HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 04/23/2012 - MIN 04 23 12 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 1 of 28
This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not the
intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice.
Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited
presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the Milton
City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded.
The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on April 23, 2012 at
6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Chaplain Remco Brommet, Chaplain for the City of Milton Police and Fire
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Matt Kunz,
Councilmember Bill Lusk, Councilmember Joe Longoria, Councilmember Lance Large, and
Councilmember Burt Hewitt.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
(Agenda Item No. 12-088)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve the Meeting Agenda. Councilmember
Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
PUBLIC COMMENT (None)
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of the March 12, 2012 Work Session Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 12- 089)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of the March 19, 2012 Regular Council Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 12-090)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
3. Approval of Financial Statements for the Period Ending February, 2012.
(Agenda Item No. 12- 091)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 2 of 28
4. Approval of Financial Statements for the Period Ending March, 2012.
(Agenda Item No. 12- 092)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
5. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between BM&K, P.C. and the City of Milton for
Right of Way and Easement Acquisition Services for Intersection Improvements at Hopewell
Road/Cogburn Road at Francis Road/Hopewell Road.
(Agenda Item No. 12- 093)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
6. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between S&ME, Inc. and the City of Milton for
Full -Depth Reclamation Pavement Design for 2012 Road Reconstruction.
(Agenda Item No. 12- 094)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Councilmember Large seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation Recognizing Building Safety Month May 2012.
(Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood)
2. Proclamation Recognizing Bike to Work Month May 2012.
(Presented by Councilmember Lance Large)
FIRST PRESENTATION (None)
PUBLIC HEARING (None)
Zoning transcription is verbatim
ZONING AGENDA
1. RZ12-04NC12-01 — 12990 GA Hwy 9 (Outparcel 3) (22-52701047-276-5) by Webb Road
Promenade, LLC to Rezone from MIX (Mixed Use) to C-1 (Community Business) to Develop a
3,321 Square Foot Dry Cleaners and Request a Concurrent Variance to Reduce the 20 Foot
Landscape Strip to 10 Feet Along Hwy 9 (Sec. 64-1090(a)).
(Agenda Item No. 12-082)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-04-131
(First Presentation on April 9, 2012)
(Robyn MacDonald, City Planner)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 3 of 28
E
Robyn MacDonald, City Planner:
Good evening Mayor and City Council. I just want to go over the proposed rezoning. This site
contains .609 acre and the applicant is seeking a rezoning to C-1 Community Business. It is part
of an overall development, mixed use development, that was approved in Fulton County
pursuant to RZ03-031. It contains a shopping center and some townhomes and other uses, but
specifically tonight we are just looking at the commercial piece. And, currently it is already
developed with a shopping center where the Aldi's is developed as well as NTB and another
medical center is being constructed at this point and time just to the south of the subject site. It
already has sidewalks, landscape strips, and lighting. The subject site itself is undeveloped and
you can see up on the map with the little black square. And, this is a picture of the site looking
toward the back of the shopping center. Some background of the subject site, the applicant
submitted a land disturbance permit and building plans and staff determined that a C-1
Community Business District was needed to allow cleansing of fabrics on the site. C-1 permits
"laundry and dry cleaning shop which means a commercial establishment whose business is the
cleansing of fabrics with non -aqueous organic solvents and may include laundering off-site."
The subject site was previously zoned from AG -1 C-1 and ONI to MIX pursuant to RZ99-087
and VC99-144. And, then, it was zoned from MIX to MIX pursuant to RZ00-15INC00-304.
There were various concurrent variances that were approved by the Fulton County Board of
Commissioners that are vested with the property and will be discussed further into the analysis.
This is the site plan which you have a full size set in front of you as well. I just want to speak to
some of the standards for the C-1. The front yard, the maximum is 100 feet from right-of-way,
State Route 9 Overlay District which is consistent. Side yards are, in this case, based on
landscape strips, landscape requirements and the property was vested with conditions from
VC99-144 where they deleted landscape strips from C-1 uses or non-residential uses. Rear yard,
same as above as far as deleting the landscape requirements. Minimum lot frontage is 35 feet as
it meets that requirement. Height, the Overlay District requires 30 feet from average grade to
roof eave as submitted with the building plans is consistent and does not exceed that height. The
Overlay District requirements continuing on with landscaping front adjacent to State Route 9, ten
feet based on conditions of zoning pursuant to RZ03-081. Basically, this as I continued on with
the analysis had found that the needed, what I thought was needed for a landscape strip reduction
from twenty to ten feet along Highway 9, was no longer needed based on this condition.
Therefore, staff is recommending withdrawal of VC 12-01. Side and rear yards. None pursuant
to, again, VC99-144. Another concern is fencing. This is in section 64-1092. The applicant will
provide fencing per the State Route 9 Overlay District equestrian type to be consistent with what
is already built across the street at Sembler at Deerfield Place. Other site plan consideration,
parking is consistent with the 17 provided and 16 required. Public involvement, we held a
Design Review Board meeting and there were no comments from the Design Review Board.
Then we had a Community Zoning Information Meeting. There was one neighbor in attendance
concerned about the use and that there were too many dry cleaners in the area and the applicant
has submitted their required public participation report. Now, I will just go over some of the
standards of review for re -zoning. The proposed development will be suitable in view of the use
and development of adjacent and nearby property which is consistent with nearby development
of general service, retail and restaurants to the west, south, and east of the subject site. It is
j staff's opinion that the proposal will not adversely affect the existing or usability of the adjacent
properties based on the proposed use for a dry cleaner. The subject site may have a reasonable
use as a currently zoned MIX. The 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan suggests mixed use
living working and the proposed use is consistent with the map suggestion. Lastly, the proposed
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 4 of 28
dry cleaner should not be environmentally adverse to natural resources, environment, and
citizens of the city due to the required development regulations and type of dry cleaning
processes proposed by the applicant. As far as recommended conditions, they are attached at the
end of the staff report but, in a nutshell, we are restricting it to a total of 3,321 square feet for
retail, not for as in golfing, service, commercial, and/or office with exclusions as previously
approved by the City Council. So, basically, I just wanted to put it before you that the exclusions
are consistent with what you all have approved for other commercial development on Highway
9, specifically Sembler is probably the largest one that you all have voted on recently. Also,
included previous variances approved for the site. I just want to talk about the Planning
Commission's recommendation held at their meeting on March 27, 2012. They unanimously
approved for staff recommendation and subject to the applicant submitting their disclosure report
there was some discussion about whether the disclosure reports were adequate. We had some of
them but not all the partners that are part of the application and now we have received those.
And then with VC12-01, they also recommended unanimously 7-0 of withdraw. And, lastly, the
Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to change the location of the building closer to
the street and move the parking to the rear consistent with the future Highway 9 / GA 400 LCI
recommendations. So, in conclusion, the proposed rezoning is consistent with adjacent and
nearby zoning and uses. In addition, it is consistent with the 2030 Future Land Use Plan which
recommends mixed use living and working, therefore, staff recommends approval conditional of
RZ12-04 and withdrawal of VC 12-01 based on zoning conditions for dedications and
improvements. And, with that, that concludes staff s report. Thank you.
