Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 01/23/2013 - MINS 01 23 13 REG (Migrated from Optiview)l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 1 of21 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 January 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION Remco Brommet, Chaplain for City of Milton Police and Fire CALL TO ORDER Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order. l ROLLCALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember Longoria, Councilmember Hewitt, Councilmember Thurman and Councilmember Bill Lusk. Councilmembers Absent: Councilmember Large PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Agenda Item No. 13-014) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following changes: • Add an Executive Session after Reports and Presentations to discuss pending litigation. • Add another Executive Session at the end of the meeting to discuss land acquisition. • Move Agenda Item 13-022 to after Reports and Presentations. Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Large was absent. l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 2 of21 PUBLIC COMMENT J CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the December 17, 2012 Regular Council Minutes. (Agenda Item No. 13-015) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk) 2. Approval ofthe Financial Statements for the Period Ending December, 2012. (Agenda Item No. 13-016) (Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager) 3. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Strickland Pipeline and Construction, Inc. for Demolition of Structures at 13690 State Highway 9. (Agenda Item No. 13-017) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 4. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Gresham, Smith and Partners for Concept Plans for Hopewell Road-Bethany BendlWay Intersection Improvements. (Agenda Item No. 13-018) J (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Thunnan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Large was absent. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation Recognizing SkillsUSA Charter Day at Cambridge High School. (Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood) EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation at 6:20 p.m. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Large was absent. J l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23,2013 at 6:00 pm Page 3 of21 RECONVENE Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to reconvene the Regular Meeting at 6:37 p.m. Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Large was absent. FIRST PRESENTATION(None) Zoning is transcribed verbatim ZONING AGENDA 1. Consideration ofRZ12-16NC12-06 -12855 Hopewell Road, Beazer Homes, to rezone from AG-1 (Agricultural) to NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan) to develop 29 single family homes at a density of 4.18 units per acre. A 2 part concurrent variance, 1) Reduce the periphery setback from 40 feet to 25 feet along the east and north property lines and 7 feet along the south property line (Sec 64-921 (i)). 2) To allow sidewalks along only one side of the street on the interior of the development (Sec 64-2393). (Agenda Item No. 13-019) ORDINANCE NO. 13-01-158 (First Presentation at January 7, 2013 Regular Council Meeting) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director) Kathleen Field, Community Development Director: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. This first slide shows the location of the subject site along Hopewell Road. It is located, as mentioned, at 12855 Hopewell Road. The subject site contains 6.931 acres located just north of the City of Alpharetta. This site is currently zoned AG-1 Agricultural with one single family resident on the site. The applicant seeks a rezoning to NUP Neighborhood Unit Plan to develop 29 single family residences. The applicant also seeks a two-part concurrent variance to reduce periphery setbacks for the development and seeks pennission not to build sidewalks on both sides of the internal streets. The existing zoning is shown on the slide here and you see the AG-1 zoning in place. The GA 400 LCI Planning Study which was recently approved by the Mayor and City Council, in essence, amended the Comprehensive Plan in tenns of future land use for this area. And, this particular site which is shown on the very western corner northwestern corner of this map that you are looking at here, defines this area to be a transition area. And, I want to read to you what the planning study defined as this transition. That it should be low scale, primarily residential, likely senior, attached to small lot single family with limited neighborhood serving retail office. Maintains lower scale development with appropriate buffers to residential neighborhoods. Encourage linear paths along roadways. Limit setbacks from Highway 9 where practical. Require parking lot and right-of-way landscaping. Regular Meeting ofthe Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 4 of21 The next slide shows existing uses surrounding the site and I would like to just spend a few moments J moving around the site by number just to show you the types of land uses that are currently surrounding this site which will, I think, help you to define the appropriate transition use for this area, I think. And, I am going to start with number one, directly to the north and that currently has one unit per acre at the moment on that. The area defined as number four which is directly to the east which is the Southfield Subdivision, currently has 2.5 units per acre. Moving southward number seven, area number seven, is in the City of Alpharetta; however, it is zoned C-2 but undeveloped at the moment. Heading westerly, number eight is the site of the Assisted Living Facility currently under construction which includes 133 units and when you divide that into approximately four acres that the site is in size, you end up with about 33 units per acre on parcel number eight. Directly across the street, again, moving to the west on area number ten, that is scattered single family residences and it is approximately one unit per acre. And, then the last area just to the north of the number ten area which is area number eleven, is Vickery Crest subdivision which is a community unit plan and that essentially has an average of 1.88 units per acre. So, you can see it is surrounded by a varied number of density and also uses and I just wanted to bring that to your attention because it does relate to the transition as defined on the LCI Plan. So, then the next slide shows the chart that I just read from. I am going to move from that onto the next one which is the site plan that was submitted November 6, 2012. And, then we have analyzed that site plan in terms of development standards for a neighborhood unit Jplan and, essentially, the proposed development meets all the standards of an NUP with the exception of the very last one at the bottom in that the development standard calls for a minimum