor and Council this is the first invoice you have seen that includes the new format with all the details so she just wants to very quickly say moving forward the process staff is going to undertake. Staff is going to go through the invoice when she receives it and approve staff related legal work. She will then take all of the items that the staff did not approve legal work related to Council items and put them on the front page of the agenda memo and that is to be what you will be approving tonight are those items on the front page of this agenda. City Manager Bovos asked is there were any questions. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated the ones on the front are non-staff related items. City Treasurer Wolfe stated those are items staff that is correct. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 99 of 102 City Attorney Scott asked is everybody happy with the new format? Councilmember Lusk stated he is extremely excited about it. Councilmember Mohrig stated he would like to say for the record it is very impressive. Councilmember Thurman stated she would just like to point a question, why do the staff not approve some of these, why do they need council approval on some of these. City Manager Bovos stated because they relate to services primarily delivered directly to the City Council for example the first one telephone conference with Councilmember Lusk. Councilmember Thurman stated she understand that, but attend City Council pre-meeting and regular council meeting. City Manager Bovos stated staff does not direct the City Attorney to attend meetings that would be the Council to do that. Councilmember Thurman stated so that one would just be a standard one for every Council meeting, it will be on our agenda? City Manager Bovos stated as long as the Council continues to concur that the City Attorney needs to attend. Councilmember Thurman stated that is fine. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she will take the opportunity at this time to as this has been the first time it has been brought up later not tonight would there be any, and she is trying to be mindful of your valuable time that a meeting where sometimes we do not need to have the attorney present. She does not know the answer. This is the first time that we are being asked to approve this invoice. Councilmember Thurman stated like what the pre-meeting? Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated like at the pre-meeting? Councilmember Thurman stated no she thinks he needs to be there. Mayor Lockwood stated and he will agree that for another… Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated we will talk about it later. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the monthly invoice for Legal Fees for February, 2007 (Jarrard & Davis). Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. Discussion on Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated quick question is so Carol Wolfe has submitted this for approval and everything has been approved with the exception of those on the front page. City Treasurer Wolfe stated correct. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 100 of 102 Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated and is the process going forward with the members who are tied to those other activities will they be needing to confirm and approve them, or that process is not really in place so that… City Manager Bovos stated it will happen before all of you just like tonight. Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. (Agenda Item No. 07-235) Approval of a Resolution regarding meeting times. (Postponed by Motion and Vote) (Agenda Item No. 07-244) Approval of a Resolution of Intent for Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Resolution No. 07-04-37 Community Services Director Greg Wilson stated Mayor and Council the proposed resolution in front of you is needed for the City’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, Fulton County was prior a participant in this program and as such the City residents had flood insurance, now that we are a City we have to maintain our own separate program hence the Resolution that you see before you. Failure of the City to accept this Resolution will result in the City residents not being able to renew their flood insurance, it also leaves the City exposed to certain risks were we to have a flood event, so it is necessary for us to adopt this particular resolution. We also received a letter from EPD notifying us that this situation exists and advising us that we need to go forward by putting together information and submitting it to them so that we can be participants in this program that is administered by FEMA. There are two items here and he had to consult with the City Attorney because we are actually going to ask you to do two things as part of this resolution. The first thing is to accept the Resolution of Intent to continue services being provided, the second thing is to adopt a model Storm Water Ordinance and that model Storm Water Ordinance has been provided by Metro Georgia North Water Planning District. Those two items are going to be required; those are the items that we will have to submit to them in addition to a FEMA application which will allow us to get the process started. Councilmember Thurman stated will that Ordinance come before us at a later date? Community Services Director Wilson stated the model Storm Water Ordinance is an ordinance that they draft so we can get our process up, we will have our own Storm Water Ordinance, which was originally planned to