Mayor Joe Lockwood:
Thank you, Robyn. Before we get into hearings, are there any questions for staff? Bill.
Bill Lusk, Councilmember:
Robyn, page 13 of 19 under Parking Requirements. I guess our ordinance calls for five spaces
per 1,000 square feet which computes to 16 spaces. The conceptual site plan shows 18 spaces,
and the general overall site plan shows 17 spaces. In your recommendations, according to
section 64-1411, we allow for shared parking.
Robyn MacDonald:
We do allow for that but they meet their recommended amount without the shared parking.
Councilmember Lusk:
Are 16 spaces actually required by the tenant?
Robyn MacDonald:
It is required for that use, yes.
Councilmember Lusk:
Can we reduce the number of parking spaces by allowing shared parking on the rest of the site?
Robyn MacDonald:
As staff, at this point, we don't recommend that because the adjacent parcel that is being 1
developed to the south was originally designed to be a parking lot, or provide additional parking,
and so we want to hold on to the parking to make sure there is enough parking to provide for all
the different uses. So, that is basically where the staff sits as far as the parking situation.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 5 of 28
Councilmember Lusk:
In looking at the conceptual site plan, it looks like you have about 90% of that site was in
perspicuous. We have talked about this issue in the past about reducing parking spaces to
minimize run-off. And I bring that up for discussion. If they would want fewer parking spaces,
would you consider adjacent parking space use?
Robyn MacDonald:
I think we would need to do an overall analysis of the entire development to make sure that we
are not shorted out of parking.
Mayor Lockwood:
Let me suggest that maybe when an applicant makes their application and when they are up
there, Councilmember Lusk can open that up for discussion, and if there is interest on both sides,
it may be something that conditionally it gets approved this way then you could go back and do
an analysis and see if that works.
Councilmember Lusk:
It seems like an overabundance of parking spaces that don't get used. I don't think I have ever
seen 18 vehicles parked at a dry cleaners.
Robyn MacDonald:
It is based on the retail service of five per 1000.
Mayor Lockwood:
Does anyone else have a question for Robyn?
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Don Rolader,11660 Alpharetta Highway, Suite 630, Roswell, Georgia 30076
Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the council. I am Don Rolader. I am here tonight on behalf of
the applicant. I apologize in advance for my bad cold. I may cough or sneeze. I am sorry. I am
going to do the best I can and maybe the faster I talk the quicker we will get done. This property
is a 6/10`x' of an acre outparcel out in front of Aldi. The plan for this entire development was
approved, the site plan, in 2007 and it has been developed accordingly. The applicant wants to
locate a state of the art dry cleaners, Tide brand, on the outparcel. I had the privledge to do one
of these in the City of Roswell last year and it is a fascinating concept. It uses silicon as the
active agent, it has absolutely no environmental impact whatsoever, they have approved four of
these in the state of California, which absolutely astounds me. I am surprised at that. What
occurred was that staff discovered a technical glitch in the MIX zoning while we were in the
process. We went to the Design Review Board twice. We actually obtained a land disturbance
permit and were ready to go and they said we have a problem because of the definitions it needs
to be C-1 instead of MIX. I will assure you that this is a dry cleaning plant. It does not do
anyone else's laundry. It does its own laundry but with this silicon based process, it actually
treats the fabric on the site, prepares it, and returns it to the customer. That is why we are
requesting C-1. We agree with the staff that there is no necessity for the variance and we will
state to you now that we have abandoned the request for the variance at this point in time. We
agree with the staff conditions. We accept them and have no issue with them. We do have one
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 6 of 28
comment we would like to share with you on the Planning Commission's suggestion that we talk
about relocating the driveway. We can't do that now. There are three outparcels out there, they
have curb cuts and access points, they are co-dependent on each other. All construction on the
property has been according to the site plan which was approved. We would have to tear out and
replace existing curb and paving, get approval from Aldi, that's not guaranteed, perhaps affect
their number of parking places, throw out thousands of dollars of construction plans that have
been approved and start over. Then we would have to file for a new LDP. Simply stated, I think
from the old song, "it's a little too late to do the right thing now." What we would like to
address with you, briefly, is the nature of the operation of the business to satisfy your concerns. I
have asked the clerk to put in your packages a substantial letter from Smith, Gambrell & Russell,
LLP outlining the operation of this plant. This was given for purposes of inducing the owner of
the property to permit this. It is several pages in length and what it basically says is that the
silicone based process that they use has no environmental impact. It is environmentally sound.
There are certain little things that your household, or the local tailor shop, or the local dry cleaner
may have in little vials that probably contain environmentally hazardous materials. I want to go
over those briefly with you. There is an aerosol spot remover. There is a stain removal agent.
There is a water treatment for steam boilers to keep them clean and functional. There is a multi -
stain pre -treat, something you spray on the stuff before you clean it. Maybe some of you would
understand how that works better than I do. My wife understands it. She calls it Oxyclean. All I
know is it is magic. There is Neutra soil and stain removal agent by Adco. There is an ink
remover. I would like to have some of that. There is a liquid laundry detergent. There is a
chewing gum remover, there is a black clothing dye to take it back to black, and a color
rejuvenation material. These are contained in small bottles used everywhere to allow them to get
things out of your clothes that you can't do on your own. What makes this thing really work is
that it has a drop off operation that is part of it that is open more hours than the dry cleaners is
and they have found smashing success where you drop by, put your clothes in the receiving bind,
go on to work even if it is 5:30 in the morning, and you come back the next day during business
hours and your clothes are ready. So, simply stated, it is a great concept in the dry cleaning
industry, it is harmless, it needs to be re -zoned from MIX to C-1 in order to be proper and legal.
We are happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Munous, the architect, is here with
me tonight. We appreciate your consideration. We reserve any remaining time for rebuttal.
Lorainne Clark, 2857 Commonwealth Circle, Alpharetta, GA 30004
Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I represent the Homeowner's Association at the Park at
Windward Village. We are part of the Master Association representing about 67% of the vote of
the overall Master Association which is also part of the commercial development involving Aldi
and the proposed Tide dry cleaners. We were initially approached a few months back regarding
the potential installation of the dry cleaning facility. We were told that it is a facility that was
prohibited per the master covenants and we took it to the board for a vote and the decision was to
oppose the approval of it. The next thing we know, we are hearing of planning meetings and
zoning meetings and I attended the first of numerous meetings and put our concerns on the table.
One, that we had never been approached that there had been any change, there has been no
change to the master declaration to my knowledge. I've had a few conversations with the Tide
folks and they are assuring us that this is an environmentally green, friendly, type of cleaner. We
are certainly not opposed to commercial development within the mixed-use development, we do
want to make certain though that the things that are going in there are, one, that there is not
already an overabundance of them. This particular one, they claim, is going to be uniquely
different which it may be. We had also asked for a third party independent study of the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 7 of 28
chemicals that were considered hazardous. As of Friday afternoon, the Tide folks were in
communication with me and were to have provided that and we still have not seen it. We also
had addressed concerns about ingress and egress entering the shopping center. There are no line
indicators for left turn, right turn. As this development is continuing to be built and we are
anticipating a bank that is under construction, a medical facility, and now a dry cleaners and any
other tenants that they can either sell off out -parcels or as they complete the vacant tenant space.