periphery setback for the entire development shall be 40 feet. They are asking for some variances from that minimum 40 foot setback which I will discuss as we move through this presentation. Additionally, the following chart here shows the applicant's proposed building setbacks for individual lots. I should note that the NUP allows for the applicant to specify building setbacks and so he has so specified them and they are in front of you here on this chart. The front yard setback is proposed to be ten feet. The side yard 0-7 with a fourteen feet minimum between the structures. The side yard setback adjacent to the street is proposed to be seven feet and the rear yard setback at fifteen feet. Staff recommends that lots number 20 through 29 be alley access lots. These are the lots that are in the middle of the site plan. This type of design will further create a walkable village type community that will provide an alternative subdivision designed for the area where there are typical suburban single family designs. This requirement will be included in the recommended conditions. We continue with the site plan analysis in regard to part one ofVC12-06 which is the request to reduce the periphery setback from 40 feet to 25 feet along the east and north property lines and seven feet along the south property line. In regard to the request for the east property line setback, we feel that the applicant has not submitted J credible evidence that relief granted would not offend the spirit or intent of this zoning ordinance and that there are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23,2013 at 6:00 pm Page 5 of21 piece of property that the literal or strict application of this zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship. Therefore, staff recommends denial of part one VC12-06 along the east property line. In regard to the south and north property line setbacks, the applicant has also requested that the periphery setback along the south property line be reduced from 40 to seven feet and the north property line to 25 feet. Staff notes that the adjacent property to the south is within the City of Milton but has been designated as a no access easement with a minimum width of 50 feet and increasing going to the east. This property is owned by the Hopewell Road Properties, LLC which is under development for the Senior Living Facility within the City of Alpharetta. In regard to the north property line, there is a small strip of land adjacent to the entrance to Southfield that is part of a lot within that subdivision. There are no improvements on this portion of the parcel. Also, it appears that as though the applicant's property abuts the Southfield Subdivision access road. In essence, we feel that there is already sufficient buffer at both the north and the south side that this variance could be supported. Based on these facts, relief granted would not expend the spirit or intent of this zoning ordinance and that there are extraordinary exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of this zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship to the size, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the applicant. Therefore, staff recommends approval conditional of part one ofVC12-06 along the south and north property lines. Landscape strips and buffers. According to section 64-237-0 of the zoning ordinance; unless otherwise specified, lots developed with single family detached dwelling units are not required to provide landscaped areas or zoning buffers. However, staff notes that 20 foot landscape strip and fencing are required around all retention ponds. The site plan does not indicate the required landscape strip and fencing. Said fencing is required to be a six foot high, five board equestrian style fence with two inch by four inch welded wire constructed around it. Other site plan considerations -sidewalks. Part two ofVC12-06 to allow sidewalks along only one side of the street on the entry of the development. Pursuant to section 64-2392 of the zoning ordinance; sidewalks are required on both sides of the street and that they be a minimum of five feet in width with a minimum two foot beauty strip between the sidewalk and the curb. The applicant's letter of intent states that their reason for deleting sidewalks on one side of the internal streets is to provide more green space and planting area. It is staff's opinion that sidewalks should be provided to both sides of the street to encourage a pedestrian friendly and safe environment for the residents. Accordingly, the applicant has not submitted credible evidence that: I. Relief of grant would not offend the spirit or intent of the zoning ordinance. 2. There are such extraordinary or exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that a literal or strict application of this zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship to the size, shape, topography, etc. Therefore, staff recommends denial of part two ofVCI2-06. Staff notes that although the site plan does not indicate sidewalks along Hopewell Road, the applicant has indicated that they will be constructed to continue the pedestrian accessibility between subdivisions Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23,2013 at 6:00 pm Page 6 of21 along Hopewell Road and connected with the Senior Living Facility to the south within the City of Alpharetta. Environmental Site Analysis: the Environmental Site Analysis Report is sufficient and satisfies the requirement of Section 64-2126. Departmental Comments: City Arborist -the site has about 75% tree coverage mostly that of young pine trees. Recompense will be required and it appears that all trees should be able to be placed on the site. Placement and species selected for recompense shall be approved by the City Arborist. Departmental Comments continued: Fire Marshall -based on the width of the pavement curb to curb of 24 feet, no on street parking will be permitted. Further evaluation of the plan will be made at the time of the land disturbance permit application. Public Works -subdivision regulations require a minimum of a 100 foot radius at the central line of all curbs. The curb near the storm water facility does not appear to meet that standard; however, discussions on the issue have taken place between the applicant and the Public Works Director. In terms of the impact on the local schools, we did communicate with Fulton County Board of Education and we were told that the schools that would service the children from this subdivision include Cogburn Woods Elementary School, Hopewell Middle School, and Cambridge High School. In terms of whether or not Cogburn Woods Elementary could meet the demand based on the current amount of students they have there, the response was no. In terms of Hopewell Middle School, they also responded no in terms of being able to meet the demand. However, Cambridge High School did respond yes that they could meet the demand ofthe students. The number of students are listed on your chart in front of you. We did do a financial