Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 04/25/2011 - 04-25-11 Reg. Mins (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 1 of 41 This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice. Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and " invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Oficial Meetings are audio recorded. The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on April 25, 2011, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION Reverend Robert Wood, St. Aiden's Episcopal Church, Alpharetta, Georgia. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL City Clerk Gordon called the roll and made general announcements. Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Zahner Bailey, Councilmember Lusk, Councilmember Hewitt, and Councilmember Tart. Councilmember Longoria was absent/excused from the meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Approval of Meeting Agenda (Agenda Item No. 11-075) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the meeting agenda as read. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6 — 0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Lockwood read the rules for Public Comment. • Public comment is a time for citizens to share information with the Mayor and City Council and to 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 step forward and speak into the microphone stating your name and address for the record. • You will have five minutes for remarks. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Pap -e 2 of 41 Kelly Brolly, 225 Lake Bend Ct., Milton, GA: • Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. • I am a resident of the City of Milton and a mother of three children. • I am here tonight because I am concerned that Milton may not be protecting our interest as citizens in the transportation plan for the city. • Specifically the traffic and the Crabapple area in particular. • The City's comprehensive transportation plan uses a north to south corridor system. • The primary concern to achieving the city's goal is to encourage the commuters to use specific corridors and draw drivers away from the rural roadways of Milton. • These Corridors include north to south on Birmingham Highway and Freemanville Road. • The safety is what has be concerned. • I believe that with the recent map that was submitted by the Fulton County school system, the west to east pattern for traffic transportation is in diametric opposition to the north south plan for traffic. • The Lew Oliver plan for Crabapple shows a traffic analysis that looked at the Crabapple intersection and at peak hour, that eastbound traffic had 44 cars in the queue in the morning. • As a citizen I am concerned that if the Fulton County School System is permitted to pass the new redistricting plan with an east west orientation, it will compromise safety in the Northern areas and brings traffic through Crabapple. • I believe this will be too much for the City to handle. • I believe something that was well established was a walker commuter friendly area. • The Safe Routes to School grant was done on the basis that we have a pedestrian friendly low traffic area. • In an effort to protect those grants that we have, I am here to respectfully request as a group that you would represent our interests and take a position with the Fulton County School System to protect us in the transportation plan. • Thank you for all that you do for us here in Milton. Andrew Furman, 6010 Fieldstone TH., Milton, GA: • I am president of the Fieldstone Farms Home Owners Association and am here to represent this organization. • Our position is that we are hoping the council of Milton can work with the Board of Education to help make the traffic flow a certain way. • I would like to see if there is a way we can all work together to benefit Milton and the future growth and traffic flow. Pam Kipniss,115 White Columns Dr., Milton, GA: • I have four children in the Fulton County School System. • I am here to talk about the redistricting with the Board of Education. • I am opposed to the current plan presented in round three of the community meetings. • Milton High School is closer in proximity than the Bethany Site. • I travel a north south traffic pattern to Milton as opposed to the west east pattern of the Bethany ON" site. • My most direct route to the school is to take Red Road which is a west east traffic pattern. swo • Red Road, Providence Road, and Birmingham Road are all backed up with traffic daily. 0 Filling roads to over capacity will not allow people to go where they need to go. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 3 of 41 • In addition, the accidents that can happen on the east west roads is alarming. • In review of the City of Milton's transportation plan, the crash locations from 2006 to 2008 ranged from 10 to 100 crashes during that time period. • If the City of Milton forces the Board of Education to shift back to plan A or B for an already north and south traffic pattern, no additional traffic will need to be added to the commuter traffic which uses our west east bound roads. • Highway 9 is the best infrastructure that best supports traffic coming from Alpharetta to Milton. • Our roads are not designed or build for the increased traffic flow without major improvements. • I ask you all to take a stand and meet with the Fulton County planning department and Board of Education and show them all of the work and plans that you have done for Milton. • I would like to submit two petitions that have been going around the city, one has 644 signatures and ones has 474 signatures. Rob Pokallus, 215 Creek Point, Milton, GA: • I am a father of four. • I agree that Milton High school needs a new high school. • I am not asking for any change with the new school, but I am asking the Fulton Board of Education keep the west pattern traffic pattern. • Ingrid Huff in two meetings stated that north south traffic pattern worked better than east west. • It is clear that it is an issue for this board, and I implore you all to take some action. Lisa Cauley, 14680 Freemanville Rd., Milton, GA: aw-0 • I am here to talk about the redistricting. • The last map presented in the third round of the redistricting process will have an impact to our city in many areas. • How many meetings and committees have discussed our comprehensive land use plan, our comprehensive traffic plan, our city survey, and recently the Lew Oliver city center and plans for city hall? • How much taxpayer money has been spent on all of that time? • Needless to say a lot of money and hours have been put into these items. • The Board of Education's jurisdiction is over the building of schools and finding appropriate land. • Through this redistricting, they are controlling and determining the outcome, regardless of what our plan has encompassed. • I have been told that the city does not come into play with the redistricting. • I believe that someone from the BOE should have come in for a planning commission meeting. • If we would have waited to send out the survey and waited to see the new districting, our Milton plans would not have to be adjusted or rearranged. • Our city should have the right to exercise our jurisdiction in regards to the traffic and other plans. • The building of one high school should not dictate the direction and outcome of our city. • I request that the mayor and council pass a resolution asking the BOE to consider the Milton traffic plan. to" Bryan Malone, 14430 Wood Rd., Milton, GA: • What are the east west roads that we are expected to use if you live west of Freemanville? • The gravel roads are illogical for people to use. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Paee 4 of 41 • I wonder if the Council came together to approach the state legislators if they would consider changing the plan. bad Bob Helfrich, 520 Affirmed Lane, Milton, GA: • I have a Junior at Milton High and a 2nd grader at Birmingham Falls Elementary. • 1 attended to Board of Education meeting in Dunwoody on Thursday. • I asked the board to consider whether the process so far had been thorough. • We haven't seen anything that would reveal how the board staff had analyzed the criteria. • I looked at the most recent map that showed all of the communities within a two mile radius of Milton High School are included in the Milton Attendance Zone. • Geographic proximity seems to be a factor with the rezoning. CPAC Members: The undersigned members of Milton's Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) oppose Plan C of the redistricting plan proposed by the Fulton county Board of Education. After spending the past three years in careful consideration of the land use plans as part of Milton's Comprehensive Plan, we believe Plan C is in conflict with several of the basic goals of the comprehensive Plan. We also believe Plan c is in conflict with the tenets of the Milton Transportation Plan and the Lew Oliver Crabapple Master Plan. Plan C calls for the majority of the students that would attend the new high school on Bethany Bend to travel in an East/west traffic pattern. The primary feeder roads to this new High School are Birmingham Road, Redd Road, Bethany Bend, and Providence. Each of these roads is already at over capacity. The new student, family, and bus traffic on these roads will destroy the fragile balance of cross -city commuter traffic from Cherokee County and the current Milton resident commuter traffic that is already put the roads at capacity. The BOE Plan C also calls for the majority of the future students at Milton High School to come from the current Roswell district. The primary feeder roads for the Roswell students traveling to Milton will be Crabapple Road through the Crabapple intersection and Bethany Road to Mayfield Road. These roads are at or over the capacity of the current infrastructure. The Crabapple Master Plan recently proposed by Lew Oliver calls for traffic calming measures for the already burdensome traffic volume. The traffic volume that would result from the significant student population coming through these crossroads as a part of Plan C will destroy any possibility for the new Crabapple Plan being a success. We respectfully request the Mayor and City Council formally oppose Plan C and as the Board of Education to develop a redistricting plan that takes the traffic components of Plan A and B into consideration while considering the future plans of Milton. Please pass a Resolution that formally advises the BOE that the Mayor and City Council of Milton oppose Plan C and call for the creation of a new redistricting plan. Sincerely, George Ragsdale Paul Moore Curtis Mills Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 5 of 41 No,,, Tim Enloe Kim Horn w..� Jennifer Fletcher Marty Lock Fred Edwards Lynn Gregory Mayor Lockwood: • I want to make sure that everyone knows the City nor the City Council has made a position on the redistricting. • I want to make sure that everyone knows that the City is on board with whatever the Board of Education decides the plans and we will do our best to make that plan work and do what we think is best for our citizens and children that go to school. CONSENT AGENDA City Clerk Gordon read the Consent Agenda items: 1. Approval of the March 21, 2011 Regular Council Meeting. (Agenda Item No. 11- 076) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk) 2. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Stewart - Cooper -Newell Architects, PA, to Provide Site Planning for the Proposed Public Safety Facility on Highway 9 in the Amount of $ 5,000.00. (Agenda Item No. 11- 077) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 3. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Breedlove Land Planning, Inc., to Provide Conceptual Engineering Plans for the Proposed Public Safety Facility on Highway 9 in the Amount of $5,500.00 (Agenda Item No. 11- 078) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 4. Approval of a Change Order for Engineering Services Agreement between the City of Milton, Georgia and A&R Engineering for Intersection Improvements at Cogbum Road and Bethany Bend in the Amount of $4,225.00. (Agenda Item No. 11 - 079) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 5. Approval of Engineering Services Agreement between the City of Milton, Georgia and Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the 15690 Hopewell Road Property in the Amount of $1,500.00. (Agenda Item No. 11 - 080) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) No-.. 6. Approval of a Contract in an Amount not to Exceed $510,170.00 for a City-wide Road Patching and Repair Contract with Blount Construction Company, Inc. „,m, (Agenda Item No. 11- 081) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 6 of 41 7. Approval of a Contract between The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (C.A.L.E.A.) and the City of Milton. (Agenda Item No. 11- 082) (Deborah Harrell, Police Chiefi 8. Approval of a Contract between the Atlanta Regional Commission and the City of Milton to Commence a Livable Centers Initiative Study Project. (Agenda Item No. 11- 083) (Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of the City of Milton FY 2010 Annual Audit. (Presented by Adam M. Fraley, CPA, Mauldin and Jenkins) Adam Fraley presented a Presentation of the City of Milton FY 2010 Annual Audit. Adam Fraley: • I was the engagement partner on this project. • On page two, it talks about the audit opinion. • Page three shows highlights of the financial results for the year end of September 30, 2010. • Pages three through five there is a condensed version of the foot notes and explains the foot notes. • Page 6 highlights if we had disagreement with management or unresolved issues. • Management was very cooperative and our work went smoothly. • We had few audit adjustments. • Page ten shows some findings related to audit adjustments. • There were minimal management recommendations suggested to better their processes which takes us through page eleven. • Page twelve goes through other matters such as new accounting and audit standards that come out that we want to keep everyone ahead on. • Some of them will have very little impact or none on the city and some will have a fairly large impact. • Page thirteen and fourteen shows a standard shows fund balance reporting. I encourage everyone to become familiar with those definitions and new standards. • We offer free continuing education every quarter and we encourage everyone to utilize these services. 