I feel like we are becoming a hazardous zone and I don't know how much of this is applicable of
what we are doing here tonight but just some overall input as a concerned representative of the
community.
Don Rolader:
Very briefly, mayor and council, I provided by email to Mrs. Clark a copy of this letter from this
law firm. They are a third party. They are not employed by Tide dry cleaners. It is quite
extensive in its chemical analysis of the property and the conclusions that it comes to. This is a
commercial use in a commercial out -parcel design for commercial development. We don't feel
that the impact of this 3,000 square foot center is significant on traffic. There is a red light
available to the center. We think that we meet not only the requirements, but the intent that was
started when this shopping center was developed to permit reasonable economic use. Everybody
needs a good dry cleaner. We would like to provide a state-of-the-art one. If you have any
questions, please let me answer them. We would appreciate your consideration of our
application.
Hazel Gerber, 2845 Commonwealth Circle, Milton, Georgia 30004
I moved in there almost ten years ago when the development was new and I was aware of its
mixed use development which I could live with. But the increases zoning to commercial to me
seems like a higher density commercial property. I apologize because I am coming late to all of
this but it does seem to me that it is going to affect our houses in that center simply because we
have higher commercial zoning there. So, I'm not sure, and maybe this gentleman can answer the
question, does this re -zoning pertain only to this one property or is this going to affect the whole
shopping center. And, if it does affect the whole shopping center, then what are we going to get
next month, or six months from now, or two years from now and how is that going to affect our
property and our values?
Mayor Lockwood:
Are there any questions for the applicant? Well, I would like to ask a question. By changing this
to C-1 which allows this particular use, but does that allow any more density in the center or that
particular parcel?
Don Rolader:
No, Mayor. And it only affects the 6/10'' acre parcel that is in the application.
Mayor Lockwood:
Robyn, can you confirm that too from the staff side.
Robyn MacDonald:
Yes, that is correct. It could be that same square footage it is just the matter of a definition of a
dry cleaner to require C-1 zoning. It doesn't have a negative effect on the shopping center.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 8 of 28
Lance Large, Councilmember:
It is my understanding that the Tide cleaners is affiliated with Procter and Gamble. Tide
detergent is a Procter and Gamble cleaning product. Is that correct?
Don Rolader:
That is correct. This is part of a multi-million dollar initiative they started about three years ago.
The Tide cleaners and the Mr. Clean car washes. Two new concepts.
Councilmember Large:
So far, how many of these do you have in the area?
Steve Collins, Tide Dry Cleaners, 2 Procter and Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
We currently have eight locations open today. We have three in Cincinnati, one in Las Vegas,
one in Phoenix, three in the Cincinnati area, we have nine locations under construction including
one in Duluth and one in Roswell.
Councilmember Large:
So this will be your third location?
Steve Collins:
This will be our third location in the Atlanta metro area.
Councilmember Large:
How many employees will work at this location?
Steve Collins:
All together or at one time?
Councilmember Large:
Hourly shift.
Steve Collins:
Anywhere between six and eight on a shift. Overall it could employ 40 people.
Councilmember Large:
I am thinking in terms of parking along the lines of Councilmember Lusk's concern.
Steve Collins:
Six to eight so between shift changes there may be ten to twelve people there for a short period
of time.
Councilmember Large:
Is this a ground lease?
Steve Collins:
This is a purchase.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 9 of 28
Councilmember Large:
You are purchasing? This is a purchase parcel?
Steve Collins:
That is correct.
Matt Kunz, Councilmember:
Obviously, the chemicals that are really a concern to the people that are near you, you have the
safety data sheets on these on hand within the building on a continuous basis. Is that correct?
Steve Collins:
We do.
Councilmember Kunz:
What about, is there any auditing that happens with these processes?
Steve Collins:
They are unregulated so the amount of materials we have are such a small quantity that it is an
unregulated material. The Green Earth cleaning process we use is a silicon based process and is
completely unregulated. It is the actual approved dry cleaning process in the state of California
which other states across the country are currently adopting as well.
Councilmember Kunz:
Are you seeing a shift in other dry cleaners trying to use the same type of chemicals?
Steve Collins:
We currently own part of Green Earth and we are seeing a shift in some markets for Green Earth.
There will be no dry cleaners in the Atlanta metropolitan area that have Green Earth other than
Tide Dry Cleaners but there are other environmentally friendly dry cleaning processes mainly
developed out of Europe that are starting to catch on here. Really the predominant dry cleaning
process in the United States, about 98%, is Perk, Perk Perytherene which is what eats through
pipes and damages soil and is harmful to people. The shift right now is to move from that
process to something more environmentally friendly.
Councilmember Lusk:
Is this a patented process?
Steve Collins:
It is.
Councilmember Kunz:
Are your services more at a premium compared to what is out there right now?
Steve Collins:
They're actually not. We believe that customer service and a good product is really what we
offer to the residents of this area. Proctor and Gamble decided to get into this services business
about five years ago, six years ago. Obviously, many of you know the products that we
currently own. We decided to get into services to be able to bring something new to our current
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 10 of 28
customers so some of our products are based off of brands like this, like Tide or Mr. Clean.
Other ones are water treatment in Africa or healthcare in India, The Art of Shaving, Frederick
Verti. There are a number of different companies out there, even Concierge Medicine with
MDVIP, that are not necessarily known as P&G but we are just getting into that services
business.
Burt Hewitt, Councilmember
I believe Mrs. Clark mentioned that this use may be contrary to the covenants of the
development. Can anyone speak to that?
Don Rolader:
We have seen an amendment prepared by Dura and Dura attorneys on behalf of the master
developer of the shopping center which are in the process of amending the covenants to permit
this without question. This will not proceed until such time as that document has been signed
and recorded.
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney:
Councilmember Hewitt, to the extent that the private covenants impact a use on the property that
is still a private issue between those individuals and entities. The city zoning is the city zoning
and that is independent of other issues.
Councilmember Large:
A couple of things. If there was a shopping center, strip shopping centers like this, you usually
do look at the overall shared parking. I realize that this is a standalone parcel as opposed to a
leasehold and I know that zoning regulations require so many parking places per square foot on a
certain use. If there was a way that you could, we could, look at staff or whoever, could look at
the overall parking available in the center to see if there was a possibility would you all be
amiable, I would think, it would reduce your cost, to increase our green area to actually reduce
the amount of parking that was actually located on the site?
Don Rolader:
To a point we would do that. I want to be candid with you that the first plan showed 18, we
actually have 17 on the site, and 16 are required. If it was important to you, we could drop to 16
we couldn't go below that. We have no guaranteed shared parking agreement with either parcel
to the side. In order for Proctor and Gamble to take the site they requested the minimum that is
usable. If you say 16, it is okay with us. We are just trying to make sure we have enough to
satisfy the customers.
Councilmember Large:
I have heard of codes where they set the maximum amount of parking allowed, not just the
minimum amount of parking. In some of these centers, especially big boxes because of the way
the codes are written, we get carried away with the amount of parking and we are paving areas
that probably will never even be used in most cases so from the environmental standpoint,
Proctor and Gamble is all about, if we could minimize that it would save you some money in
terms of the amount of paving as well.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 11 of 28
Don Rolader:
We can either resolve that with staff or you can include it in your motion, however you like. We
need to have 16 spaces to get the use approved.