model in terms of cost revenue for projections on this application over a twenty year period and it was determined that over twenty years using present values that there would be a loss of$117, 976 attributed to the services versus the amount oftaxes generated. Public Involvement: the Design Review Board met December 4, 2012 and they questioned the request for sidewalks on only one side of the internal streets. The CZIM which met November 28, 2012 there were twelve residents from the community in attendance and in addition, the staff has received several emails regarding this development which are included in the report. The Public Participation Meeting was held by the applicant at the Kroger meeting room on Hwy. 9 on December 5,2012. There were four citizens in attendance and the following was their concern: the concurrent variance to reduce the periphery setback from 40 feet to 25 feet. Staff has recommended denial for this concurrent variance along the east side. Standards of Review: it has been determined that the proposed 29 lots single family residential subdivision developed at a density of 4.18 units per acre provides a transition from the south with the Senior Living Facility under development within the City of Alpharetta for the medium density single family residential to the north and east at two units per acre and 2.5 units per acre respectively. It is staffs opinion that the proposed use is suitable with adjacent and nearby developments and zoning if approved with staff s recommended conditions. It is staffs opinion that the proposal will not adversely affect existing use or usability of the adjacent properties as described above. The proposed development provides a transition between the existing densities and uses. It has been determined; however, that the subject site may have a reasonable use currently as it is zoned AG-1 Agricultural. Staff does not anticipate a significant impact on public services or utilities. J J J Comments from the Fulton County Board of Education are included in the report as it relates to the estimated number of new students with the proposed rezoning which will have an impact on the elementary and middle schools. l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 7 of21 The applicant will be required to provide the transportation improvements listed in the recommended conditions. These improvements will help ameliorate the increased amount of traffic created by the proposed development. The proposed development provides the transition in density from the south to the north. If developed with the recommended conditions, it is consistent with the GA 4001Hwy. 9 LCI Planning Study recommendation of transition for the subject site. Based on these facts, it is grounds to recommend approval for the proposed NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan) if developed with the recommended conditions. The recommended conditions are: for a complete list of recommended conditions, please refer to the staff report. Highlights from the recommended conditions are as follows: NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan) approved conditionally. No more than 29 single family dwelling units at a maximum density of 4.18 units per acre. Minimum perimeter setback along the south property line seven feet. Minimum perimeter setback along the north property line twenty-five feet. Lots numbered 20-29 in the site plan submitted November 6, 2012 shall be rear loaded alley accessed lots. The recommended conditions continue. Sidewalks shall be constructed for both sides of the street for the entire development per city code Chapter 50 Subdivisions. There shall be a northbound right turn lane on Hopewell Road at New Access Drive shall be constructed. Southbound left turn lane on Hopewell Road at New Access Drive shall be constructed. In conclusion, the proposed 29 lots single family subdivision if developed with the recommended conditions is consistent with the GA 400/State Route 9 LCI Planning Study suggestion for transition; therefore, staff recommends approval conditional ofRZ12-16 to rezone from AG Agricultural to NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan). That is my presentation Mr. Mayor and I am certainly willing to take any questions. Mayor Joe Lockwood: Before we get into a Public Hearing I will open it up for questions to staff, Bill. Bill Lusk, Councilmember: Just a statement here, in the interest of full disclosure, let councilmembers here know that Mr. Steve Check who is represented here tonight from Beazer Homes is my appointee to the Design Review Board. I feel that relationship will have no influence on my decision on this application tonight. I feel I can be totally unbiased. Burt Hewitt, Councilmember: Tell me a little more about the rear entry, the lots in the middle. What's the rationale? Kathy Field: Well, the rationale is to provide different style homes and all the homes that are being proposed within the subdivision are front entry in terms of the access to the garages. And, we felt like we should mix up the type of style to make them more interesting so you don't have as much of the cookie cutter effect in terms of the same style homes but a little more mixed and because they were in the middle they lent themselves very well to putting an alley along the rear of both sides ofthe homes in that donut hole so to speak in the middle. Councilmember Hewitt: So, it is not for any functionality or safety it is more for aesthetics? Kathy Field: Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 80f21 Not at alL It was to create, again the idea of having the two sidewalks was to create a v ...."n....v.'" community that had its own identity with a mix of housing styles. J Councilmember Hewitt: Thank you. Mayor Lockwood: Are there any other questions for staff, BilL Councilmember Lusk: In the central units with the rear alley, the alley between the two banks of homes, don't you feel that by including that alley that it is going to push the structures closer to the road itself, and if you do have a sidewalk there that is further going to reduce any green space between the home and the sidewalk. Kathy Field: I think a lot of the subdivisions you are seeing now are pedestrian oriented and the idea being to move the porches as close to the sidewalk as possible so that as people walk along and people sit on the porches it creates a neighborhood. So, having the sidewalks and having the porches close to the sidewalks is really a preference in that sense. Councilmember Lusk: I would like to make note that the Southfield Subdivision only has sidewalks on one side of the street. JKaren Thurman, Councilmember: What width are these sidewalks compared to what our standard sidewalks are? I'd rather see one wider sidewalk than two smaller sidewalks. Kathy Field: Five feet with a landscape strip between the curb and the sidewalk which I believe is two feet. Okay, so two and five. Landscape strip of two and then a five foot sidewalk. Councilmember Thurman: And, what is our normal standard sidewalk. Is