come before Council in May but we had to speed it up because we were notified by Georgia EPD of this situation. Councilmember Lusk stated what are the costs associated with it? Community Services Director Wilson stated he did not think there was a filing fee. He will find out for sure, but we were not notified that there was any particular fee associated with it. It is program administration, staff time will be involved, we will have to get the program up and running, but per se there is no fee. Councilmember Lusk stated who is developing this Storm Water… Community Services Director Wilson stated we will have a program administrator Melissa Henderson from our shop who will be the administrator she is in the Certified Flood Plain Manager license so we will have a licensed administrator to help us get the program up and running. Councilmember Lusk stated so what is the schedule to have it up and running then. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 7:00 PM Page 101 of 102 Community Services Director Wilson stated we have six months from the time we were placed on notice. We will have an audit that will be conducted probably in October time frame, so we have from now until then to get all of our systems up and manageable. Hence, there is a bit of a sense of urgency on our part. Councilmember Lusk stated so what do we do with this gap in coverage then. Community Services Director Wilson stated we have to put the programs together, there is a pretty extensive checklist roughly 40 pages or so, and it is pretty meticulous information to map out our flood plain, lots of GIS information. They have tightened some of the boundaries if you will, reduced some of the stream buffers, so there is a lot of that kind of information, but we essentially have to tailor the flood plain management plan specifically for the City of Milton, as opposed to the one that we previously had that was under the per view of Fulton County. Councilmember Lusk stated how are we covered in the interim? Community Services Director Wilson stated we will be fine in terms of coverage in the interim. He thinks the way this is designed is, it is a stop gap measure so it is really a matter of us putting together the notice of intent which just says we are in the process of putting this together that gives us coverage if you will in the interim. Mayor Lockwood stated any other questions? Do we have a motion. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve a Resolution of Intent for Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. (Agenda Item No. 07-247) Approval of a Resolution to Approve the City of Milton, Georgia Membership with the North Fulton Municipal Association. Resolution No. 07-04-38 Mayor Lockwood stated everybody has got this Resolution as well as the By-Laws to approve the City of Milton, Georgia Membership with the North Fulton Municipal Association. He asked does anybody have any specific questions. Councilmember Thurman stated we do not have to change the date because it says where it started not what day we actually approved it, she does not think it is the 19th anymore. Mayor Lockwood stated he will just say it is good issue. He knows for our City to be involved basically with five other cities in North Fulton and in case for items that we need to be represented or get together on issues, we could do that. There are no dues or anything like that. If we do get to a situation where it is going to be a monetary, we all have to vote on it and bring it to our Council. Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated Mayor just a quick question because she does not have the by-laws in front of her, but if she heard you correctly that this also includes by-laws are those by-laws that you have had an opportunity to weigh in on or those were by-laws… Mayor Lockwood stated yes. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve a Resolution to Approve the City of Milton, Georgia Membership with the North Fulton Municipal Association. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Thursday, April 19,2007 at 7:00 PM Page I02 of 1 02 Mayor Loclrwood stated he would like to step in here and ask if maybe Mayor and CounciI reports, if we could defer that. City Attorney Scott stated there is one more item and he was going to ask, the Longstreet dedication and it is just going to take too much time. He is going to ask you to defer it to May 3, and actually, we may want to discuss it in work session if there is room on the agenda. Motion and Vote: Councf lmember Thurman moved to defer the Longstreet dedication. Councilmember O'Brien. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Amend Resolution No. 07-04-25 a Resolution for the City of Milton to accept specified portions of Longstreet Road and Wills Road as related to the Manor Development with a 20 year bond. (PosIponed by Motion and Vofe) MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 1 $ Disability Summit (Postpone@ 2) Citizen Survey (Postponed) STAFF REPORTS City Manager Bovos stated alI of ours will be deferred Mayor. 1) Update on Public Safety Deployment. (?%s@onedto May 3,2007 meeting) 2) Emergency Notifications Plan Reviews. (Postponed to Mmy 3,2007 meeiirrgl 3) City of Milton Newsletter. (Pusfpoaed to Mq 3,200 7 meeting) 4) Website Development. (Posfporred to May 3,2007 meding) 5) Update on Gravel Roads. (Postponed to May 3,200 7 meeting) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to adjourn the April 19,2007 Regular meeting at 1:52 am. Counci lrnember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Date Approved: July 12,2007