Councilmember Large:
The other locations, it sounds like yall are proceeding kinda prudently, and I've seen some roll
out and they are building all over God's green earth. How are your other locations performing in
the markets that you are in? I'm big on, you know, I love to see a successful business. I don't
like to see businesses that are built then turn around.....
Steve Collins:
We love to see successful businesses.
Councilmember Large:
I'm sure you do.
Steve Collins:
We believe that our stores are performing well and that is why we are continuing to grow. And
just to mention, if you wouldn't mind, on parking. We are in total agreement about green space
and usually we are a proponent of it. In a lot of cases, code says we need to have 20 or 25 spaces
depending on the municipality we are in and we want to get down to somewhere around 16
spaces. We would look back at the plan but we really need to have 16 but we are all about trying
to make as much green space as possible. That is part of our mission statement as a company
and we really do want to give back and protect the environment and so we will do whatever we
can.
Joe Longoria, Councilmember:
I have a question for Ken. Ken, just to follow-up on Burt's statement about the covenants, is
there a scenario where we go ahead and approve this request and then the association doesn't
pass the allowance of this business or whatever they need to do? I'm not sure exactly what it is
in terms of their covenants to adjust them, and that would preclude Tide from building?
City Attorney Jarrard:
It may very well preclude them from developing. I have not independently reviewed their
covenants but to the extent that they don't allow a use like this, then it very well may be that we
approve a zoning then they are prohibited from doing it until they seek relief in the covenants.
Both sides are fair play. That wouldn't be our issue either.
Councilmember Longoria:
Right, I just wanted to make sure that we are not doing something that overrides the covenants
and you confirmed that, thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
I'm assuming the applicant is aware of that. Are there any more questions for either the
applicant or staff? If not, I will open it up for a motion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of 28
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 12-082.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
2. RZ12-02 — Ordinance to Adopt the Corrected City of Milton Zoning Map as Indicated on
the Geographical Information System (GIS) Including All Zoning Actions Prior to
January 1, 2012 as Shown on "Current Zoning Map Dated January 2012".
(Agenda Item No. 12-083)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-04-132
(First Presentation on April 9, 2012)
(Robyn MacDonald, City Planner)
Robyn MacDonald, City Planner:
Good evening Mayor and City Council. Similar action was brought to you around the same time
last year. It is staff's belief that it is prudent and necessary to adopt zoning maps by reference, in
addition, to effectively adopt a zoning map by reference a document must be sufficiently
identified, be made a public record, be accessible to members of the public affected by it, and the
adopting ordinance must give notice of accessibility. It is the Community Development
Department's responsibility to maintain both the zoning ordinance and zoning maps for the City
of Milton. In addition, at the beginning of each calendar year, staff will check that all zonings
from the prior year are correctly reflected on the map by certifying the zoning map any potential
litigation as it pertains to the zoning map should not have any basis. The attached zoning map
along with an adopting ordinance is included for your review. I also have a full size map over
here in case you have any questions, obviously that map is very small. With that, I will leave it
for any questions you may have. This is just a procedural thing that Ms. Lynn Tully had
recommended when she came on so we would like to continue that process.
Mayor Lockwood:
Are there any questions?
Councilmember Lusk:
Robyn, last year it became evident with Barry Segers property over on Providence that there
were some zoning actions taken that really didn't comply. I guess we picked those off?
Robyn MacDonald:
Yes, this map reflects those new zonings on Providence. It is just reconfirming that everything
was done, any of the zoning actions taken last year in 2011.
Councilmember Lusk:
Have any other situations like that popped up?
Robyn MacDonald:
No, that was very special. We try to avoid those.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have any more questions for Robyn?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 13 of 28
City Attorney Jarrard:
Mr. Mayor, before a motion is made, I just want to make sure that when
motion, the whole purpose of this is to have a demonstratively objective
approved. So, when you make the motion, unless you have specific fora
mind, please make sure to reference the map in your agenda book and
February 2, 2012 in that book. The more clarity, the better.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have any public comment for either opposition or support?
City Clerk Gordon:
Neither sir.
you do make your
map that we have
of motion in your
t is the one dated
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. Joe, did you have a question?
Councilmember Longoria:
The map that we got in our packet says January 2012 and then in the document refers to January
2012. What is the right one?
Councilmember Thurman:
I think it is a map as of January but you can't read the little bitty date down at the bottom. The
print date is February.
Councilmember Longoria:
Oh, you expect us to see that little bitty print. Oh, okay.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 12-083.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
3. RZ12-03 — Ordinance to Amend Article XVIII of Chapter 64 of the City Code — Historic
Preservation Commission.
(Agenda Item No. 12-084)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-04-133
(First Presentation on April 9, 2012)
(Discussed at April 16, 2012 Work Session)
(Robyn MacDonald, City Planner)
Robyn MacDonald, City Planner:
Hi. Again, here we are looking at the Historic Preservation ordinance. We had discussions on
this item at your work session last Monday. I just want to remind you of what you have in your
packet. You have the staff memo but you also have two versions of the HCP ordinance. You
have a staff recommended version as a clean copy and a track copy so you can follow what the
changes were based on staff recommendation. There is also another set that has the
recommended HPC ordinance from the Planning Commission with their changes outlined as well
as a clean version for your review. I won't go into detail other than I believe that you all have
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 14 of 28
had fairly lengthy deliberations on the situation and if you have any questions for myself or Ken
we would be happy to answer those for you.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have any questions for staff?
Councilmember Thurman:
It is my understanding that based on our work session that we had discussed approving this as
staff recommended because we knew that the state of Georgia had recommended then staff is
going to go back to the state with some of the changes that we would really like to see done once
we have it in place.
City Attorney Jarrard:
My recollection in the work session was to go ahead and get this in place then over a period of
time see if they would be willing to embrace some of our Miltonesque changes without stripping
our state approval.
Robyn MacDonald:
Just FYI, Angela Rambeau has already sent the request to the state so hopefully we can get some
answers in the next few weeks.
Councilmember Thurman:
So this may be coming back before us in another month or so with the changes we really want to
see.
Robyn MacDonald:
That could be.
Councilmember Thurman:
The Planning Commission had recommended that we would really like to see May.
Robyn MacDonald:
That could be but it will probably take a good 30 days for their attorneys to review what the
proposed potential changes could be. It will still be awhile.
Councilmember Hewitt:
Could you remind us why we want to have state go along with this versus going out on our own?
City Attorney Jarrard:
There were two overriding issues which were the availability of certain grant funding and
opportunities that we may not even know about yet but we believe to the extent that we are
approved by the state we will have access to those that otherwise we would not. The second one
was more of a legal concern that I had that to the extend the state chose not to recognize our
Historic Preservation ordinances to being valid by their guidelines that it might impact us if we
ever get into a litigation standpoint from the standpoint of saying that I think we will have a
stronger argument if it has been approved under the statewide criteria than if it is not. An
enterprising plaintiff lawyer could say look your ordinance is not only unconstitutional but the
state won't even recognize it. I would rather not have that argument be made.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 15 of 28
Mayor Lockwood:
Just to clarify, because I know there were a couple of issues that the Planning Commission felt
strongly about. Robyn, I think you are confirming that Angela has asked those of the state?