that a five foot sidewalk? Kathy Field: Yes, that is our normal. Councilmember Thurman: Is that normal everywhere or is that just our normal? Mayor Lockwood: Normally, you see three to four. Councilmember Thurman: I would rather see just one five foot one than two smaller ones so. J Carter Lucas, Public Works Director: l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 9 of21 I was going to say that the five foot one is normal to what you would see in a standard subdivision where we have multi-use trails then you start to see the eight, ten, and twelve foot wide sidewalks, similar to what we just put in on Bethany Bend. Councilmember Thurman: I would rather see one six foot one than two fives. Two fives with the two foot grass in between you are going to have street, grass, sidewalk, little bit of grass, then a house. It is going to be pretty compact. I would almost rather see one six foot sidewalk and only have it on one side of the street, personally. Mayor Lockwood: I have a question from the engineering side and I can ask this later to the applicant too but, you know, in looking at all the comments and positions of neighborhoods around and citizens that live around their concerns, you know, a lot of it, obviously, is with density and setbacks, which I know you have addressed and some buffers and variances have not agreed upon that the applicant would like, but, you know, talking about putting the alley way in between, or are there other ways that we could possibly move these houses closer to Hopewell Road in order to beef up the buffers a little bit, you know, that may help the surrounding neighborhoods. I don't know if you guys have looked at that at all or not but if that is a possibility. I can ask the applicant that later because that seems to be the majority of the concerns is privacy and closeness and whatnot with density. Councilmember Thurman: And, I had asked you in an email what the rear yard setbacks were for the adjacent subdivisions. I believe, was it, forty feet? Kathy Field: Robyn, can you respond to that, please? Robyn MacDonald, Principal Planner: I have density but not setbacks. Councilmember Thurman: I think we need to look at what the rear yard setback is too to make sure we are consistent to the adjacent neighborhoods. Robyn MacDonald: The rear is thirty feet. Councilmember Thurman: The rear is thirty feet for them? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING Pete Hendricks, 6085 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30320 Kathy has exhaustively gone through the application and her review her analysis so I will be very brief. We filed a modified and amended site plan yesterday that I hope you all if you see fit to direct yourselves toward an approval would incorporate in that it has reduced the number of lots from 29 to 26 lots. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 10 of21 That has the effect of changing the density from 4.18 to 3.8 units to the acre and would be information contained in paragraphs one and two. In addition to that, because of the sensitivity to Southfield of that setback area, the modified and amended site plan shows adherence to the forty foot setback and in addition to that there be inside of that forty feet that there be a 25 foot natural undisturbed buffer along the east property line in which is the common property line to Southfield. I would respectfully request that as condition to 3K that you all, well, actually start with J, that you delete J, that is the one for the rear entry alley load and that, respectively, request that on 3K which is the two sidewalk issue that you allow it to be just one sidewalk. I am going to let Steve Check take the rest of the time. He is the Beazer representative and he is going to walk you through the specifics of the product because we do have a much varied housing product that would be put in actually with some of the comer lots that would be able to be side entries so not all of the lots would be front entry, Steve. Steve Check, 840 Nettlebrook Lane, Milton, GA 30004 Good evening Mr. Mayor and members ofthe council. I represent Beazer homes and this application for the subject property. A couple of things, I think, were handed to you, a booklet which you may have in front of you. In that booklet, there are a couple of sections in there. The first section I would like for you to open to is the section that I have identified as the entrance and a couple of comments that we have been hearing throughout this process of how are we going to be treating the entrance, buffers and what have you, and what we've done is provided a landscape plan, an entrance plan, a monument plan here that I think is much in keeping with the City of Milton. It does have along the frontage a series of stone columns with the Milton fence coming into an entrance sign on one side we feel like keeping it low scale is in keeping with the City of Milton also. We have reserved an area here and as mentioned we are butting up against the City of Alpharetta so as you are travelling north on Hopewell we reserved an area for entering the City of Milton sign and you can see kind of a rendering of that that we have provided that has the new logo what have you. As you come into the community, we set these homes back from Hopewell and faced them onto Hopewell Road for a purpose to provide some green space up front as you are coming in and as you can see we've got a rendering of that green space that does have sidewalks leading to it, some open area which terminates into a sitting area, a little cul-de-sac if you will and some other details here. And, part of what we are hearing too is the buffering is behind the fence we are going to be keeping a large hedge, so, from Hopewell Road the intent here is to create a screen so that if someone is driving on Hopewell, it is not that we don't want people to see our homes, but we are trying to provide a nice buffer, created buffer. Now, on the northern side of the property is wooded so we are going to stop that and keep the natural vegetation. Also, in your book you will see some plans that I have provided. One of the first things that we did in this process is that we met with staff, we met with the City Architect and came up with plans that, I think, are in keeping with the City of Milton which included porches, metal roofs, carriage style doors and other details that are in mind with the craftsman style, farmhouse style, and colonial style. So, those plans there they start from 2,700 square feet and go up to 3,000. We are proud ofthe project. J J J We have come a long ways in working this, as Pete said, we have reduced the number of lots from 29 to 26 and added buffers and at this point I would like to save some time for comments, questions, and rebuttal. l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 11 of21 Michelle Tubbs, 780 Southfield Lane, Milton, GA 30004 Thank you Mayor and Councilmembers. I wanted to say that I've got both positive comments and, I think, comments about opportunities that we still have to make. I'm