2. May is Older Americans Month Proclamation. (Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood) Mayor Lockwood read and presented a Proclamation Proclaiming May is Older Americans Month. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 7 of 41 FIRST PRESENTATION (None) PUBLIC HEARINGS ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATIONS Approval of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Cosmo Foods, LLC d/b/a Paradise Biryani Pointe located at 5310 Windward Parkway, Suite D, Milton, Georgia 30004. The Applicant is Pavan Bandi for Consumption on Premises — Wine and Malt Beverages. (Agenda .Item No. 11-084) (Stacey Inglis, Finance Director) Stacey Inglis: • This applicant has met all of the requirements of the city of Milton to obtain their alcohol beverage license. • They are going in the old Red Hen location. • Staff recommends approval. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to approve the First Presentation item, 11-084. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. ZONING AGENDA RZ11-02 — Requested by Ashton Atlanta Residential, LLC Located at State Route 9 (south side) just west of Sunfish Bend to Rezone from C-1 (Community Business) to TR (Townhouse Residential) to Develop 43 Single Family Lots on 8.26 Acres for an Overall Density of 5.21 Units Per Acre. (Agenda Item No. 11-067) ORDINANCE NO. 11-04-90 (First Presentation at April 11, 2011 Regular Council Meeting) (Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) Lynn Tully: Good evening council. This subject site does include 8.62 acres. It is undeveloped and they are asking for TR for single family detached housing. We are looking at 43 units. The site plan does indicate that it is incompliance with the development standards and in fact I would note that the development located on Highway 9 is not required to follow the Highway 9 overlay district standards but they have provided a 20ft landscape strip on the site plan but it is not something they are required to do because of single family detached at this point. Other considerations for the site plan include fencing, which is our typical requirement of four board black equestrian fencing, screening to the rear of the homes by landscaping, color stamped patter on sidewalks every 50ft, and landscaping around the detention pond. They have submitted a environmental site analysis which the report is sufficient and satisfies our requirements. This site plan has been reviewed by the arborist, the fire marshal, the public works department, and the school board. They did hold a public involvement meeting and submitted a public participation report as required. The design review board held a courtesy review on March 1, 2011 and did have a few comments on the structures themselves as well as the screening fencing which would not be the fencing Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 8 of 41 that is on highway 9 but the fencing that would be behind the project. Let me go through the standards of review with you please. 1. Whether or not the proposal will permit a use that is suitable in the view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property. It is staff's opinion that the proposed use is suitable with adjacent and nearby developments and zonings. 2. Whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property. Again, it is staff's opinion that the proposal will not adversely affect any existing use or usability of the adjacent properties as described above. In fact, there is provision of a street extension for future connection to the west which provides a benefit to the adjacent property. 3. Whether the property to be affected by the proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. As mentioned, the subject site is currently zoned C-1 and does allow for a 62,000 square foot retail commercial office building. This would be a reasonable use as currently zoned. 4. Whether the proposal would result in a use that will or could cause excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools. Staff does not anticipate a significant impact on these services as if the development is completed as proposed. Again, the applicant has included transportation improvements as shown on the site plan and those will expect to be provided and are to maintain that same opinion. 5. Whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan. Our current future land use plan does indicate office as the appropriate use for this site. The partial plan update indicates commercial for this future site. Therefore, the proposed TR development does not conform to the land use plan map for office. Again, we have not adopted the current draft but I wanted to mention that it is different than what is being asked for. 6. Whether there are existing or changed conditions affecting the use and development of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the proposal. Although the proposed development is consistent with the adjacent nearby zonings and developments it is inconsistent with the future land use plan and the currently recommended comprehensive plan as well. 7. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered environmentally adverse to the national resources, environment, and citizens of the city of Milton and the proposed use is not expected to be environmentally adverse. In conclusion, staff has recommended denial of RZ11-02. We have provided conditions if the proposal is to be approved. The planning commission heard this proposal on March 22, 2011 and did have some comments concluding with an approval which was a split approval, five to two, at that meeting. Their comments included the possibility of relocating the proposed entrance further to the west to provide interparcel access to the Windham Subdivision to the east. It also included the location of the trees as well as located the existing specimen trees on the site and those things have been discussed. The vacancy rate of townhomes where the applicant indicated that townhomes are not a good economic market and therefore they are proposing the single family detached product. Finally, whether the property has been considered for office use. The applicant then stated that this property has been on the market for quite some time and there has been no commercial use put forward for the property and therefore they felt that a change was necessary to be viable. Are there any questions regarding this particular item? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Paee 9 of 41 Mayor Lockwood: Are there any questions? Have this property come before us on something else in the past? Lynn Tully: The original commercial zoning was RZ03-140, so it was in 2003. That would have been before you all. Mayor Lockwood: Does anyone have any questions? Alan? Councilmember Tart: Thanks Mayor. The recommended conditions to the council if we decide to approve this application, I don't want to be presumptive and assume that we are going to approve agenda item No. 11-070 which has to do with the amendments to chapter 16 article 7, however, has the recommended conditions include those upgrades to the Highway 9 that we talked about? I know that you said that it doesn't need to necessarily come up, but does it? Lynn Tully: Well, because of the fact that we did not expect at the time that we wrote these conditions, we did not expect any of the new highway 9 standards to apply to single family detached. I don't think we have, and in fact I know we haven't, reviewed it specifically with that in mind. The only thing that was really included that would normally be in the highway 9 overlay district that isn't required is that landscape strip and that was offered by the applicant. Councilmember Lusk: On the recommended conditions, article 3c, to provide a total of four spots .... what is that based on particularly when we are talking about 5,OOOsq ft. lots and .500sq ft maximums. Lynn Tully: We included two spaces inside the garage so there are two there, and two basically in the driveway fronting the garage. If it is a two car garage and you have a 20ft depth, you can park one vehicle and then joining another 9ft width additional which would be two vehicles. You have a pad basically in front of your garage. That was the intent. Councilmember Lusk: It seems like a lot for a residence of that size. Lynn Tully: It may be. Mayor Lockwood: I guess by default though, if you have a driveway there in front of your two car garage it is convenient. Councilmember Lusk: soma So there is no on street parking? ofto Lynn Tully: Not as proposed. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 10 of 41 Mayor Lockwood: Julie? Or do you want to wait? Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I'd like to wait. Mayor Lockwood: Okay, we will open it up to public comment with the applicant. City Clerk Gordon: First Mayor, I do have a letter that Ms. Mary Ann Cole would like for me to read into the record, she was unable to be here. Pete Hendricks, 6085 Lake Forrest Drive, Sandy Springs, GA: Lynn has pretty well been through her review and analysis on the application with an 8.26 acre track on the south side of Highway 9 currently zoned C-1. We have undeveloped to the west TR 7.87 unites to the acre developed and to the east TR at 8.14 units to the acre. The directly impacted portion of Crooked Creek directly across Highway 9 which is at 3.6 units to the acre and contiguous to the south, Laurel Lake which has two units to the acre. Respective minimum heated floor areas contiguous east and west 1800 to the north and to the south 2400. As we have gone through the process, I would like to point out, and I don't want to reiterate in its entirety what Lynn went through, but I think the important parts of it are the compliance under the use standard number one, compatibility with adjacent and nearby property and the adverse affect to adjacent and nearby was not anticipated to have any uniquely burdensome results on transportations, the facility, streets, utilities, and schools etc. When we get to conformity where the policy intent of the plan and she articulated that the plan for some reason calls for office on the property, however, necessarily if she finds herself in the position being bound by that as a technical recommendation, under paragraph five she does go on to state that as far as planned policies are concerned, that the applicant complies with three plan policies to accommodate our diverse population by encouraging a compatible mixture of housing types, densities, and costs within the city and also to encourage development of housing opportunities and housing residents can live close to their places of employment and support new land uses that enhance housing options in our community while maintaining support for the existing developed lower density rural, agrarian, equestrian and residential areas of the city. In wrapping up, the conclusion stating that although the proposed development is consistent with adjacent and nearby developments in the area, it appears to meet the required development standards and then we will get into the trigger, because what is set forth on the plan that the ultimate recommendation needs to denial. As we have gone through this exercise as Lynn has pointed out, we have served up of our own initiative a suggestion that there be a 20ft landscape strip along highway 9 and that is the way it was presented when it was in front of the planning commission. As I say, as we have moved through we have gotten some community input and we have gotten some market input. It appears that everyone is better served and its moved from an anticipated original minimum heated floor area roughly 2200sq ft upwards of 2600sq ft that we are better served by having that minimum heated floor area and have a range of 2600sq ft to 3000s q ft. It is a nice larger home and also gives an uptick as far as value is concerned. The net result of that is it would be covering more of the lot. So, we respectfully request that under condition 3.f, that you please give consideration to the 20ft landscape that will enable the purchasers of the home that they truly do have some level of backyard. We have chatted with staff about that and I know that they felt that because we all had it in front of planning commission of 20ft, we were hesitating to step up and say I know that you have asked for 15ft, but planning commission acted on the 20ft and so we feel that we need to leave it at 20ft. We Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 11 of 41 respectfully request that you give consideration out of giving a remarkable lot to letting that be 15ft and not 20ft. The last thing if you take a look at item 3.f, Lynn mentioned this, this came out of the public participation meeting that we had. The community thought an idea was that the four board equestrian fence for this particular corridor may not be what is best served and compatible and something more reflective of what is across from Crooked Creek might give a better look and feel. We are here committed to do a fence, that is not an issue. We have no problem with the condition 3.f as staff has put forward, but out of accommodation to the community comment that we had, we might all give thought to a fencing type that is more in keeping with what is in that corridor and under 3.f we have the four board equestrian or as the director approves. So I throw that out to your discretion, discussion, and consideration. Mike, if you want to give us a look and feel of the housing that you are anticipating building. Mike Busher, 3251 Compass Way, Milton, GA: Can everyone see that? I do have the support document that I can hand out. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I would love to see a handout. Mike Busher: I am here tonight to talk about this project. I don't know if I have enough supporting document for everyone to share, but I did want to give you a sense of the renderings. So quickly, there are six floor plans that we anticipate here with about three to four elevations a piece. Approximately 2600sgft to 3000sgft and anticipated price point is high $200k to $400k and what we hope is to show that there is a diverse architecture. We obviously take that seriously. We have our own monotony codes and our aim 6W." is to avoid the repetition of the product. I think I will leave it there and just respond to questions as needed from council. Pete Hendricks: While we know of no known opposition, we will hold the remaining time for rebuttal if needed. Mayor Lockwood: Do we have anyone in opposition? City Clerk Gordon: No sir, unless Sotear wants to speak or answer questions. Mike Busher: Sotear is our engineer and is here in case you have any questions for him. City Manager Lagerbloom: Council, just for the record what I have done with the comments that we had that were sent in in a written format, Since we do verbatim meetings in respect to the zoning agenda, what I would like to do is just present you all with a copy of those written comments and let you read them at your leisure and if own you choose to make a decision based on what is incorporated, they do speak in favor of this zoning case. That copy will be coming to you shortly. Mayor Lockwood: Are there any opposed comments that you know of? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 12 of 41 Lynn Tully: No, I haven't received any. Mayor Lockwood: I would like to ask the applicant, have you had anybody in the community speak in opposition to this? Pete Hendricks: No, we have not and I think we have given a pretty good litany of the points that were raised at the public participation meeting and none of it dealt with use and actually as we were with the planning commission and we were leaving and walking out we noticed couple of women walked out with us and we introduced ourselves and they were residents of the Wyndham subdivision contiguous and to the east and they said they were here because they were so fully supportive of this development and particularly the detached residential product and they were just hoping that the planning commission would act as they did and it not go sidewise. Mayor Lockwood: Okay, well if we don't have any more public comments, I will close the hearing now and open it up to council discussion or any questions to the applicant or to the staff. With that being said, does anyone have questions? Julie, I think you said you had some? Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I did, thank you, Mayor. I will just go through a couple of different things. Some of these may have been points that were brought up by the planning commission and/or the design review board so it may be that you guys have already addressed some of these. Carter, this first one has to do with the question from the planning commission about the movement about the entrance further west. I saw that as a question posed and I wondered if that had been a discussion point and/or if there had been any determination about moving that entrance. Pete Hendricks: Mike can speak with specificity as we were pulling this proposal together. There was a reach out, because that is an undeveloped track, there was a reach out to that property owner to try and engage them and try and bring them in to the equation so that we could hopefully then get some alignment directly across from Crooked Creek and there was a dead end stone wall on that effort. Despite that, we did run the interior road over to stub it at that property line in the event that the complexion of that property ownership should change in the future and there might be ability to extend through. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: So this being the kind of activity with Wyndham? Pete Hendricks: No, going the opposite way. Mike can also speak literally the first thing we did before we filed the application before we finalized our site plan, we did not presume the traffic improvements on Highway 9 nor the point of access. We served that up to DOT and let them be the arbiter and then come back and say that this is the way it needs to be. W" Mike Busher: I think that is well said. We started there because we weren't sure where to begin on the property. It was under their recommendation that led us to that entry point into the property. So, we have kind of Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 13 of 41 followed that right along and then back to Pete's point, in the event that the adjacent parcel to the west would become a development opportunity which seemingly it would, we did agree to stub that road and ..�. that is why you see that T -road to the west side of the property so it would allow for activity regardless of use. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I don't know if Lynn, if either or your Carter, could just speak to that .... I know I hear you guys saying that the DOT obviously was in consult with you but I just wondered if our transportation folks and/or community development had a comment about the entrances as it relates to traffic. Lynn Tully: I can say that Carter's folks did review this plan because they couldn't line it up with Crooked Creek's entrance because that is across from the adjoining property and this spacing was probably the best alternative spacing that they could get and remain within their property. Carter Lucas: It is a spacing issue with the driveways across the street as well as the site distance issue. I think the location of the driveway as it's shown maximizes site distance there along highway 9 and was agreed to by Georgia DOT. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Again, just to clarify, what was the difficulty having it directly across from Crooked Creek? Carter Lucas: That property is not part of this particular project. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Short of having additional property, this really is as close as you could get, is that fair to say? Carter Lucas: That's right. It maximized the site distance along the highway 9 corridor. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: So you did review that and are comfortable with where that is? Carter Lucas: Yes ma'am. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: In terms of specimen trees, obviously it is noted that there is a 41" oak that is being taken out, can you maybe talk about that and I would like hear from our staff also in terms of what options were considered as an alternative. Mike Busher: If I'm not mistaken, that is the one near the very front, almost in conjunction with where the proposed entry way is and on the supporting documentation I have provided, there is also a view along highway 9. I believe that tree is so damaged because of the existing power lines that if it isn't "on its last limb" I would be surprised, but we are working with the city arborist to define if it is even still truly living. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 14 of 41 Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Mark, do you want to speak to that in terms of the specimen tree? In other words, I know that our premise under our tree ordinance is that we look at alternatives... Mark Law: Yes, I was well aware of that tree. It is in the middle of where the proposed entrance is and the tree has been pruned on pretty much one side over the years because of the power lines, it does appear to still be structurally sound, and you have two others on the edge of the property that was struck by lightning this Spring pretty excessively, so the other trees that are near the road and are not vital, they're in bad shape. This one might not be as aesthetically pleasing, but it is appears to be a healthy tree. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Okay, so my question is in terms of what alternatives were there in terms of shifting the entrance so that the tree could be saved, were there some alternative site plans presented? Mark Law: We did look at that, I can't remember if it was Carter that we were talking to at one time but they were also trying to line up the road with Crooked Creek and it just wasn't going to work out so really there wasn't any way that we saw that we could shift that drive to stay away from that tree. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: So we haven't seen any plans that would show that the tree would be saved? Mark Law: That is correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: So we have one site plan. Again, I don't know that we need to debate the issue, but my question is are there some alternatives because obviously our tree ordinance encourages looking for alternative approaches and since they can't be lined up, my question would be is there an opportunity to have it shifted but still meet site requirements? This talks about most of the trees would be installed... the word "most" just isn't very specific. Could we talk about whether or not 100% of the recompenses looked to be on this site? 75%? I need something more than most, please. Lynn Tully: Let me just address this very quickly. It says that most of the trees would be installed behind certain lots. They will all be installed on the eight acres, unless for some reason they won't live and that would be something for our arborist, but he is intending them to be installed behind particular lots so that they will provide additional screening. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: The intent is to have all recompense on site? Mark Law: Yes, that is the intent. I believe it states in there... Councilmember Zahner Bailey: That isn't stated, so depending on how this would be pursued I would ask that we make that clear. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 15 of 41 Lynn Tully: Okay. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: The other, as it relates to trees, there is a discussion about four inch trees for recompense, for recompense there would be 39 four inch trees. It doesn't talk about the location. Just because obviously tree matter to the whole of highway 9, and I know that in our discussion about the highway 9 guideline, there has been talk about larger trees, obviously on those external roadways that would be visible from passerby. Again, for specificity with those 39, are those intended to be on those external areas that would be visible by passer bys? Mark Law: No, we're not intended for the recompense trees. It might have been a misread here ... in the recommended conditions it says to provide a minimum of one tree per lot. What I was looking at was one two inch tree, I was looking at placing the recompense trees on each lot. There are 43 lots and 39 recompense trees, so we would place those in the front yard of all of the lots and all of the density trees would be scattered around the perimeter and behind the lots to beef it up there. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I guess my question for consideration by this body and also by the applicant would be to consider a larger recompense tree on those streets or in those areas that would be visible from external streets. That just doesn't seem clear to me. Can you speak to that? Mike Busher: That is a good point. We kind of feel like the treatment of highway 9 is most critical for market, we have approximately $130,000 landscaping budget put together, of that not quite half covers recompense trees. The rest is designed solely for the purpose of trying to shroud what we think is a fairly busy state route from this neighborhood. The treatment of that front will be considerable and I can certainly provide landscape plans as we go forward but I can promise you that we don't see that we will use all recompense inside the neighborhood at the exclusion of the highway 9. We will do it in accordance with whatever way the arborist wants us to go, but that isn't the best to say that we will also have a full treatment on the front portion of highway 9, which I think is what you're asking about. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: It is, and I guess my question to you is what is the largest size tree that you would be willing to plant as a streetscape tree that would benefit obviously the development from a selling perspective, but also for those that live across the street and passerby traffic. I believe a slightly larger tree is going to give a larger impact and I understand that they will grown over time, but I do think that we owe it to those that will be moving in and driving by a larger tree. I would love to see it if we could, as we consider this application, consider what would be acceptable to you as the applicant for a larger streetscape tree rather than to leave it up to chance? Mike Busher: Yeah, I don't know how to answer that one exactly because what I don't want to be able to do is say well, it's going to be a minimum of a blank inch caliper tree and then.... Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I guess that is what I'm looking for. I believe along highway 9 it needs to be a minimum. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 16 of 41 Mike Busher: To that end though, if you adhere only to that minimum, then you can't intersperse what is appropriate along with, for instance, if you say "well it has to be a four inches or six inches " that may be fine, but we probably want to treat that with equally appropriate landscape architect. I wouldn't want to limit myself just to one size tree and then have you drive by and think it looks not right... Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I don't mean all of them, I just mean that we would have a minimum number of large streetscape trees that would provide an appropriate view as you are driving by, but also if you were living there. Right now, it talks more about 39 four inch trees, but it doesn't say that a certain number of those would be along highway 9. So I guess what I'm looking for is that if we were to proceed, we would have a condition that would set a minimum caliper tree for those that would be viewed by highway 9. Lynn, if you captured it along specifically along highway 9 I may just have missed it. Do we have that level of specificity? Lynn Tully: Right now it is not in there simply because typically that is not necessarily required for the single family detached components. I will say that based on the current draft of the new highway 9 text updates, it would include a tree every 30 feet in the landscape strip with a minimum five inch caliper as we spoke about it last week. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I would just ask that this council consider that then as an additional recommended condition and that we would be consistent. Councilmember Thurman: Now, the highway 9 overlay does not pertain to single family residential and they are not part of the mixed, is that correct? Lynn Tully: That is correct. Typically is still wouldn't apply specifically because it is not a mixed use zoning district, but that is what has been included in there. If you're looking for some consistency across the zoning ordinance... Councilmember Zahner Bailey: The reason I asked for that consideration, I believe that everyone's goal is to have that appear to be established and to be attractive. Again, I just ask for that to be a consideration. I think right now we don't have a recommended condition that provides a minimum and I appreciate that from staff, but I think that that would be consistent in terms of size of trees. I would ask that we consider that as a possibility for that condition. Moving away from trees, if we could speak briefly about detention. Can you speak to the detention facility? I know that this document says that we would encourage something, can you speak to whether or not you were able to provide an underground detention facility? And can you speak to where you are locating the detention? Mike Busher: Yes, Sotear Christopher is our engineer on this and I asked him to come tonight so he can answer that for you. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 17 of 41 Sotear Christopher, 280 Settin Down Ct. Roswell, GA: As mike said, I am the civil engineering consultant for Ashton Woods on this project. We have located the detention pond in the appropriate place. The low point of the site and where it discharges currently. I have not run and modeled the entire sites. We provided enough area for it. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Can you show us where that is? Is it towards Highway 9? Is it in the back? And what is it relative to? What is at that back property line? Sotear Christopher: These are residential lots along this back and that is where it collects... Councilmember Zahner Bailey: So the detention facility would be at the very back that would be in the backyards of existing home owners? I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. Mike Busher: I met with three of the homeowners there including Mary Cole, who I believe has written in tonight. The sensitivity is actually probably most felt here. That was a discussion point in the public input meeting. What we heard routinely was that most of the proposals that they have seen over the years, residents did show detention in that area. One comment was "well, it's better than what is happening right now. There is no detention and it is running off in the backyard of these homes." The person most affected by it, we have already discussed as well with the placement and he's for it. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Just to staff, I know we talked about this globally but not so much about this especially with the most recent discussion and input that we have gotten with Lew Oliver in Crabapple and whether or not there are some more neighbor friendly and community friendly approaches to detention that are more attractive in nature which moves us closer to that other approach, but also the underground facilities, have we looked at this with an eye towards some of those suggestions that we were looking at for crabapple? The reason for the question is that I would like to see us approaching every development Including those on Highway 9 and including the more community sensitive approaches to detention. Carter Lucas: We look at some of those community type activities during the permitting process. Single family detached residential under the storm water management ordinance and the storm water management manual is not permitted for single family residential just because it becomes one of those facilities that becomes out of site out of mind, you don't have a typical maintenance performed on those in the residential scenario. Generally, what we try to look for of those above ground detention facilities that are incorporated more into the site plan and are a more aesthetic part of the community. They tend to be maintained a little more. We do start to look at some of those details when get into the land disturbance permitting part o the process. +-M Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Would it be, I am curious from the engineer's perspective, right now the line just says if possible it %4W would be earthen sort of approach, can we just say it shall be as opposed to a traditional concrete detention which we see in too many communities that do end up looking unfortunate? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 18 of 41 Sotear Christopher: 004 We would need to get further along into the design and actually model the hydrology of it which we will work out during the process. Regardless, I think there will be that 20ft landscape strip surrounding the bod pond that is required by ordinance which would give a significant screen around the perimeter of the pond. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Again, I think what we are trying to move away from were the traditional concrete boxes that are so unattractive and that there are so many other solutions out there. Sotear Christopher: I try to design around it all day long because it is an expense for my client. Obviously we want to do the earthen and we would rather do a four to one slope, but at this point not having modeled the site we don't know at this point. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: My question, for you Lynn, just looking at that condition, would staff have any additional recommendation for how to strengthen that language to make sure that we are all getting where we would like to be? I know it says that walled structures are not encouraged, if wall structures are proposed then it must meet the acceptable design standards. I think I was overhearing from the applicant that that is not the approach that we are looking to go. Councilmember Lusk: I didn't see where they were proposing a walled structure. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I think that it wasn't clear. It said if a walled structure were to be there ... I don't think it was clear and we don't have the details as to what it would be... Councilmember Lusk: I don't see any indication on the paper... Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I think the difficulty is if it were a concept plan and if we don't have it captured as a recommended condition that leaves it to chance. All I am suggesting is that for the eventual home owners as well as the neighbors, we would rather not leave it to chance. If you would look at that as we continue to have discussion to see if there is any additional language that would sure that up and maybe the thing to do is, and I know in other rezoning in the highway 9 area, we captured and I want to make sure that we capture this fully as we have in other areas. Can you clarify, when you talked about moving away from the 2,200 heated floor space to the 2,600-3,000? As a result of that you wanted to from 20ft landscape strips down to 15? Satear Christopher: Yes, that is correct. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: *MOO Would it preclude you from having a 2,600 to 3,OOOsgft heated floor space if you kept the 20ft landscape strip? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 19 of 41 00-1 Satear Christopher: No. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: So you could do both? Satear Christopher: Sure. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Just to confirm, the planning commission voted with the 20ft landscape strip, correct? Lynn Tully: Yes ma'am. Pete Hendricks: The 15ft alternative is not in front of me. It was as we went through and it seemed that the larger home in the higher sales price was probably better just across the board from development applicant standpoint and from an immediate surrounding community standpoint. With that, you are taking up a bigger pad area than if you were down. When we filed the application, your conditions reflected showed a minimum of 2,OOOsgft, really thinking that we would go from 2,200 to 2,400 or 2,600sgft and then as we went thought it, we said okay, well lets go to 2,600 to 3,OOOsgft albeit that will expand the pad area on that 5,OOOsgft lot and someone buying that higher priced home, we reasonably think that they would like to feel that they have a bit of a backyard. That would certainly help. Can he technically do the 20ft? Yes. But we think from a market purchaser perspective that the 15ft would be better. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: In terms of amenity packages, I know that it's not stated here, I know that I have heard from some residence in the area that they were concerned that there wasn't an amenity package, was that just a function of the business model that you had or had you looked at the amenity package? Mike Busher: We didn't hear that in the public input, but I will tell you the rationale behind it is sort of two fold. One is that it is a relatively small parcel. What we see is buffering new product that is detached in Milton which is a rarity. That is probably your first and then with the schools regardless what happens with where the second driver and then the HOA costs. If you bring an HOA, the breaking point is 70 homes but that logic can be applied depending on how much you want to advertise over each unit. The short answer is that when you only have 30-40 people, it becomes pretty tough to support the cost of the HOA. It's not just for business reasons, and we would love to do it, but it is kind of constrained and we felt that it would be best without it. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Thank you. The final question I have is for Carter. As it relates to trails, sidewalks, or alternative ,.•. pathways, I know that this has a recommended condition of stamped concrete sidewalks, but can you speak to activity and the whole plan with our alternative pathways going and whether or not it was a consideration on this site plan. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Paee 20 of 41 Carter Lucas: As it relates to Highway 9 it was. The corridor along Highway 9 would comply with our trail master plan. Internal to that it was up to the applicant. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: So these sidewalks that were proposed meet with the requirements of the trail plan including that section of Highway 9 in terms of width and distance from road? Carter Lucas: Yes ma'am. Mayor Lockwood: Okay, Karen? Did you have a question? Councilmember Thurman: Okay, I just have a couple of questions. Number one, it is item 3.g which says that 20ft landscape strip and you're asking for that to be down to 15ft? Mike Busher: Correct. Councilmember Thurman: Would you be able to go with something in between? I can understand still the need for them to have a yard, but at the same time we can make sure that we have consistencies with other things if we went with something else? Mike Busher: What I don't want lost in translation is I understand that we are coming before you with something different, it almost seems like, is there a surprise here? To that, I would say that if you are willing to consider 15ft then please act on that. 17ft, I don't know if that is in between or if it achieves what we are going for but I think that the only goal here is to try and get the ultimate user of that lot as much yard as possible. The inclusion of the landscape strip, how that evolved over time, was just we felt that we need to treat that area and we know we have to plant a lot there, but when it is turned over to the HOA, we want that to be a strip that the HOA owns in common, not the burden of that individual or themselves. That was the logic behind that. Pete Hendricks: If it helps on that consideration and going back to what Mrs. Zahner Bailey raised a bit earlier- right now we have conditions 3.h talking about 2" caliper trees. We were discussing the cost of other discussions and we were going on about the detention facility. We would be willing to commit every 30ft along highway 9 to a minimum of 4" caliper trees with those trees forming a portion of the 39 trees necessary for recompense. Maybe that helps a little bit here, with this 15ft versus 20ft business. Councilmember Thurman: And those trees, they would be planted within the landscape strip? Pete Hendricks: Correct. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 21 of 41 Councilmember Thurman: It says that item 3.b states that 2,OOOsgft minimum, it sounds like here what your intent is willing to do... Pete Hendricks: 2,600sgft is fine. Councilmember Thurman: Okay. Mayor I'm ready to make a motion if there are no more questions. Mayor Lockwood: I believe Alan has a question. Councilmember Tart: Yeah, I do have a couple of questions, thank you Mayor. Condition 3.h as far as the caliper tree, 2" caliper tree per lot, has there been a consideration to what that tree may be? Mike Busher: I don't remember in the plan what we have called out for, but yes. There is one, our landscape architect is working with the City arborist, but is something specific that you have in mind? Councilmember Tart: The reason I'm asking is because when you have a high density neighborhood like this like in my neighborhood, now in my neighborhood we are dealing with going on 12 years into the neighborhoods history and now all of the trees are interfering with the sewer lines and all of them have to come down at some point or the other. They're having to be replaced with immature trees that are not hardwoods. I want us to be thinking in terms of looking at the root systems of the trees and whether or not if the tree that goes there is suitable for that, because sometimes the developer just puts the tree there and they're gone and then 10 years down the road we are in trouble because the whole lot of trees are gone. And we are depending on the HOA to make that happen. The other question I have is in regards to .... actually, I'm good. I know that Karen is about to make a motion, I would like for us to consider and no one has mentioned the fact that this proposed use is contrary to the land use plan that we just passed and this will be the first rezoning that I am aware of that has gone before this body since the state approved our land use plan so right from the get go we are being inconsistent. I do realize that this use seems to be consistent with the other uses in the area, however, our comprehensive plan, our CPAC, Planning commission and all of the information that came to us that we looked at and approved had office in this area which I am baffled now that the planning commission is approving 5-2. I would like for us to have some serious conversation on that, because I am a believer in consistent use of our land use policies or else we wouldn't have them. We haven't seemed to address that though. Mayor Lockwood: Lynn, in your opinion, would you consider this to be a down zoning of the property to go from C 1 down? mom Lynn Tully: Immo Yes sir, it would be a down zoning. I would say just to add, the planning commission did come to that approval recommendation after a pretty considerable discussion on just the points that you brought up. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 22 of 41 It's just one of those odd situations where the existing uses and even the existing adjacent zoning is TR No% makes it an unusual request for commercial. Mayor Lockwood: two Just across the street there is a lot of empty office that has been sitting there for quite a while so it could be years before the market catches up. Anymore questions? Bert? Councilmember Hewitt: I think in one of the letters mentioned, this kind of property in the past couple of years or so has become a dumping ground of sorts. How soon if this were to get approved do you plan on moving forward with this and getting some of it cleaned up? Mike Busher: It is now owned by BB&T bank, it is part of our condition in our contract that they would clean up that property if they pursue it. If not, we will do it. We have already budgeted for it. I believe if we make a decision tonight, within no more than a month it would be gone by one of us. I intend to close soon here after if we make a decision. The other point that Alan made was just about the use and the property was marketed for about 18months as its current use, and the value has fallen as it has sat there and I actually kept approaching the bank to ask if I could rezone it for residential and they said they didn't want to go through that time and it was only after 18 months of marketing C-1 with no one approaching them, that they let me do it. Now that's a short term answer. It certainly did talk about the recession of the market and the current use for commercial. I also live across the street and saw it for years too and I tried to figure out what the heck was going on with this thing. One thing I heard and shared was that it was an eyesore. It is just sitting there and it could be better. I feel that the proposal that we have is fair. It's not a win for all parties, but I do believe it is fair. I hope that it is for practical use. Councilmember Lusk: First I would like to commend you for taking the initiative to push forward and try and propose something for this eyesore. My main concern is the traffic situation and the proximity of your entrance to the entrance of Sunfish. I'm not sure if this is an issue that should be addressed to your engineer, but it certainly impacts you too. Is there any possibility to combine those two entrances knowing what a traffic mess it is on Highway 9, particularly making a left turn westbound out of sunfish or the property and of course making a westbound turn out of Crooked Creek. I know there is some discussion here in the report about possibly pursuing GDOT. How do you see all of that coming together? Mike Busher: It is hard because my duties are to the company so I have to try and figure out how can I get product in Milton? That is my task. To that end, you come across a property and you think it has reached a point where we can finally buy it. Obviously we're not printing money in the homebuilder industry. So can we figure out but still build a well conceived product there and spend the appropriate money on the areas that we think really does matter and landscaping is absolutely one of them. I think it is the place where you get credit but it is money well spent. Back to Julie's point, the budget we have allocated is about triple what we would typically do for a neighborhood of this scale. We see that as critical, but to your point I think it would be very tough. I don't know how to get there. There is always a physical way to ,,,14R get there but I don't know how to get there financially. Either we have to involve the owner next to us who does not seem to be willing to participate and even then I don't know if that even connects us in a „mw meaningful way without saying to that person that we are going to develop a road through your property. Without his plan in front of us, that's all we can do. It does allow us to connect back over time into ours Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 23 of 41 ,M-" and I do see that it is zoned TR so if he just moved forward with this property as is, he could connect it to ours and that would help with traffic in a meaningful way. In long term planning, at least there is NW -A some opportunity there to connect. Pete Hendricks: I would also comment that coincidentally, we had one of the planning commission members who lives in Wyndham and she said they were absolutely not interested in handling that traffic. Councilmember Thurman: Mayor, I would like to make a motion. Motion: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve RZ 11-02 with staff recommendations and with the following changes: 1. Change 3.b, Minimum heated floor area shall be 2,600 square feet; 2. Change 3.f to emphasize the portion that reads "or as approved by the Community Development Director to determine type as to whether or not a similar product is across the street that might make more sense"; 3. To modify 3.g to provide a 15 -foot landscape strip along Hwy 9 interior to the new right-of-way; 4. To add 3.i: Plant one 4" caliper tree every 30' within the landscape strip along Hwy 9. These will be a part of the 39 recompense trees required for the site. """" Second and Vote: Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. 2. Ull-OUVC11-01-Requested by Union Primitive Baptist Church Located at 335 Cox Road to Increase the Size of the Existing Fellowship Hall 2,060 Square Feet to 3,000 Square Feet and a Concurrent Variance to Delete the 50 -foot Undisturbed Buffer and 10 -foot Improvement Setback along the West Property Lines to Allow the encroachment of the Existing Driveway, Basketball Court, Portion of the Fellowship Hall and the Cemetery. [Sec. 64-1141(3)a.] (Agenda Item No. 11-068) ORDINANCE NO. 1.1-04-91 (First Presentation at April 11, 2011 Regular Council Meeting) (Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) Lynn Tully: I would call your attention to the fact that this request does include both a use permit and a variance request. The use permit is for the church and the variance request is for the setbacks. The subject site does include a little over three acres and it was originally over two parcels and those parcels have been combined into one. The subject site does have an existing church and an existing fellowship hall, OPM associated parking, driveways, a basketball court, and a cemetery. Most if not all of this was constructed prior to our incorporation as a city. There was an original use permit for the original parcel row U96-005 as well as an original variance which was given for parking 95VC-17. So, there are some long standing items with regards to this parcel and this project. The site plan analysis did reveal that concurrent variance and the variance was to provide a total of 25 parking spaces. Those spaces are still Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Pase 24 of 41 included and in fact included an additional three spaces. The use permit standards have been met with the proposed expansion hall. The Northwest overlay district requirements have also been met with the exception of the variance request. They did conduct a participation plan and held a meeting receiving some discussion but not much. We also contacted the city of Roswell considering the proximity of this project to see if they had any comments and they did not. They were not opposed to the proposed development. This project has been taken before the DRB on March 1, 2011 and they did provide comment. The staff does recommend approval conditional to U l l -O I NC I I -O 1 with again those recommended conditions that are attached. I will go through specifically the variance items as well. Those items are: a. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the land use or economic development plan as adopted by the Mayor and City Council. This proposal is consistent with the intent and policy of the current partial plan update to encourage development that is sensitive to the overall setting of the community and contributes to our communities character and sense of place. b. Compatibility with land uses and zoning districts in the vicinity of the property for which the use permit is proposed. This proposal is expected to be compatible with other land uses in the surrounding area. c. Whether the proposed use may violate local, state, and/or federal statutes, ordinances, or regulations governing land development. am As proposed, the use does not violate any known local, state, and/or federal statutes. If approved and 000 developed with those recommended conditions. d. The affect of the proposed use on traffic flow, vehicular and pedestrian along adjoining streets. The proposed use should not generate any increase in traffic based on the fact that the expansion is to the fellowship hall and does not increase the number of trips to the site. e. The location and number of off street parking spaces. Again, we reference back to the 96 variance which includes a requirement of 25 parking spaces and they have provided just over that with 28 spaces. f. The amount and location of open space. Approximately half of the subject site still remains undeveloped and we are under the opinion that this development does have adequate open space for the proposal. g. Protective screening. There is adequate screening for the proposed development, again referencing back to the open space that is required. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Paee 25 of 41 h. Hours and manor of operation. This is a church, it will be open on Sunday. It will also be open on Wednesday from 6:30 to 9:OOpm. i. Outdoor lighting. The applicant does have some security lighting on site. All of the site should be in compliance with the night sky standards of the northwest Fulton overlay district. j. Ingress and egress to the property. The site plan does include curb cut on Ebenezer Rd. and two curb cuts on Cox Rd. This proposal is consistent with the council plans and policies and is compatible with the surrounding area assuming that it is developed in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and our conditions as set forth and therefore we recommend approval conditional of U l l -01 and V C 11-01. Are there any questions? Councilmember Zahner Bailey: As it relates to the 25 parking spaces, can you speak to the percentage of those that are perhaps pervious vs. non pervious. Lynn Tully: Some of them are gravel ... give me just a minute and I will see if I can... UN.W Councilmember Zahner Bailey: The point being that the more of those that we can keep as pervious the better. Councilmember Hewitt: I think there is a note on the plan that says the spots represent unmarked gravel spaces... Lynn Tully: It looks like more than half of those spaces are provided as gravel spaces. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I just wanted to say that as we hear from the applicant if we could confirm whether or not on the conditions or not that it would be a percentage that would continue to be anticipated... Councilmember Thurman: It looks like 20 of the 28 spaces are gravel. All the new spaces are gravel. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: My final question is from a design standpoint, and know it has been to the DRB, but will it be going back to the DRB at the appropriate time in terms of what the construction would be? Lynn Tully: Yes ma'am. For the building permit. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 26 of 41 Mayor Lockwood: Any questions Karen? Councilmember Thurman: Not until after we hear the applicant. Mayor Lockwood: Alright, first I would like to hear from the applicant and those that are in support of this application. Scott Reece, 846 Cowart Rd., Dawsonville, GA: I am from Reece and Associates. We were retained by union primitive Baptist church to produce a site plan so that it might increase their fellowship hall to meet the changing needs of their existing congregation. In preparation of this site plan, we made the church aware that they would have to obtain a special use permit and also that they would be subject to the northwest overlay district that would be created since the last time they built the fellowship hall in 1996. We communicated with them, went through the process, and we have tried to bring the existing conditions into conformity and the only way we can do this is through asking for the variances to the buffers and to the setbacks. I worked with everyone to try and make everything work the best. You will see that the parking spaces are gravel, the 20 spaces. We tried to save all of the specimen trees that we possibly could, we were kind of limited as far as where the placement of the addition is with architecture and the placement of the existing structure. If I can answer any questions I would be glad to as far as one of the other considerations is that we had to reserve an area, not the initial septic system, but in case there was a failure for a reserve septic system so that is a another reason for the asking of the variance to the setbacks. If I might, on a purely personal level as a long time resident and descendent of the early settlers of this area, anything that we can do to preserve the heritage of these handful of small country churches that were formed with the original formation of the county of Milton, I would greatly appreciate it as a descendent of the people that are buried in the cemetery and of the original settlers. Todd Loyet, 5280 Franklin Goldmine Rd., Cumming, GA: I am a member of Union Primitive Baptist Church. A little history on the church, the church was first constituted in 1828 and has served the community ever since. Union has been in its present location for over 100 years as previous located