Robyn MacDonald:
Yes, we have sent a copy of the items that you all were in support of as far as changes that came
from the Planning Commission's recommendations so we are just, again, as I said awaiting some
comment from them but that was done last week so we anticipate at least 30 days before we get
any kind of response.
Mayor Lockwood:
So, once we get a response we can bring this back out and amend it?
Robyn MacDonald:
That is correct.
Mayor Lockwood:
If council wants to.
Robyn MacDonald:
Yes.
Councilmember Longoria:
One of the bigger things that were in the changes that we wanted to make, that we were willing
to put off, had to do with the approval of items that had come before the HPC. One of the
recommendations was to make sure that the city council had the final word on these items and
that language was taken out based on the state's modifications. Just for the benefit of some of
the people in the audience, I want to make sure that everyone knows that our intent is to have
that language somehow put back in, either directly or through some kind of option that the HCP
has in terms of approval of certain items. I don't know how that impacts any agendas that may
take place between tonight and the time that that language gets in but I just wanted to mention
that.
City Attorney, Jarrard:
Councilmember Longoria, specifically with respect to approval of variances, that was a big issue
with members of the Planning Commission and they felt that power should rest with the City
Council. That is one of the things I know that staff will be looking at specifically.
Mayor Lockwood:
Ken, does staff have any reason why the state may not want the council to make the final
decision?
City Attorney, Jarrard:
I don't. In light of some of the other things the Planning Commission was concerned about was
some of the authorities and duties and powers vested in the HCP. It is either being unrealistic or
impractical and we understand that as well. What the state is looking at, you never know how
thorough their review may be. This may be a checklist that someone is going through just check,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 16 of 28
check, got it, got it and whether or not there are real constitutional concerns it is unlikely. It is
much more that they want a consistent approach to each of these in every jurisdiction.
Councilmember Kunz:
I am just trying to understand the constitutionality on what we are talking about as a whole. You
mentioned constitution as a big word, you don't want to just throw it out there and say the
Historical Preservation Ordinance of the City of Milton is not constitutional.
City Attorney Jarrard:
I don't believe that.
Councilmember Kunz:
I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that is what we are wondering because I get back to the
purpose of what we are talking about here. We have a great group of people on the Planning
Commission that felt uncomfortable with this ordinance as it was to the point that I'm sure they
debated that it may not be worth having the adjustment of it to the state and almost willing to put
the City of Milton at a point where we are in opposition to the state for the precedent of who we
are. Because of that, I am uncomfortable moving forward on this in my own mind just because
for two reasons, one is they did a great job going through the debate economically I have a
personal question on just designating a whole area as a historical spot because there's a lot of
unintended consequences that we may face in that situation that is allowed to do by a group that
we are not necessarily sure of the powers we are granting them whether or not they may take
that. Forgive me being the new guy on the council, I'm just sitting here thinking that if we are
going to approve this, then hope for some feedback from the state of approval to our amendment,
which I doubt they would do, then we're basically getting ram -rodded here and I don't know if I
like that. It just feels that way to me. I think that the Planning Commission has done a good job
on it. I talked to my representative on the Planning Commission and understood his thoughts
and if we are from a Milton standpoint and we believe in values of what we are, are we going to
change that for what could be grant dollars that we don't know about that may come in the
future. That is just my concern. I would love to know what we are giving to receive from this
and if we have a group of citizens that don't like the idea of it, then I know we have to look at
things from a legal perspective, yes, but that was all in the debate.
City Attorney Jarrard:
Well, my legal argument with respect to the constitutionality was not supposed to be too broad.
My concern was simply that, let's give an example, let's say that someone has property that is in
a parcel that is zoned in a historic district and therefore they may not have a thing historic on
their property but they are therefore a non-contributing use and therefore to the extent that they
take certain action, they may be subject to the ordinance in certain limited ways and they may
not want to be subject to the ordinance. They may in fact believe that it presents an
encumbrance on their free use of land and they challenge the city. Typically, what you would
see is some sort of a constitutional challenge based upon demolition of property or administrative
taking which is constitutional in origin. That is all I am talking about. I'm not talking about the
fourth amendment or necessarily the first amendment, I'm talking about those limited sort of
zoning constitutional challenges. In that situation, I think the arguments of the city that our
ordinance is perfectly legitimate and constitutional, respectfully, are buttressed if it has in fact
been signed off by the state. Because to find that our ordinance would be illegal or
unconstitutional would mean that literally the judge would have to find that in every other
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 17 of 28
jurisdiction in the state of Georgia. That is all I am talking about. Very limited scenario. The
other issue is the sort of ram -rod argument you made and that is do we value the future
prospective grant dollars and the availability of those more than we do sort of conforming the
ordinance to make it more Miltonesque.
Councilmember Kunz:
Well, if we feel it is wrong.
City Attorney Jarrard:
I raised that with the Planning Commission as well because the Planning Commission
articulated, I think very articulately, that very issue and my response was the response that any
lawyer would give to a Planning Commission and that is, what is perceived as Miltonesque is
ultimately in the eyes of this council and what you value. You have two things you are trying to
value right now. The integrity of this ordinance as applied to the state model versus these future
dollars that you may want to receive and my understanding has been is that the whole reason we
re -did this a second or third time is because you did, in fact, value that certification by the state.
That is what I perceived to be a value to you. Your point is well taken.
Councilmember Thurman:
If the state refuses to sign off on the changes we really want, we can go back and make a change
to our ordinance to make it the way we want it to just knowing in the future it was not approved
by the state.
City Attorney Jarrard:
Of course.
Councilmember Thurman:
I know we are really not talking about that and the parcels that this would apply to but in the
future if we decided it was much more important to us to have it the way we wanted it than to
have the state approval and there didn't look like there was money out there then we could
always go back and change that.
City Attorney Jarrard:
Of course. You would have every bit of legislative discretion to decide, we tried it, we put
something in place, but we really feel like we've got to change this now.
Councilmember Longoria:
Just to further address Matt's concern about the ram -rodding terminology he used, it would be
hard to say that this is being ram -rodded because we have been working on it for so long and so
much energy has gone into it, I think that all the points that have been brought up are good
points. I think getting off square one and getting something into place then working on that over
time is a good move right now. At least that is what we talked about at the work session.
Councilmember Thurman:
For you new guys, we've been working on this for five years.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 18 of 28
Councilmember Kunz:
Is there anything that were pertain us from going with what was recommended by the Planning
Commission even though it is not accepted by the state but we could do our own until there is
such cause, until a legal aspect comes up.
City Attorney Jarrard:
There is no prohibition on the council doing that except the overriding policy issue is that if you
do that you can know they will turn us down again.
Mayor Lockwood:
By definition of turning us down, where does that put us?
City Attorney Jarrard:
Where does that put us? Just back to where we were. We will not be subject to any of these
future, again, speculative, but future grant dollars. Folks, the notion of the state withholding
grants is a very common carrot that they do to incentivize a lot of behavior by governments. The
spectra of DCA or some other entity not certifying you whether it is your local government
certification status or whatever, it's always, and therefore you will not get X. That is what it
always is. So that is exactly the carrot they are holding out to us now. The biggest downside is
that we would not get those things.