glad that it is a single family attached plan that is being proposed as opposed to some of the other transitional items that could be built here like office or attached homes. I am glad that we have been able to work on keeping that 40 foot setback with the Southfield Subdivision. I think we still have an opportunity to work on density. I think moving from 29 to 26 is moving in the right direction but it has not yet achieved an optimal plan. l Francois Coulumbe, 890 Southfield Lane, Milton, GA 30004 Hi. I am Francois Coulumbe. I live at 890 Southfield Lane. Our house is directly behind the small piece of land that is being discussed here. We strongly oppose a rezoning and urge you to reject it like the Planning Commission did last month after careful consideration. The City of Milton prides itself on its quality of life, rural feel and having a very smart and sensible approach to development. This plan presented here goes against everything that Milton represents and stands for. Cramming 26 or 29 houses on a small sliver of land which is squeezed between a busy road, established neighborhood, and a retirement complex with over 120 units is anything but a sensible approach to development. Also, the Planning Commission meeting we heard about the development that the development might 1) cause attendance issues at schools and 2) have a negative fiscal impact on the city so, the bottom line for us is that not all pieces of land in Milton need to be developed even when people decide that it is time for them to cash in on their piece of land. James Lawler, 900 Southfield Lane, Milton, GA 30004 I too back up to the eastern border of this proposed plan and strongly oppose it. I feel like this is a case of greed and greed in this case is not good. 29 homes on 6.932 acres whatever it might be and 4.1 or 26 homes at 3.8 still goes completely against what Southfield has, what Vickery Crest has, what a couple of the other single family homes and what Hopewell Plantation, all the neighboring ones. Take out the City of Alpharetta Cottonwood Estates, it is not in Milton. So, I feel like we have an issue where we are packing way too many homes, 26-29, into that small sliver of land backing up into the backyards of numerous of my neighbors is unacceptable and I strongly oppose this and I hope you do too. Kris Straw, 2297 Milton Place, Milton, GA 30004 Hello. Good evening. My name is Kris Straw. I live at 2297 Milton Place. I am one of the 35 other homeowners at Milton Place and Vickery Crest that wrote a letter and submitted it to the Planning Commission opposing the community. I'm not going to go into the details because my understanding is that you have that already. I just want to reiterate some of the comments that have already come out. We feel like this community is way too dense for the size of the property that it is on. Also, we feel like if this community went in as planned or proposed it kind of sets the precedent of whatever might go in across the road, future developments there or elsewhere in Milton. l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 12 of21 And, that is all I'm going to say. Thank you very much. J Pete Hendricks: Yes, I think that Kathy did a good job ticking off to you the parameters that your GA 400IHighway 9 LCI that you adopted in April for this area with specifically strongly suggesting that it be residential, that it be transitional residential, utilization of small lots, and I think that that is reflective of the site plan that you have in front of you. I know that there has been a great deal of reach out by Mr. Check in the immediately surrounding area within the neighborhood and with individuals within those neighborhoods to try and come up with some modification and amendment to the plan to make it more acceptable and I think that has been done particularly reflective in what has been done along the eastern property line with adherence to the 40 feet to in and including in putting in that 45 foot 40 foot area a 25 foot natural undisturbed buffer. So, I will let Steve wrap up with final comments. Steve Check: Just a couple more comments on the product that is in front of you and how it relates to the diversity of the product. In that package, there are 12 different styles of homes; therefore, so we feel like this will not be a product that is cookie cutter type. And, as for the alley way, I feel like that is a little more urban type of product and quite frankly not the product that we build and trying to cut down on impervious area and detention would like that not to be a condition along with the sidewalk, once again, impervious area, cutting down in this small community feel like one side. JJust real quick, I did want to mention a little bit about how I came about this property and I travel this road quite often and when the construction of the apartments went up, I inquired about it and talked to staff and reviewed the LCI and made a proposal and application for 29 lots which I felt like was in keeping with the LCI and I certainly felt like that could have been an use for the LCI could have been a higher use, attached or senior living, so I felt like it may have been a compromise in the LCI and a lower use. I do want to reserve some time for some questions. Mayor Lockwood: We can always ask you questions and it won't count on the time. That is the end for public comment. I will close the Public Hearing and move on to council discussion and questions from council for staff or the applicant. Does anybody have any questions or comments? Councilmember Hewitt: While it has the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet, is that what they are? Is it at the minimum? It looks like there are some different shaped ones on the perimeter. Steve Check: We have added some width to ones along the north. I don't know the actual square footage but it is not 5,000 square feet, in addition to that, we reduced one lot along here and then two along the back to J accommodate some of the concerns by the adjacent neighborhoods. I don't know what the minimum is but it is greater than 5,000 square feet. It is probably closer to 5,500 as the minimum and along the north a little larger than that. Bill Lusk: l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 13 of21 That little inset diagram that you have up here on the top of the sheet indicates lot width of 52 feet and lot depth of 100 feet so you are talking about 5,200 would be the minimum? Steve Check: Yes Mayor Lockwood: This kind of goes to staff and Mr. Check can address this again, going to my question earlier, is there any because obviously the density and buffers are the majority of issues with our citizens have and I certainly applaud you for looking at it and coming from 29 to 26 but is there any other actions that you could take that would minimize the density a little bit more? Obviously, you can make the lots bigger but without totally impacting the project. Do you want to explain how you came up with 26? Steve Check: l So much of this has to do with the economics of the