was at the corner of Rucker Rd. and Highway 40 in which a fire destroyed the church and moved to its present location. The historical cemetery that was near the old church still remains. In approximately 1998, the fellowship building was constructed including the dining area of 1,200sgft with a total building of 2,060sgft including a kitchen and restroom facilities. In approximately 2005 the church bought the corner property at Ebenezer Rd. and Cox Rd. connecting to our existing property. Site improvements were done by adding concrete driveway to two entrances on Cox Rd. Originally there were three entrances on Cox Rd. and one was terminated. There is one entrance to Ebenezer Rd. The concrete pad for basketball was added for our youth. The concrete provided safer access from the road to the church and poured in place concrete for handicap parking and safe access to the church. The previous driveway was all gravel. We meet every Sunday for worship service and we have lunch in the fellowship building twice a month. We also have Wednesday night bible study. We have on average 65 members and visitors for Sunday Worship service. Our dining area including food tables seats presently seats 65 people comfortably. Our church has a total of 125 seating occupancy. As we look to the future, we realize that we will need more space for our dining area and it is our intent to add on 30ft by 31 ft extension extending the building long ways with a 1 ft offset in the front as the best for our functionality. No impact to any tree removal and a flat grate to build on so the new slab elevation meets the existing elevation. The distance from the property line to the new addition Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 27 of 41 at its closest point is 36.9ft which is the reason for part of the variance. The building will have an approximate height of 18ft. Also we are requesting a variance for our existing driveway to Ebenezer road and concrete path for our basketball area. The design of the building which we consulted with an architect, for the building to be extended straight across and we will have a lft. offset on the new structure. The brick from the side of the building, since the building is old, we will not be able to match it for the front. The front will have brick, but we will remove the brick from the side of the building and use it for the front so we can recycle the brick. It has white vinyl siding in the rear and we will go to the brick company and on the sides to match up the brick as best we can and of course we would use the same grey mortar. We have also contacted Malcolm Sanders with the Fulton County Health Department to see what the requirement would be for the additional space for our restroom facilities since we are on a septic tank. I met with him several times and he said the size of the tank is compliant and we only need to add 25ft of new filtrate line which we have plenty of room for that and any additional replacement if needed in the future. We have reached out to the community to communicate our request and to provide detailed information for our building extension to provide plans and elevations to our adjoining neighbors and have obtained approvals from those we could reach. We had one opposition from 360 Cox Rd. It is an unoccupied home in which the resident through email contact from myself they offered to withdraw their opposition if they were the only one holding up our request. The first communication email was sent to Robyn and Robyn forwarded it all to me and we made contact from there. That is all I have and thank you for your consideration. Mayor Lockwood: Do we have any other speakers in support of this application? City Clerk Gordon: NO -0 No sir and none in opposition. Mayor Lockwood: I will close the public hearing and open it up to questions from council either to staff or the applicant. Does anyone have any questions? Councilmember Tart: I would like to go ahead with a motion. Councilmember Thurman: I just wanted to say that I went to visit the site over the weekend and it is one of our treasures and I think it is important to make sure that they stay part of the city. Todd Loyet: I would like to add that if you look at the names on the tombstones in the cemetery, you can see the datelines and when the first burials were which were in the late 1800's which coincides when the church was moved to that site. You can see Cox's, King's, Danger's and other families from our area. And families are still attending the church from those family lines. „�... Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I just wanted to say that as an extension of that I would really encourage you guys to get in touch with our historic preservation commission so that we can help to highlight the history of the church and the history of the cemetery. I think it is important that we help to educate folks about the history and we can do that in a proactive way through our commission. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 28 of 41 Motion: Councilmember Tart moved to approve U l l -01 /VC 11-01, Agenda Item No. 11-068 with 0" staff's recommended conditions. Second and Vote: Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). *am Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. 3. ZM11-01— Requested by Charles Feyt Located at Lot #9 — Atlanta National Subdivision (Crooked Stick Drive) to Modify Condition Le. (RZ85-181) to Reduce the 100 -foot Building Setback Along the South Property Lines to 50 feet and to Reduce the 100 -foot Building Setback Along the West Property Line to 40 Feet. (Agenda Item No. 11-069) (First Presentation at April 11, 2011 Regular Council Meeting) (Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) Lynn Tully: Before I start our presentation, I would like to let you know that the applicant has requested by letter to defer the item until May 16`h, 2011 in order to follow up on some additional concerns regarding his original request. If you would like I can continue the presentation but we did advertise it for a public hearing and so we should probably hold the hearing. Mayor Lockwood: Yeah, let's do that. Do we have any public comment? City Clerk Gordon: There is no public comment. Mayor Lockwood: Would it be okay to close the public hearing and advertise it later? Councilmember Thurman: Mayor I would like to make a motion if the public hearing is closed. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to Defer ZM 11-01 Agenda Item No. 11-069 to the May 16, 2011 Regular Council Meeting per applicant's request. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. 4. RZ11-03 — To Amend Chapter 64, Article VII, Division 5 (State Route 9 Overlay District). (Agenda Item No. 11-070) ORDINANCE NO. 11-04-92 (First Presentation at April 11, 2011 Regular Council Meeting) (Discussed at April 18, 2011 Work Session) (Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) Lynn Tully: These are those recommended changes to the State Route 9 overlay district. If you will refer to the .r purpose and intent on your desk. I have attempted to include all of those comments that we had from Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 29 of 41 work session last week. Those are shown in yellow highlighted section. I will walk through them very quickly and if you have any questions please stop me as we go through. On page two under storm water management facilities we have changed section 1088.b to read "facilities that are located above ground shall be located in the least conspicuous area of the site as engineering standards will allow". We have separated that and included in c. that "above ground storm water management shall be designed to create a natural look." Those two things were originally in one bullet. The next change was under 64-1090 we removed Bethany Bend Rd. and made it Bethany Bend. Under c. "each 30 linear feet of landscape strip shall include a minimum of one five inch caliper hardwood shade tree as approved by the city arborist". I spoke with him about this specifically, and as long as this is narrowly confined, which it is, it is combined to these landscape strips identified in a. So that it is confined to those major roadways. I think we can get those to work in those constraints. On page five, section 64-1092.] under fencing I added "when a fence is located on a commercial site, the required fences shall also include a minimum 3ft wide landscape strip on the exterior of the fencing. This landscape strip may be included within any required landscape strip per section 64-1090.a." So again, we are looking at the fencing having some landscaping. We are not saying that it has to be trees necessarily but to have some addressing of the ground adjacent to the fencing on the exterior where those fences are required. On k I removed Bethany Bend Road replacing it with Bethany Bend only. Moving on to page eight, under lighting section 64- 1094.g, I clarified in g that the shoebox and cobra head light fixtures as typically used in parking area lighting and exposed neon lighting as typically used on building facades, architectural features are prohibited. That is simply to clarify that those things are exterior lights on buildings. I added .i, which was under much discussion which states "accept that each commercial establishment shall be entitled to an single exposed neon or LED sign which may only be eliminated during periods when the commercial establishment is open for public business. Such sign shall have a maximum sign face of 4sgft and shall be positioned on the interior as a window signs no more than five feet from the main entrance of the commercial establishment. Please note that the sign is expressly prohibited from blinking, flashing, flocculating, and or may not be animated in any way." That is kind of a restatement of what is already in the sign ordinance but I figured I might as well put it in there too just to be clear. Again, it includes the 4sgft maximum, not necessarily because that is what is mostly out there, but because that is what is consistent with the sign ordinance today. We have a maximum window sign size of 4sq ft and so I just carried that over to keep it consistent. Councilmember Lusk: How do you measure the area of a neon sign? Lynn Tully: Sign faces are described in the definitions and it is measured by the largest geometric form that could include it. So it is square or rectangle or whatever just as long as you can include the entirety of the sign that is how it is typically measured. Mayor Lockwood: I'm assuming you are clarifying those... Lynn Tully: Wo The next item is section 64-1095, and I had asked you all to look at this pretty closely, this is the section where we included those single family detached dwellings in mixed use zoning districts so it reads as ram proposed "this section shall apply to all properties within the areas on the attached map, state route 9 zoning overlay district January 2011 except single family detached dwelling units unless specified herein .... the building materials in architectural design standards in this section shall also apply to single Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 30 of 41 family detached dwelling units located in the mixed use zoning districts and adjacent to the following streets- Windward Parkway, Deerfield Parkway, Cogburn Rd., State Route 9, Webb Rd., Morris Rd., and Bethany Bend Rd." I have captured that correctly and we will move on. Page 12 section 64-1096.h, I included after discussion about additional bike racks that were to be required for larger buildings so we included additionally one rack shall be required for each 15,000sgft of development in a multitenant center and one rack per 50,000sgft shall be required for any single tenant 50,000sgft in size or greater. k. has been added where multiuse trails are available to a commercial site, credit may be allowed to reduce the required number of parking spaces credit for providing spaces for alternative vehicles, golf carts, and other approved trail transportation shall be given at a rate of 1.5 required spaces for each alternative vehicle space with a maximum reduction of 10% of the required spaces. That gives a credit if we approve segways and golf carts on multiuse trails and those connect then we are all square. Alright, I think that was it. Those are the last of the changes for this section. If I need to, this includes changes that incorporate those recommendations from the highway 9 guidelines committee as reviewed by the planning commission as well as it includes a new Deerfield overlay zoning district which is included within the state highway 9 overlay district to accommodate those properties that are only on Deerfield and are within the Deerfield master planned area. Mayor Lockwood: Any questions? Karen? Councilmember Thurman: Thank you for doing all of that. I think you have captured most of our things, my only comment is a 4sgft neon sign is too big. A 2sgft neon sign is.... ON Mayor Lockwood: What is the typical neon sign measurements? Councilmember Thurman: I'm think a 1 '/2ft X 2ft is enough and 3sgft but not 4sgft. Mayor Lockwood: What was your typical size for a sign? Lynn Tully: I am guessing, but I think it was somewhere around 18inches tall being the max but it is still big. Mayor Lockwood: So that would be 3sgft? Lynn Tully: Yes sir. Councilmember Thurman: That is my only comment. Mayor Lockwood: Julie? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 31 of 41 Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Just a couple quick questions. One, I know that you all took time to go back and capture our thoughts so thank you for that. On the neon signs, I do have some concerns with this. Size is one of them, and the other is just that the Highway 9 steering committee has not seen the benefit of this language as it relates to signage. I know that it has been a discussion of that committee, but can you also speak to whether or not we also have a sign committee that is working on signage that would include highway 9? Lynn Tully: Well, let me touch on the first part of your question. First, the highway 9 committee, the guidelines committee, did talk about signage and lighting and decided to defer the majority of that discussion to any updates in the sign ordinance so they stayed away from most of that. They did meet in conjunction with the planning commission at a work session specifically to go over these guidelines, this was brought up again at this work session and they decided to leave it the way it originally was prohibiting neon lighting of any type. The second part of your question was whether or not there was a sign committee. Right now we don't have an appointed committee, but it's simply a group of planning commissioners. There are two planning commissioners actually that have volunteered to help work on some updates that are specifically targeted in the sign ordinance now. They do include loosely again some citizenry. They have asked for some input from sign companies as well as some input from realtors and others and business owners in the area. Again, like I said it is not a formal committee but they are working on some recommendations that they are going to bring back to the planning commission and ask for them to make a recommendation to you all. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: My only question with that is that one, incorporating Karen's thought about what is the right size if this is going to be considered, I continue to be concerned about neon signage because we have heard from a lot of citizens that are concerned about neon signage. A suggestion would be because we are looking at the sign ordinance and whether or not we would want to set this aside, not to ignore it, but to allow for that committee or the non official committees, but a group of folks that are working on the sign ordinance along with staff at least so that we don't incorporate something that would somehow be either in conflict with what they are having a discussion about, but it just concerns me because I know that this was on our agenda only a week ago and I applaud the turnaround, but because signage is something that I think a lot of citizens and businesses have interest in, I would feel better if I felt this had been more than just seven days. I am not sure that folks have had the attention span to focus on this in particular. I would just ask for that consideration, not to put it aside forever, but to incorporate the suggested language as a part of what the signed ordinance is being reviewed as so that we wouldn't have any unintended consequences of folks feeling that we were not being as transparent as we wanted to be. Just on 3.i because signage is a sensitive topic. Not to say that this wouldn't ultimately, with adjustment to size, get approved that I would ask for consideration of that. Councilmember Thurman: If we don't include it in here, then staff has got to start enforcing it. Mayor Lockwood: ... That was my only question is that this is an immediate concern and I think to Julie's point I totally understand and we are all concerned about neon signs but I think the intent of the council was just to address these neon open signs. So, I personally think that we could do that with our common sense that we can go to the 3sgft or whatever because what we think most people are using are open signs. I know Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 32 of 41 we can't dictate what they say. That would be my suggestion and we would like to include that in here and we can always go back and change it if they come up with another suggestion. City Manager Lagerbloom: ft" If you want to keep it in here and you want it to be altered or restrictive, which I think we can, we can drop it down to 2sgft. It would cover everything I could think of. Lynn Tully: I will say for transparency sake I did alert the committee because they are meeting tonight that we would have this on the agenda tonight and we would let them know what the proposal was and what the verbiage was. They are aware of it but they didn't have time to respond necessarily, but they are aware of it. Mayor Lockwood: I personally think we need to move forward it and we can always go back and change the sign ordinance. Councilmember Lusk: I think we have kicked this can down the road long enough and I think we have heard from the business community up and down highway 9 certainly last week from Joe Longoria about the concern of the signage on highway 9. I agree with the 2sgft proposal and I think we need to incorporate it and move forward with it and then the next part of it is to establish a committee or a study group to get back into the sign ordinance city wide and address all of these issues. Lets engage the business community, realtors, and everyone else that is a stakeholder in that effort. In talking about economic development our here for the last couple of years and I think that signage is a key part of not only publicizing the businesses that we have but attracting more businesses into our community so I would like to see us move forward and then revisiting the sign ordinance. I will go along with the 2sgft. Councilmember Tart: Is there a reason why, and I have asked this question of Ken last week, we have retained the "must" on section 64-1089.b page two, that is the only place in this whole document that I can find that we say must instead of shall. Lynn Tully: That is that section that was pulled by the planning commission. That section had an amenities section that was pulled for additional review. The planning commission did not recommend that that move forward. It is shown here but there is a note which speaks to that and we want to look more into defining what those public amenities really are. They felt like they were a little too loose for them to be comfortable with recommending to you all at this point in time. Councilmember Tart: Well this is, unless I'm not reading it right, b just refers to the type of benches. Lynn Tully: Yes sir, you're reading it correctly but that is part of the amenities. We can change those to "shall" when we bring it back to you separately. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 33 of 41 Councilmember Thurman: That is not before us? And will with the planning commission's recommendations is what you're saying? Lynn Tully: Yes. City Manager Lagerbloom: The pictures here on the second page and the comments are over here on the other page adjacent to it. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: So that entire section is being set aside? Lynn Tully: Yes. Councilmember Tart: So with the motion, if we approve it we will need to say that. Lynn Tully: I apologize if that was unclear. Councilmember Tart: When is the suspense date for when that might come before us because I consider that to be one of the most important parts of this document? Lynn Tully: da for Planning commission? I believe it would be Robyn, do we happen to have that on the May agen probably set aside to the June planning commission which would mean it would come back before you all in July. Councilmember Tart: Okay. The other question that I have is if we look at page 8 and going back to the neon lights again, up in g where is says that shoebox and cobra head light fixtures are typically used and blah blah blah exposed neon lighting is prohibited and then in i. it says that we have the exception to g. I've never seen it like this before. Should there not be a cross reference to the strict prohibition in g, shouldn't there be a cross reference to the exception in i? City Attorney Frickey: To the extent, section i is intended to be an exception specifically from g, it would be best to have that specifically referred to i. Councilmember Tart: PON So it needs to say except to specify in paragraph i? *,,,o City Attorney Frickey: As an exception to the prohibition in section g.... Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Paae 34 of 41 Councilmember Tart: There also appears to be redundancy with w. on page 12, I didn't know if that was a redundancy or it was addressing some other exposed neon lighting on page 12? Why do we need it in both places? And if we do need it in both places, then we need to provide that exception that paragraph w about exposed neon lights being prohibited, is that talking about some other type of neon lights? Lynn Tully: No, it's talking about lighting around architectural features and I know that it has been crossed out but that was the original intent. Councilmember Tart: Is that clear based on the section title of what we are talking about or do we need to add some verbiage there? City Attorney Frickey: If that prohibition was intended to be limited then the limitations should be clearly spelled out. Lynn Tully: We should probably add that language back in so that it reads "exposed neon lighting outlining and detailing building features is prohibited". Mayor Lockwood: Do we have any more questions? Julie? Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Thank you Mayor. I am concerned with opening the door back in neon lighting. I understand that we want businesses to reflect that they are open and I would suggest that there is a lot of wonderful cities and communities that are able to identify that they are open for business without having neon lights, Charleston being a great example. I think that we can promote economic development and still shy away from neon signage which is pretty countered to a lot of the design standards that have been in place. Perhaps we haven't fully vetted the full prohibition with this exception. I believe that all of this should be valid for discussion purposes and it concerns me that we are not allowing committees that are in place and the planning commission to at least comment on that one item. If this were to proceed since the last time we talked about it, it was made clear that this would not apply to other overlays. I would respectfully ask that we respect those other entities that have looked at this to date and at least give them a month to look at it and provide us with their input and I appreciation your consideration. Councilmember Thurman: Mayor, I would like to make one comment. I'm not at all comfortable with us having unofficial committees. I do not feel comfortable with having a committee that is made up of members that haven't been appointed by the council that we don't even know who is on the committee, that the public doesn't know who is on the committee, doesn't know when they're meeting. I feel like if this is going to be looked at it needs to be looked at by an official committee or else the planning commission as a whole needs to do it at a public thing. I think that as far as transparency, unofficial committees are not a good thing for us to have. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Paee 35 of 41 Mayor Lockwood: I would like to comment on that. I know Chris, Lynn and I have talked about that recently. I will start by saying I have been a proponent for quite a while and we all talked about previous meetings about our staff looking at our sign ordinance and whatnot and somehow this got started by talking about getting some ideas from some businesses and volunteers. Somehow through our volunteers it has ended up being a couple of business people and then a member of the planning commission showed up and it never really was formed into a committee. I agree, I know the staff has been working with these few individuals and sometimes some people would show up and sometimes not. I think it is going down a path that isn't good. It needs to be either set up as an official committee or maybe have the business committee or the Milton business alliance, they are the ones that hears the issues and all of that. Maybe have them come up with some recommendations and let our business community come up with some recommendations to present to us or to our planning commission or out staff. They can show us what they would like to see and it can be discussed with staff. Right now, I feel like it is not being productive. Councilmember Thurman: I feel like we have lost some transparency because no one knows who is on this committee. Mayor Lockwood: It is obviously not an official committee it just started out with some people coming up with ideas and present them to you and let the staff look at it. I think it has gotten off track. Just so you know, we talked about that last week and we need to figure out something. Maybe we could just get some of staff s thoughts on that and we can present them to the council and see how we want to move in the future on that. Lynn Tully: Let me address that just really quickly in how we got started. Only because I have a good planning commission who is very passionate about what they do and very admirably they wanted to participate in making some changes and the sign ordinance is just one, and they have several projects with items they have seen that need to be changed and they want to participate more deeply on making those changes and so we have kind of set out a couple of planning commissioners for several of these smaller projects to start looking at with staff and what has happened is they have invited for some input here and for some there and it has grown into a little more formal unofficial committee that is still unofficial. Yes, there are still some issues with that as well and we will work to make these more formal committees as necessary and/or to work on them as staff and bring them from staff as much as possible and as staff, part of our duty is to solicit some input and some comments but not necessarily as a committee format. Mayor Lockwood: Maybe we can think through that and we can get your though next week... Councilmember Thurman: I like the Mayor's idea. We can get together with the Milton business alliance, advertise it, let anyone that wants to show up at the meeting show up and that way there is some complete transparency with it. %Do Mayor Lockwood: I will tell you why I like that, I think it really benefits all parties and all concerns on the issue because if you set up a committee and you get some folks that are involved with the city or on a board or whatnot Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 36 of 41 then sometimes people can get led to direction or perceive something that isn't there. If one of us or someone on a board is involved, then the question is are we making the decisions now? Sometimes it's almost better to get a blank slate and get some ideas and then we can discuss them and move forward with that. So the next meeting or so, if you guys could give us some ideas and we will see which way the council wants to go. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: If we could go back to the original discussion with staff was that staff was pursuing and evaluating our sign ordinance and specifically within that review we weren't opening up the entire sign ordinance to rewrite it in its entirety, but that there were specific items and I believe Councilmember Hewitt was part of this genesis of this process, was to identify what were some of the top issues that we have heard from over time? I just want to make sure that as we have this discussion that we are not suddenly going back and rewriting our entire sign ordinance and I say that from the perspective that we have had a lot of folks, citizens, businesses, etc. for many hours and official committees that have weighed into this as subsets of our overlays etc. So I just want to make sure that we are not suddenly taking back what we first committed to do when staff first took on the review of our sign ordinance. Can we just get a level understanding? City Manager Lagerbloom: I will have to bring that back to you. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I just want to know if we are addressing the specific items or are we now going back and reopen 0" Pandora's box as it relates to the sign ordinance in totality. Mayor Lockwood: Just to confirm, it started out with looking at some of the top five, and what are you as staff seeing that our seem to be hurdles are? Bring those back to us and we will discuss them. As Lynn said, they were moving down that path but again you guys get your head around it and the next meeting you can tell us what you think and what direction you think we should go and we can run it by the council and see what we want to do. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: That is still kind of the initial idea. We're looking at those top... City Manager Lagerbloom: What we were doing was looking at the top five, top six, and top whatever are the major issues. We tried to not do that in a vacuum, to the extent that we involved some external input into doing that, although frankly I don't need another committee to look at a sign ordinance and if we need to have someone look at it we should let the planning commission look at it. We are still in that process I do believe that the appropriate thing to do is to downsize the amount of committees that we have rather than upsize. To the extent that we need a committee to look at it, the planning commission I think is the right group to look at that. Lynn and I will talk and if we want to open up the sign ordinance then we can do that, but I will be sitting here probably two years older and it is before you all for a final vote. That is one of the realities of opening a sign ordinance is that we all age a couple of years between the time we open it up and close it. Let Lynn and I put our heads together and bring you a recommendation. It may ...� be a bigger scope than what it was initially. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 37 of 41 Councilmember Lusk: My point was is that we need an official group whether it is the planning commission or staff. Mayor Lockwood: Let's get suggestions but when an applicant comes up they have to present something and go to staff for input and present it to us ... or work with staff to see if it fits in the rules and regulations, so again. You guys are professionals and we are all open to hearing what you guys say and that was the initial direction that we were going on but this may be side tracked a little so just firm that up and we can discuss it. Councilmember Lusk: We are still talking about these amendments, are we not? Lynn Tully: Yes sir. Councilmember Lusk: I am a history buff and as a history buff I haven't recognized any historic buildings in the highway 9 overlay, I think what we are talking about here is a different commercial culture right now and this issue with neon open sign has come up and I think we need to address it. Either approve it here or deny it. If we are going to deny it, then we need to go out and have everyone pull their open signs down. I think that is where we were. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I am going to address the comment because the point is that whether it is a historic area or not, the whole of Milton doesn't have to be a historic structure to still fit into the area and we can have a difference of opinion in terms of what signage is appointment, and so when I refer to history I would hope that Councilmember Lusk that you are not the only history buff on our council since so much of Milton is represented by history. I consider myself as a history buff as well and I think Karen Thurman does as do others. With all due respect, my point about neon signage is that there are historically identified communities where the whole of the area may not be historic but where the community, citizens, and businesses want to highlight a particular look and feel and signage is one of those things that either compliments that mission or vision or sometimes it can detract from it. So when I brought up Charleston as an example I think it is a vibrant community that has great economic development and they also happen to have pretty detailed sign ordinances that speak to open signs etc. that aren't necessarily neon. Councilmember Lusk: We have worked in Charleston before and I understand what Charleston is all about, but this is not Charleston. I think we are making something out of something else. Mayor Lockwood: Again, I think we are at that point where the options are either we can pass this document as written, we OM can get some conversation and make it a 3sft instead of 4sgft and there has been conversation of 2sgft, there has been conversation and we can take the whole neon sign out of here. My personal opinion is, see and all respect to everyone's comments and I know that we want to be different and better in Milton, but this one issue and I certainly don't like neon signs and don't want to see neon signs on buildings and whatnot, but in our commercial areas and especially highway 9 and future however 140 turns out, when you have city lines that go back and forth, I think if we didn't allow open signs we would be doing our Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Paae 38 of 41 businesses and citizens, because obviously they depend on the businesses, a disservice when there are so many different lines between Roswell, Alpharetta, and Forsyth and everyone else can have an open sign and then all of the sudden we are doing a disservice to our citizens and our businesses. That is my personal opinion is that I think we would go ahead and approve this document with the sign and it's up to whoever wants to make the motion if they want to make them a certain size or delete it. We need to make a decision tonight on that one issue, not open up the whole sign ordinance but we are putting our staff in a tough situation. Councilmember Tart: Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. Motion: Councilmember Tart moved to approve RZ 11-03 with the staff recommendations as submitted with the following revisions: Page 2 — To delete 64-1089 Outdoor Public Amenity Areas but to reserve the section for future use. Page 8 — Section 64-94 Lighting - (i) should read as follows: As an exception to the prohibition in (g) each commercial establishment shall be entitled to a single exposed neon LED sign which may only be illuminated during periods when the commercial establishment is open for public business. Such sign shall have a maximum sign face of two square feet and shall be positioned on the interior as a window sign no more than five feet from the main entrance of the commercial establishment. Please note that the sign is expressly prohibited from blinking, flashing, and fluctuating and may not be animated in any way. Page 12 — Section 64-1095 Building Materials and Architectural Design — (w) Exposed neon lighting outlining and detailing building features are prohibited. Second and Vote: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. 5. RZ11-04 — To Amend Chapter 64, Article VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 (Off -Street Parking and Loading). (Agenda Item No. 11-071) ORDINANCE NO. 11-04-93 (First Presentation at April 11, 2011 Regular Council Meeting) (Discussed at April 18, 2011 Work Session) (Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) Lynn Tully: Again, as was presented to you all last week in the work session, this is an update to our parking standards. It updates a few new use categories including carry out only restaurants, data centers, and libraries. It also includes a reduction in retail and commercial office use requirements for parking. Further it includes a reduction of the basic parking requirements for those developments that are within walking distance from the development to the bus stop. If you will note, the new version is sitting on your desk and it starts with calculations section 64-1410. There were really only very minor changes, one was a spelling change and one was clarification on page one in that first paragraph clarified by Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 39 of 41 owl" adding the highlighted section which reads for the purposes of the assembly seating calculations, a bench seat shall be calculated at a width of 18inches so that clarifies that one which kind of took us all .ON by surprise last week. Other than that, the changes are as submitted at the work session and as shown in the first reading. Are there any questions? Councilmember Zahner Bailey: As it relates to the library, I think the question I posed last time which was an opportunity to speak with the library board, do you have any input on that? Lynn Tully: I don't have any updates on that. I couldn't speak with the library board and I looked to try and find what their requirements were. Their requirements very well may be more than our minimum but I think that is probably okay. They can put in more, they just can't put in less. Councilmember Tart: I just have a request. For the purposes of helping the council staff provide a draft date in these drafts because these drafts, dated exactly the same and that is confusing. Lynn Tully: Yes sir, we can do that. That was an error on my part. to be able articulate good motions, can if I am going to provide a motion there Councilmember Tart: We have had that issue before where we had multiple versions. Hopefully we can just put a draft date. Councilmember Hewitt: I would like to make a motion if no one has any more questions. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve RZ11-04, agenda Item No. 11-071 Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. 6. RZ11-05 — To Amend Chapter 64, Article XVII, Section 64-2453 (Creation of a Historic Preservation Commission). (Agenda Item No. 11-072) ORDINANCE NO. 11-04-94 (First Presentation at April 11, 2011 Regular Council Meeting) (Discussed at April 18, 2011 Work Session) (Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) Lynn Tully: Again, as presented at the work session this simply proposes to change the terms of the historic preservation commission to be consistent with all other bodies that are appointed by the council and so it changes those terms to run concurrently with the appointing councilmember such as when your term expires their term expires also. It changes those terms also to four years which is again consistent with VAN" your terms and the terms of other bodies that you have appointed. Are there any questions? Mayor Lockwood: If we have no questions I will take a motion. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 40 of 41 Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to approve RZ 11-04, agenda Item No. 11-072 Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. Now UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of a Resolution Amending Resolution Nos. 10-12-165, 10-09-155, and 10-08- 68 Appointing Members of the Historic Preservation Commission for the City of Milton Pursuant to Ordinance No. 10-06-65, Chapter 64, Article XVII, Section 64-2453. (Agenda Item No. 11-085) RESOLUTION NO. 11-04-174 (Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) Lynn Tully: • Again, this resolution simply clears up the terms of the currently appointed historic preservation commission members to coincide with the appointing councilmember's terms. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 11-085. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). X" Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. 2. Ratification of a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City of Milton, Georgia and Branch Banking and Trust Company for the purchase of Property at 15690 Hopewell Road, Milton, Georgia 30004. (Agenda Item No. 11-086) (Presented by Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager) City Manager Lagerbloom: • This is all stuff that you are aware of. • I need your formal ratification to ratify this document. • This document is in conformance with the authority that you gave me. • This is for all three parcels. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve Agenda Item 11-086. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Lockwood: • I hope everyone had a good Easter weekend. Councilmember Thurman: 0 Could we get a clean copy of the documents that we have changed that isn't redlined? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council April 25, 2011 Page 41 of 41 .� • The tablet I have been trying out, I believe it has some limitations and it is not as easy as I would have thought but I like it better than all of the paper. • I have used the iPad and believe the iPad works better than this, but I know you don't like iPads. STAFF REPORTS City Manager Lagerbloom: • I will be out of town starting Saturday and will be back the following Saturday. • Lynn Tully will run the meeting next week for me. • It will be a fairly short meeting. • This is a big week for the strategic plan. • We have met with members of the equestrian community. • We have a meeting for HOA presidents on Wednesday at Crooked Creek at 7pm. • We will be meeting here at city hall this week on Thursday. • We are interested in input from all. EXECUTIVE SESSION (None) ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 11-087) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 9:25 p.m. Councilmember Tart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember am" Longoria was absent from the meeting. Date Approved: June 6, 2011. atc� Sudie AM Gordon, City lerk Joe Lock d, Mayor