Councilmember Kunz:
Which we don't know what they are.
City Attorney Jarrard:
Correct.
Councilmember Kunz:
If we have our own ordinance, we tout it ourselves as an ordinance that we like, we believe, we
value and are comfortable with it and the citizens of Milton are comfortable with it, we use that
to promote the City of Milton from our standpoint, I think that if we have it done right then we
can attract more dollars to us regardless of what the state is promising us as a grant, as easy low
hanging fruit. I would rather value ourselves doing it the way we think we can with the talent we
have here in the city and I think this is a great example of that opportunity. This may be our first
split vote this year but if we deny or defer this, I would at least like to see us defer it and see
what the state comes back with since we have already put it through but I just don't see us going
against a talented group of people on the Planning Commission and have thoroughly debated this
and none of them have voted to do it.
Mayor Lockwood:
If it is not certified by the state, then does that just put us future unknown dollars for grants, then
the ordinance, in essence, works the same?
City Attorney Jarrard:
The changes that I saw that were the significant changes, does the ordinance work the same, no.
If it is different than the state model, the HCP will be less powerful. There is just no question
about that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 19 of 28
Councilmember Hewitt:
Is it safe to say there are other grant options out there that are offered by other entities other than
the state? Is that true? That is not our sole source of funding.
City Attorney Jarrard:
I can answer that generally. Yes, there are other grant opportunities but I think these are, we are
talking about focus grant opportunities within the realm of historic properties, historic grants,
and I suspect that is very limited.
Councilmember Thurman:
Most of them want you to be certified by something and really the state certification is our best
way to have access to any funds that may become available.
City Attorney Jarrard:
This wouldn't make us a non-qualified municipality if that is what you are talking about.
Councilmember Hewitt:
Are there other grant options and opportunities for historic preservation outside of the city?
City Attorney Jarrard:
I don't know the answer to that question.
Councilmember Large:
So at this point, my distinguished colleague down there, a newbie as I am, as far as where is the
biggest degree of separation. I agree, the Planning Commission is there for a purpose. In a lot of
ways they vet things for the council. I know council has the right to agree or disagree. The
Planning Commission is merely an advisory council to the council. Are we saying that right now
in the form that it is right now that items can go and it doesn't require approval of the council?
Is that one of the biggest items that we are talking about right now?
City Attorney Jarrard:
That was a significant one. Where it really resonated with me was in the context of variances
from the requirements of the ordinance and right now the way it is drafted with respect to what
we believe the state will accept, is that the HCP would have the independent unilateral right to
approve those irrespective of what the City Council believes one way or the other. And that was
real sticking point with the Planning Commission. They believe that was troubling to them. I
believe there was also some concerns with the duties and powers. And I think I expressed to the
Planning Commission, I could see that would be a place that the state would really focus because
that goes to the fundamental power of the entity to perform. But right now, the model that would
be approved would give the HCP a lot of power. The power to acquire property, the power to
independently coordinate maintenance and repair and things of that nature, things that, quite
frankly in all candor, they will not be able to do because they have no resources, but they would
be authorized to.
Councilmember Lusk:
In the clean version, section C-14. I think this is one of the biggest sticking points here and I
think it has been already addressed. To receive donations, grants, funds, or gifts of historic
property and acquire and sell historic properties provided the Milton City Council has provided
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 20 of 28
prior consent to do so and all state and local laws regarding local government property
disposition are followed. The receipt of donations, grants, funds, or gifts shall be accepted only
if such acceptance does not violate the City of Milton Code of Ethics. I think this is one of the
biggest, from what I have heard, discussions from the Planning Commission and others here, this
is one of the biggest sticking points and I think it is addressed properly here. By adopting this,
we always have the right to rescind whatever we adopt. If there is some legal issue that comes
up down the road that really gives us heartburn, I think it is incumbent on us as a council to take
action to correct it whether it is to rescind the entire ordinance or to make changes to the
ordinance. And in making changes to the ordinance, I think we have talked about, Karen
brought it up at the work session, and it is already in the process, Michele sent it to the state, they
have the ability to modify their own stipulations in the enabling act. They could possibly accept
what we are proposing to them. I think we give this a fair shake and get it on the books and start
using it. Let's see if we get any grant applications. This also paves the way for us to apply for
national historic register applications. So, there's more involved than just basic items we have
talked about here tonight and discussed at length previously. It's not perfect but I don't think
any ordinance that we have is perfect but we always have the ability to modify it in the future. I
think it is time we got something on the books here and start using it. We have been talking
about this for over five years and I have said in the past, every day we are losing another historic
site or historic property out there and if we keep messing around ...
Councilmember Thurman:
There won't be any need for one.
Councilmember Lusk:
There won't be any need for one. This whole discussion over five years will be moot. So far,
we have spent $13,900 as of last week in legal fees on this thing. I don't see where we are really
exposing ourselves out here. I think we have enough foresight, enough legal advice and counsel
that if we do foresee something coming up down the road that is really detrimental to the city and
puts us in a bad light, we always have the ability to fall back and take another action, rescind
whatever we have here, or modify it and get away from the state's model code. But, I think to do
nothing and to defer it at this point in time is not the right thing to do. We have spent too much
time debating this and I don't think that given the discussions with the Planning Commission,
City Attorney, and us I don't think we are all that far apart on this issue. I think we have
something here that can work and is recognized. Certainly, other jurisdictions in the state have
used it, are using it, I haven't been made aware of any problems in any other jurisdictions.
Certainly, large cities in this country Williamsburg, Charlestown, Savannah, and others up and
down the east coast have similar ordinances that they work with. I think it is time for us to lead
the way out there again in Milton County or North Fulton County and start doing something that
has some real value to the city.
Councilmember Kunz:
Procedurally, we can make a motion to approve the staff's work, Planning Commission's, is that
what we are trying to do here tonight?
City Attorney Jarrard:
We are trying to take official action, yes.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pra
Page 21 of 28
Councilmember Kunz:
Doing nothing is not doing anything. We can make a motion to approve what the Planning
Commission has put together. If we do approve that, we just take that to the state, maybe get
rejected but it is right for Milton, and get our money somewhere else. Is that basically our
option?
Mayor Lockwood:
I want to ask a question. Based on some comments and concerns from some of our council, if
we were to adopt either the Planning Commission's or staff's recommendation but change that
the ultimate decision comes through the council, in practicality, as far as some of the concerns
about moving forward and losing some buildings, is the only negative that there could possibly
be some grants we may not get? Could we still accomplish the same thing?
City Attorney Jarrard:
To the extent that the concern is could we still accomplish the Historic Preservation component
of it, I think you would be well on your way to doing that. To the extent of having the state sign
off on the ordinance is not an objective of the council, but the lesser objective of the council,
then I think that the approach by Councilmember Lusk is appropriate. It has been my
understanding, though, that complying with the state model ordinance was deemed important by
the council. And, if that is important then you have in front of you one that would be adopted
and accepted by them.