project in light of the highest and best use of this property. Adjacent to the apartments, there are a certain number of lots that make sense. There is, I think Michelle mentioned, that there are 24 lots, I think we could live with 24 lots in this project. And, you know, I would recommend ifthat is what you approve that we take a look at increasing the size and width along the north here and then, you know, selecting an area to do some other changes, but at least one along the north and then one maybe up front in the community to reduce it. When you are going from 29 to 24 that may not sound like a lot, 5 lots, but when you percentage wise it is a great deal. Mayor Lockwood: Is there any way to, you know, put more of the density on the, and there may not be, but on the .... Steve Check: Closer to Hopewell ... Mayor Lockwood: I believe it would be the east side, you know, adjacent to the City of Alpharetta ..... Steve Check: South side .... Mayor Lockwood: South side, is there any way to put more density on that side to alleviate density between Southfield Subdivision? Steve Check: If there were an additional lot or two lots, we could take a look at the north side then just keep, we would look at widening up the lots on the east border then maintaining the density up front, you know, higher density against Hopewell and Retirement Village. Councilmember Thurman: l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 14 of21 The 24 lots would get it down a little under 3.5 units per acre which is more in keeping, I than with the adjacent subdivisions and the original application. J Steve Check: Ifwe lost two, I think that matches the number of homes along the Southfield. Right now, I see seven and we have nine so if we took two out it would be seven up against seven. Matt Kunz, Councilmember: For everybody that is here in opposition, I know how you feel on this because I grew up and had a subdivision that built right across the street from my house and I didn't like it one bit and I know how that feels from that standpoint but I also don't have a reason why we could say no to something. You know, we started an LCI study here over a year and a half ago. A lot of staff researched, a lot of money spent, a lot of engineers that came together to come up with a plan for a community in this area. And, this piece of property is within that LCI study and I look at it and I say, well, if that is what we want then ultimately where the rubber meets the road. And, with the rubber is going to meet the road here, you know, what are the things that we want in this type of situation? One, I think we have a local developer that is a good thing. That is what I would rather have if that is the case. You know, lot sizes, you know, for the buffer on the back side, you know, a lot of people are in opposition. It is a thirty foot setback versus a forty setback which is now what the developer is proposing so I can't see that one as an argument either. So, looking at this, I like the designs from what I see and I like the style of houses and it is a transitional piece. It is something that we spent over a year and a half to talk about. Does that mean that those across the street are threatened to have that same type of development? No, because it is not in the LCI plan. Looking at the map of the LCI, that is why we are in this property. So, looking at Jwhere we are, staying within the framework of what Milton is and going through citizen involvement and meeting after meeting of a lot of citizens input, this is in my mind, the right way to go for what it is that we are looking for for a piece of property in this area. And, I don't know all the details about, you know, reducing lot sizes, I would be open to that and definitely figuring out a way to make that happen, but conceptually, I am not finding a reason to say no on this and I just want to say that. Joe Longoria, Councilmember: Yea, well there are two pieces to this. The change from AG-l to the NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan) makes a lot sense. That is sort of a no brainer. In terms of the variances, I agree that, you know, we have spent a lot of time, a lot of energy, a lot of effort in the LCI to try to figure out what the characteristics we need in what areas and, while we don't have to get in the details ofthe number of units, I think that the use of this in terms of having it be a different product than Vickery or the surrounding subdivisions and development, I mean, that is what buffers are supposed to be about. They are supposed to be about variations and changes to move from one thing to another, so, the concern that I had and, you know, I don't worry about if there is a 30 foot setback on one development, and you know, I worry about what are the standards now and whether or not we should grant variances to those standards. I don't have a problem granting the variance on the north or the south side because I think that the, you know, what is faced there is available to a variance. You know, the Senior Center or the road, I don't think there is any danger in changing the setbacks there to accommodate laying out the subdivision; however, on the east side backing up to the existing homeowners, I think that we should attempt to provide them with what the understood ordinances call for as opposed to providing a variance on that even if the setback on the other side of the fence is 30 feet. They may have been granted a J variance for another set of reasons, you know, that I am unaware of, so I would be in favor of rezoning the NUP, I would be in favor of granting the north and the south variances as proposed but I want to stick with the 40 feet on the east side to give protection to the current homeowners. l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 15 of21 Mayor Lockwood: I just want to add to that, as Mr. Check said, you know, if you can drop two lots out of there until you are matching the same density lot wise over on that buffer; that would be something that I would be interested in. Councilmember Thurman: Personally, I would just support the one sidewalk on one side of the street too. I don't think, a neighborhood this small, I don't think it needs sidewalks on both sides of the street. I think it is, I would rather have a little more grass and not quite as much sidewalk. In my subdivision we only have them on one side of the street and every once in a while you have to go around somebody walking on the sidewalk but it doesn't happen very often. Councilmember Kunz: I would concur with that. Councilmember Hewitt: What about the rear loaders? What do y'all think of that in the center? Councilmember Thurman: Personally, instead of having the rear load in the center, I would like to see a couple of houses have side entry garages where applicable. I would rather have that than have all of them be because if you do the rear in the center, you are going to have all the houses in the center very very much alike and I would rather have houses which some of them have a side entry or something to give it a little more diversity than having the rear entry garages. Councilmember Hewitt: Well, my thoughts are that ifit is not a functional, safety, or engineering reason then we could get around that. Mayor Lockwood: Like I said, I like the idea of it because as Kathy said it gives a little bit of variety there and maybe more of a walkable or neighbor feel with the back alleys but after seeing and reading concerns from the neighbors, I think that would impact it negatively because then you are going to have less green space on the areas that people are going to see so, you know, I would be okay with not having the rear entrance. Councilmember Lusk: I would go along with that. Mayor Lockwood: I like the idea but I don't know if that will help the concerns of those affected. Councilmember Hewitt: Kathy or Robyn, the eastern 40 feet, doing that would create no variance, correct? If they stuck with 40 feet and a 25 foot undisturbed? Robyn MacDonald: Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 16 of21 That's correct. J Councilmember Lusk: I like the idea of the rear entry, but I think in this particular development here, I think it creates more impervious area by using that alley way and I think what Karen and Matt suggested probably lots 18 and 22, and 23 which are on the ends or the comers of that central area could have side entry garages there which would help soften the appearance of having a row of five houses across there that may be similar to each other. Councilmember Thurman: You may be able to get them on lot 15, 3, and 4 also. I think you could probably find five lots in there where you could do a side entry garage. Councilmember Lusk: That gives some diversity. Mayor Lockwood: I would like to let Mr. Check comment on that side entrance. Councilmember Thurman: And, I know if we go down to 24 some of that may change. If we set a minimum of five and you choose which five, could you live with that? That way, if the plan changes and we go down to 24 lots it gives you some flexibility with it and that way ..... ] Mayor Lockwood: It may also be a positive feature for your development. Anything else, it looks like everyone seems to be in favor in some sort of approval with some conditions so ..... Kathy Field: Mr. Mayor, if I could make a friendly amendment up front. If you will reference in your motion Site Plan 2A because that does note the 40 foot buffer with the 25 foot landscape strip in it on that east side. Councilmember Longoria: Do we have to tie the variances to the rezoning or are those two things separate? Ken Jarrard, City Attorney: For purposes of the procedure, I think you need to tie them to the rezoning. Councilmember Longoria: So, this is just one motion we are making and not multiple motions? Councilmember Thurman: Yes, it is all on one agenda item. ]Councilmember Longoria: Okay, I just wanted to make sure. l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 17 of21 Councilmember Thurman: -, I I I would like to make a motion that we approve RZ12-16NC12-06 for 12855 Hopewell Road, Beazer Homes to rezone from AG-l (Agricultural) to NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan) to develop 29 single family homes at a density of 4.18 units per acre; two part concurrent variance to reduce the periphery I setback from 40 feet to 25 feet along the east and north property lines and 7 feet along the south property i lines to allow sidewalks along only one side of the street on the interior of the development and this is in reference to site plan 2A with the changes to deny the variance along the east property line, to limit it to 24 units, density is 3.5 units per acre, to allow the variance for the sidewalks on only one side of the street, and to require that at least five of the homes be side entry garage. Did that capture everything? I Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager: I don't know that you did and I may be able to offer a way that would make this a little bit easier because the site plan 2A takes into account the sidewalks on one side of the street, it takes into account I the problem with the road that the Public Works Department talked about, it takes into account this 40 foot setback with a 25 foot undisturbed buffer so, rather than trying to approve this as it was written and then making a bunch of modifications to it, you can potentially approve the rezoning conditioned to the Site Plan 2A and not worry about having to do and undo a bunch of stuff. Staff recommended conditions and the thing that I want to make sure you capture is the reduction in 29 to 24. l Mayor Lockwood: And, also if you could add that the homes on the east border would mirror the homes behind there as far as density, I think it goes from nine to seven lots on the back. City Manager Lagerbloom: So, the key words we are looking for is the Site Plan of January 22, 2013. Mayor Lockwood: The only thing I would like to say before we vote on this is, as Matt said, there are citizens here with concerns and whatnot and sometimes we have to make tough decisions and hopefully we have kind of balanced that a little bit and tried to have some conditions that helps with the neighbors that are adjacent and, you know, you guys on the other side agreed to give up some things so we appreciate you working there so, hopefully, we can move toward something that will be a little bit better for everybody so anyways, with that being said ..... Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item No. 13-019 with the following modifications in Site Plan 2A dated January 22, 2013: • Reduce the number of lots to 24 with 3.5 units per acre. • Mirror the lots on the east side. • Require at least five of the homes to have side entry garages. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Council member Large was absent. l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 18 of21 J End of verbatim transcription Councilmember Lusk left the meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a Resolution Electing Absent Municipality Status Regarding All Future LOST Proceedings Related to and Triggered by the 2010 Census. (Agenda Item No. 12-328) (Deferred at January 7, 2013 Regular Council Meeting) (Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager) Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager: Based on some recent steps in the ongoing litigation that is a product of this LOST negotiation, at this point, a period of time will have to go by before this issue is taken up again. I would appreciate it if someone would make a motion tonight to withdraw this item. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to withdraw Agenda Item No. 12-328. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmember Large and Councilmember Lusk were absent. J NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of the Approval of a Resolution to Set Qualifying Fees for the 2013 Municipal Elections. (Agenda Item No. 13-020) RESOLUTION NO. R13-01-247 (Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager) Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager This is procedural and necessary for an election to occur in November of this year. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 13-020. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmember Large and Councilmember Lusk were absent. 2. Consideration of a Resolution to Amend Resolution No. 07-11-04 Changing Authorized Signers and Bank Account Information for the Georgia Fund 1 State Investment Pool Account. J (Agenda Item No. 13-021) RESOLUTION NO. R13-01-248 (Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager) l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 19 of21 Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager: This item is simply housekeeping. We have not changed the information on our account with Georgia Fund 1 since November 2007. Some personnel has changed and we have acquired new banking services. We need to change the information and the only way to do that is by resolution. We need to change the check signers to include Sudie Gordon, City Clerk and remove Jeanette Marchiafava, previous City Clerk. We also need to change the banking information from Bank of North Georgia to SunTrust Bank. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 13-021. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmember Large and Councilmember Lusk were absent. The following item was moved by motion and vote under Approval of Agenda to discuss after Reports and Presentations: 3. Consideration and Possible Approval of a Settlement Agreement between the City of Milton and Action Outdoor Advertising JV, LLC; KH Outdoor, LLC; Covenant Media of Georgia, LLC and Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. Over Pending, Threatened, and Adjudicated Litigation Related to Applications for Billboards within the Corporate Boundaries of Milton where such Applications were Submitted to Fulton County Government prior to the City of Milton's Incorporation. (Agenda Item No. 13-022) (Ken Jarrard, City Attorney) Ken Jarrard, City Attorney: This is a proposed settlement agreement between the City of Milton and various outdoor advertising companies. This is the product of litigation that commenced before the City of Milton existed. These are permit applications that were filed in Fulton County that included site locations within what would become in the future the City of Milton. There were applications for up to sixteen billboards within the future area of the City of Milton. That litigation ultimately turned out to be unsuccessful for Fulton County meaning that their billboard sign code was stricken and; therefore, by way of judicial order and sanction, the City of Milton, which was created while the litigation was pending, is now required to comply with that order and otherwise deal with the loss of that litigation. The City Manager and staff have been negotiating with these various billboard companies for over a year to try to work out a reasonable compromise. I have provided each of you a copy of the settlement agreement and I would like to go over the terms of the settlement with you. There will be a maximum of four signs allowed. The exact parcels have not been identified but there are nodes, or areas, where the signage can be placed. Node 1 is adjacent to SR 400. Node 2 is along Hwy. 9, formally the McMillan strip centers. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23,2013 at 6:00 pm Page 20 of21 Node 3 is on Hwy. 9 near Windward Parkway. Node 4 is on Hwy. 9 near Bethany Bend Road. J Node 5 is on SR 140 Arnold Mill Road. Only one sign can go in a particular node. The height of the sign can be 10 feet 6 inches by 36 feet in size. On Node 1, the height ofthe sign can be 14 feet by 48 feet in size. The signs can be double-faced and it is anticipated that they will be LED. The companies will be required to obtain a sign permit; however, they will not be required to pay a permit fee. Because we are acting pursuant to court mandate, we have to be mindful of the fact that although the City of Milton has a sign ordinance, we are not going to be in a position to enforce that sign code in its totality against these companies. However, these companies have agreed to comply with the City of Milton tree code. Once the signs are constructed, they will become a legal non-conforming structure and all of our requirements for legal non-conforming structures will be applicable. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 13-022 with the following modifications: • Adjust the language on page five (5) to be in accordance with the City Attorney recommendations to read as below: "Additionally, the provisions of 64-2303(5)(a) and (7)(a) shall have no application with Jrespect to the Agreement. ("as both provisions may work a substantial impairment on the ability of the Advertisers to locate signs in the various nodes.") is stricken. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmember Large was absent. Councilmember Thurman recused herself from the vote. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS STAFF REPORTS ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 13-023) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 8:04 p.m. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). J Councilmember Large and Councilmember Lusk were absent. l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm Page 21 of21 After no further discussion the Regular Council Meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Date Approved: February 4,2013. l STATE OF GEORGIA ) ) AFFIDA VIT RE: CLOSURE OF COUNTY OF FULTON ) OPEN MEETINGS ) l CITY OF MILTON ) 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 January 23, 2013, at 6:00 PM 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] I. discussion or voting to authorize negotiations to purchase, dispose of, or lease property; authorizing the ordering of an appraisal related to the acquisition or disposal of real estate; entering into contract to purchase, to dispose of, or lease property subject to approval in a subsequent public vote; or entering into an option to purchase, dispose of, or lease real estate subject to approval in a subsequent public vote pursuant to O.C.G.A, 50-14-3(b)(I)(B-E); 2. discussing or deliberating upon the appointment, employment, compensation, hiring, disciplinary action or dismissal, or periodic evaluation or rating of a public officer or employee or interviewing applicants for the executive head of the city with the vote on any such matter coming in l public pursuant to O.C.G.A. 50-14-3(b)(2); 3. X attorney/client privilege in order to consult and meet with legal counsel pertaining to pending or potential litigation, settlement, claims, administrative proceedings or other judicial actions brought or to be brought by or against the agency or any officer or employee or in which the agency or any officer or employee may be directly involved, pursuant to O.e.G.A. 50-14-2(1). 4. other (explanation): 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. irtzht'1c!~ Notary Public My Commission Expires: MAYORXOOD l