Councilmember Longoria:
This has nothing to do with grant money in my mind. Nothing at all because I would be
surprised if there is big opportunity right now with the state to get grants for historic districts or
whatever else but that doesn't factor into my decision at all. What factors into my decision is
what our city attorney said earlier and that is it would be great to have a Historic Preservation
Commission whose rules and guidelines are somewhat in alignment with what the state
recommends. To me, that is what it is all about. Now, to the extent that we can move away from
that over time, I think that is good, but this has nothing to do with grant money. It has
everything to do with trying to be in alignment with the state.
Councilmember Thurman:
We've spent five years working on this trying to get something that the state would accept. We
are 99% of the way there. I believe we ought to go ahead and go with what the state has
recommended now in hopes that the other 1% of changes that we would like to have done, we
can get done in the next month or two and make an adjustment to that. I think it is important as
long as it has taken us to get this close to the finish line that we go ahead and get there, get
something approved, and get it on the books, get it state certified and give our Historic
Preservation Committee a little bit of weight behind them to be state certified in hopes that we
can get the state to go along with the other additional changes that we would really like to have
made.
Mayor Lockwood:
The only thing I would like to say, again, to clarify is that I think everyone wants to get
something done tonight and move forward. We really have two options, one go with the staff's
plan or go with Planning Commission's or something in between and as far as actual reality and
the process for HCP commission would basically work the same, correct? They may have to
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 22 of 28
come through council for final approval so it leaves you the option there. I don't think we are
losing any time if we go there so if someone made a motion for that.
Motion: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item No. 12-084 an Ordinance to
Amend Article XVIII of Chapter 64 of the City Code — Historic Preservation Commission
referring to the staff recommended document titled:
• "RZ12-03 Staff Recommended HPC Ordinance —Clean Version"
Second and Vote: Councilmember Large seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-3).
Mayor Lockwood and Councilmembers Hewitt and Kunz were in opposition.
End of verbatim transcription
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of a Resolution to Adopt the Highway 9/GA 400 Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) Plan
(Agenda Item No. 12- 095)
RESOLUTION NO. 12-04-218
(Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session Held On March 12, 2012)
(Planning Commission Held On March 27, 2012)
(Planning Commission Work Session Held On April 10, 2012)
(Council Work Session Held On April 16, 2012)
(Michele McIntosh -Ross, City Planner)
Michele McIntosh -Ross, City Planner:
• I am just going to talk about what happened before today.
• The City of Milton's 2030 Comprehensive Plan identified the Hwy. 9 / GA 400 area
which is essentially the Deerfield Character Area in that plan as a future development
area and a priority area for a master plan.
• On December 6, 2010, the City Council approved the submittal of a joint application with
the City of Alpharetta to the Atlanta Regional Commission requesting grant funding
through the livable centers initiative planning study program to fund a master plan for
this area.
• The study area extends from Bethany Bend in Milton along Hwy. 9 to Mayfield road in
Alpharetta and the areas east of Hwy. 9 to GA 400.
• In February 2011, the City of Milton was selected by the Atlanta Regional Commission
as a recipient of $100,000 of LCI Master Planning funds where the City of Milton
provided a local match of $25,000.
• Subsequently, the consulting firm Urban Collage was selected as the lead consultant to
provide professional services for the City of Milton LCI project.
• The LCI planning process began last August with a series of stakeholder meetings, public
workshops, 14 meetings, meetings with ARC and staff, and presentations to the City
Council and Planning Commission all the way through April of this year.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of 28
• The resulting LCI plan has accomplished the goals set forth by the Comprehensive Plan
that is it provides the additional detail specificity for the future development, vision,
market analysis, infrastructure improvement, and implementation strategies that the
Comprehensive Plan called for.
• The draft document was presented several times to the City Council and Planning
Commission and on April 10'', it received a favorable recommendation from the Planning
Commission.
• We also had favorable responses from ARC and the Milton community, even at Earth
Day this weekend lots of folks came to our booth and we received favorable comments as
well.
• Based on this, the staff recommendation is to approve the resolution to adopt the Hwy. 9 /
GA 400 area master plan LCI as an amendment to the city's Comprehensive Plan.
• Adoption of the plan would amend the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and serve as the small
area master plan for the Hwy. 9 / GA 400 area which is essentially the Deerfield
Character Area in the comprehensive plan.
• Furthermore, after adoption of the LCI document Milton becomes eligible for additional
funding assistance through other ARC programs that allows implementation for
transportation projects identified within the study area.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 12-095.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
2. Approval of a Resolution of the City of Milton, Georgia Enacting a Moratorium for 270 Days
on the Enforcement of the License and Indemnity Bond Requirement Associated with the
Precious Metals Dealer Permit Required for Precious Metals Dealers in the City of Milton.
(Agenda Item No. 12-096)
RESOLUTION NO. 12-04-219
(Ken Jarrard, Esq., City Attorney)
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney:
• Coming before you this evening is a proposed moratorium with respect to our climate and
our precious metals dealer ordinance.
• You may recall we have only had that in place for some time and it is already getting its
first test with someone coming forward and inquiring about this type of business in the
City of Milton.
• I believe we indicated when we adopted the code, like any code, there may be tweaks
along the way as we deal with the actual transition of an ordinance from its formative
stages to its actual implementation stage and sometimes things come out that were
unanticipated.
• The individual that has been consulting with city staff has basically said, look you have a
$100,000 bond requirement, or basically some sort of insurance or guarantee requirement
in your code, and given the insurance market right now and the business model I work
on, it is simply not economically viable at all for me to be able to get a bond in that
amount.
• The bond being, of course, to protect the City of Milton from any liability or cost
associated with these type of licenses being issued.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 28
• They have come to us seeking relief from that requirement and, of course, the kind of
relief we can give would be an ordinance modification which takes some time.
• I have surveyed other jurisdictions.
• The last jurisdiction that had this in place was probably the area where we got it from the
first time which was the City of Roswell.
• They have done away with this requirement.
• Otherwise, we have not found any other jurisdiction that contains a requirement this
significant and most of them are much more modest if they exist at all.
• In order to make the ordinance as tough as it needed to be, which was the goal in making
it and we wanted to regulate this area, but we also did not want to make it overly
prohibited to the point that no one could even come here.
• The City Manager and I got together and thought that perhaps a moratorium was the way
to sort of skin the cat.
• This is something that in the protection of the City of Milton doesn't affect any third
party, so we could put a moratorium on it while we bring to you some recommendations
to go another way with respect to this singular obligation of $100,000 bond.
• That would accomplish this and would put in place a 270 day moratorium which would
allow, for instance, this entity to go ahead and commence business operations and then
we could bring back to you something that is more in line with what other jurisdictions
are doing.
Councilmember Hewitt:
• What if we approve this moratorium then it comes and goes and we don't change
anything, how does that affect a business that may come in during the moratorium?
City Attorney Jarrard:
• During the moratorium, no one will be subject to this.
• No agency or company will be subject to this.
• It would totally a dead letter at least for the purposes of the moratorium and it will be my
job to bring you something that we will have in place by the end of the moratorium.
• It will be a much less bond requirement if a bond requirement at all.
Councilmember Longoria:
• Ken, please refresh my memory. How did this bond requirement get in here in the first
place because I thought we adopted things that other municipalities had used?
City Attorney Jarrard:
• That is what I was saying about Roswell. They have gone ahead and taken theirs out but
that is probably where it came from.
Councilmember Lusk:
• I think Burt's question centered around if we don't change anything, are we liable for lost
profits because they couldn't operate during this moratorium?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 25 of 28
Councilmember Hewitt:
• They are saying they can operate now but we won't enforce the bond, but what if we
were to not change it and on day 271 it expires and we require them to have a $100,000
bond, how does that affect that business?
City Manager Lagerbloom:
• Let me answer that practically then Ken can answer it legally.
• We have one business in Milton that this applies to.
• The business came in prior to it being regulated in which we adopted those ordinances in
December.
• They had their business license before December.
• When they sought to renew their business license, they had to confirm to the new laws
we adopted at the last meeting in December.
• When we reviewed this ordinance in order to re -issue a business license for this business
that was already operating, we sought to make good on this bond requirement.
• And in seeking to make good on the bond requirement, in essence, this gentleman has
said that this bond is unlike any other ordinance that I travel under with my businesses, I
simply won't be able to afford to do business in Milton and I will have to close my
business and leave.
• Initially, my thought was we passed this ordinance for a purpose.
• I didn't just immediately rush to action and say, you're right, we need to look at our
ordinance.
• I asked Ken to do some comparisons and to ask Roswell if in fact they had this
requirement and if not, why they removed it, in order to put us in a position rather than
just knee jerking to a request because it was more stringent than other cities.
• To some degree that is okay if we are more stringent in our ordinances as we protect
Milton.
• This is one, that after doing research, I couldn't find a comparable.
• This is the action I am bringing forward to you because I need to either issue a business
license to this one business that is operating in Milton or I need to tell him he is operating
not in compliance with the ordinance.
• That is the notion behind the request for a moratorium.
• I don't want a business operating out there that doesn't have a business license.
Councilmember Hewitt:
• I understand you are going to bring us something that does change it more than likely.
But if it is not changed, then we would have to tell this business owner conform or get
out?
City Manager Lagerbloom:
• Yes
Councilmember Large:
• So, you feel like you can bring us something that is valid and reasonable?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 26 of 28
City Attorney Jarrard:
• I believe we can.
• It will look quite a bit different than that.
• I am going to look around at some of the other jurisdictions.
• Looking at other jurisdictions is simply to get ideas.
• Milton can still be Milton and we can do things that are different from other jurisdictions
but on the other hand I don't think the council wants to reinvent the wheel either.
• We want to balance between being as protective of Milton as we need to be but also I
don't think want to necessarily be prohibited.
Councilmember Large:
• I agree.
City Attorney Jarrard:
• The only difference here is that the business in already in Milton.
• They have already generally accepted the fact that they have to comply with our new
precious metals ordinance.
• And they have already indicated a willingness that if they can't meet it they will simply
have to move elsewhere.
• These licenses come back every year and obviously you are subject to the rules and
regulations put in place by the local government.
• The law anticipates that local government will be reasonable.
Mayor Lockwood:
• I would think that in the next 270 days we will have more information.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
• I hope everyone understands that this moratorium doesn't put the whole ordinance on ice
it just puts the bond issue on hold.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item No. 12-096.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Thurman:
• I was asked at the District 3 advisory meeting today whether or not the City of Milton is
going to put forth a list of projects by year, if the transportation tax passes, that we will be
doing. I think they have been asking each city how they would use their money and to
put forth a list of projects. Have we given any thought to exactly what projects we would
use the money on and what year?
Carter Lucas, Public Works Director:
• We will be working on a list of potential projects.
• At this point, I don't know if we have had any discussion about projects by year.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 27 of 28
• I think it will be more of a list of projects that council will be able to choose from as we
move forward.
• Most of those projects will center around previous plans that have been approved.
• At this point, we are working with ARC to develop the overall list but have not targeted it
by year.
Councilmember Thurman:
• Is that something that the council is going to discuss and we are going to actually have
published prior to the vote in July?
Carter Lucas:
• We are hoping to, yes.
Mayor Lockwood:
• That is something important so maybe if you would follow-up on that.
Councilmember Large:
• Will you be prioritizing those projects?
Carter Lucas:
• We would certainly make our recommendation on priority projects but ultimately that
will be council's decision.
Councilmember Large:
• Will there be a mechanism to prioritize projects?
Carter Lucas:
• Yes, and a lot of that will be based on priorities that have already been established in
current plans.
Councilmember Thurman:
• The main thing is that I think they would really like to see these projects publicized so
that people will realize when they are voting that these are the projects that are also part
of it and not just a big list they have come up with.
Carter Lucas:
• And I think it is extremely important especially for jurisdictions like us, those local
projects and those discretionary funds, are probably going to make the biggest impact on
this community.
Councilmember Kunz:
• I just wanted to say that Milton Earth Day was a blast. We had a great time and I think
the community really enjoyed it.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Page 28 of 28
STAFF REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to adjourn at 8:01 p.m. into Executive Session
to discuss land acquisition and personnel. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously (7-0).
RECONVENE
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to reconvene at 8:23 p.m. into Regular Session.
Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 12-097)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Large moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
After no further discussion the Regular Council Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Date Approved: May 21, 2012.
Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk Joe Lockwood, ?(4aAr
STATE OF GEORGIA )
AFFIDAVIT RE: CLOSURE OF
COUNTY OF FULTON } OPEN MEETINGS
Personally appeared before the undersigned officer, duly authorized under the laws of the State of Georgia
to administer oaths, JOE LOCKWOOD, who in his capacity as Mayor and the person presiding over a Council
meeting of the CITY OF MILTON, and after being first duly sworn, certifies under oath and states to the best of his
knowledge and belief the following:
At its Regularly Scheduled Council Meeting held on April 23, 2012, the Council voted to go into closed
session and exclude the public from all or a portion of its meeting. The legal exceptions applicable to the exempt
matters addressed during such closed meeting are as follows:
[Check or initial as appropriate]
(X) Discussing or deliberating upon the appointment, employment, compensation, hiring, disciplinary
action, dismissal, periodic evaluation or rating of a government officer or employee [O.C.G.A.
§ 50-14-3(6)];
() Privileged consultation with legal counsel pertaining to pending or threatened litigation, claims,
administrative proceedings or settlements [O.C.G.A. § 50-14-2];
(X) Discussing the future acquisition of real estate [O.C.G.A. § 50-14-3(4)1;
( ) Staff meetings for investigative purposes under duties or responsibilities imposed by law
[O.C.G.A. § 50-14-3(1)];
( ) Tax matters made confidential by State law [O.C.G.A. § 50-14-2];
( ) Inspection of physical facilities under the jurisdiction of the CITY OF MILTON [O.C.G.A.
§ 50-14-1(a)(2)];
( ) Meeting with a governing body, officer, agent or employee of another agency at a location outside
the geographical jurisdiction of the CITY OF MILTON or such other agency and at which no final
action is taken [O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(a)(2)];
( ) Other. [Explanation and citation to statutory authority required]:
I certify that the subject matter of the closed meeting or the closed portion of the meeting was devoted to
matters of official business or policy, with the exceptions provided by law as set forth above.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me
this 23rd day of April, 2012. 10001118911 11
�d
Notfry Public
My Commission Expires:
MAYOR JOE KWOOD
No Text