HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 07/15/2013 - Mins 07 15 13 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 1 of 29
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 July 15, 2013 at
6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Reverend Monsignor Peter J. Rau, St. Peter Chanel Catholic Church, Roswell, Georgia.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember Large, Councilmember Thurman,
and Councilmember Lusk.
Councilmembers Absent: Councilmember Hewitt and Councilmember Longoria.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
(Agenda Item No. 13-165)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following
changes:
• Add an Executive Session to discuss litigation and land acquisition.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmembers
Hewitt and Longoria were absent from the meeting.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 2 of 29
PUBLIC COMMENT (None)
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of the July 1, 2013 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 13-166)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of the July 8, 2013 Work Session Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 13-167)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
3. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and the
Environmental Quality Company for a Milton Household Paint and Chemicals Collections Event
on August 3, 2013.
(Agenda Item No. 13-168)
(Cindy Eade, Sustainability Coordinator)
4. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Kittelson &
Associates, Inc. for Birmingham Road at Hopewell Road Roundabout Peer Review.
(Agenda Item No. 13-169)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember
Large seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmembers Hewitt and
Longoria were absent from the meeting.
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation Recognizing George Ragsdale.
(Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood)
FIRST PRESENTATION
1. Consideration of an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia, to
Establish the Ad Valorem Tax Rate of the City of Milton for Fiscal Year 2013; and for Other
Purposes.
(Agenda Item No. 13-170)
(Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 3 of 29
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the First Presentation Item.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmembers
Hewitt and Longoria were absent from the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING (None)
Zoning is transcribed verbatim
ZONING AGENDA
1. Consideration of RZ13-14 —13175 Hopewell Road, Duke Land Group, LLC, to Rezone from
AG -1 (Agricultural) to R-3 (Residential) to Develop 11 Single Family Lots on 9.04 Acres.
(Agenda Item No. 13-160)
ORDINANCE NO. 13-07-179
(First Presentation at July 1, 2013 Regular Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director:
Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. You will see the parcel outlined in red. The
subject site contains 9.04 acres and zoned AG -1; developed currently with one existing house to be
demolished. The applicant proposes to rezone to R-3 (Single Family Residential) with 11 lots at 1.22
units per acre. The site is located within the "Agricultural, Estate Residential, and Equestrian"
designation of the City of Milton 2030 Comprehensive Plan Map. Applicant is also requesting
connection to sanitary sewer for the site. Access is derived from the existing Newtown Road and not
from Hopewell Road. This site plan shows the existing zoning, AG -1. This shows the future land use
plan map showing the site as proposed for Agricultural, Estate Residential, and Equestrian. This is the
site plan that was submitted April 2, 2013. I want to bring your attention to this site plan as opposed to
the next one, which was submitted at a later date, to show the difference to you and to point out an issue
that has been alleviated. If you look at the entrance off of Hopewell, and Hopewell runs across the top
of this plan, you will see a thin parcel, that first parcel that you come to, and that is a parcel that has been
designated for a detention pond. Next to that, you will see a house lot that borders along Hopewell. The
policy of the City Council is that any homes along Hopewell must be a minimum of one acre in size.
This house lot does not meet that minimum requirement; however, the revised site plan submitted June
17, 2013, shows a common area that goes from the lot designated for the detention plan and then
includes now a strip that parallels Hopewell Road. And, that was at the suggestion of the Design
Review Board that there be put in place a permanent buffer and so that is what has been created. But, by
doing that, extending that common area along the whole frontage, the requirement that a house lot, that
there is no more a house lot bordering Hopewell Road that would mandate a one acre minimum size.
That requirement goes away because of that extended common area that now follows the entire area.
You will hear reference to it as we go along. I just wanted to explain that to you. This picture shows the
entrance by Newtown Drive which also accesses Milton Place. The next picture shows inter -parcel
access looking north from that drive into the site. The next picture is the subject site looking north on
Hopewell Road. In terms of background, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to defer this item at their
May 22, 2013 meeting to allow further discussions between the Staff and the applicant regarding
conditions of zoning regarding transportation conditions.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 4 of 29
Since the last meeting, the applicant's representative met with the Public Works Director to discuss City
right-of-way minimum width and cul-de-sac requirements for, the proposed extension of Newtown
Drive. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan dated June 17, 2013 which reflects the agreed
upon changes. In addition, the locations of the proposed stormwater facilities have been discussed with
the Public Works Director and final location will be determined after further engineering is completed
and prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit.
The applicant has indicated a common area along Hopewell Road to allow for preservation of trees as
recommended by the Design Review Board. That is that narrow buffer area that was created. The
existing lot and common area/detention area along Hopewell Road comprise a total of 0.85 acres. Staff
reflects that past policy mandates for one acre lots along Hopewell Road although the applicant has
created a common area along Hopewell Road that will negate this condition. The Planning Commission
voted 5-0 on June 25, 2013 to recommend Approval Conditional to rezone from AG -1 to R-3
(Residential) for 11 lots. And, their conditions are essentially the Recommended Conditions that you see
at the end of your Staff Report. Based on the applicant's revised site plan submitted to the Community
Development Department on June 17, 2013, Staff offers the following considerations: A comparison of
the Development Standards for the R-3 (Single Family Dwelling District) are shown here. The required
Development Standards are on the left column and on the right column is the Proposed Development.
And, you can see that the Proposed Development does meet the Development Standards of the R-3
Zoning District.
Development Standards
Proposed Development
No building shall exceed 40 feet in
None indicated
height
Minimum front yard — 50 feet
50 feet
Minimum side yard as follows:
Adjacent to interior line: 10 feet
10 feet
Adjacent to street: 20 feet
20 feet
Minimum rear yard — 35 feet
35 feet
Minimum lot area — 18,000 sq.ft.
18,000 sq.ft.
Minimum lot width shall be 100 ft.
100 feet
Minimum lot frontage shall be 35 feet
35 feet
adjoining a street
Minimum heated floor area shall be
Per the letter of intent — 2,500 square feet
as follows:
For two-story dwelling: 1,320 sq.ft. or
For more than two story dwelling:
1,320 square feet with 900 square feet
on ground floor.
1
rj�
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 5 of 29
In terms of landscape strips and buffers, Staff notes that a 20 -foot landscape strip and fencing are
required around all detention ponds. The site plan does not indicate the required landscape strip and
fencing. The fencing shall be a 6 -foot high, five -board equestrian style fence with two inch by four inch
welded wire constructed around it. There are two stormwater facilities located on the property; one
adjacent to Hopewell Road and one on the eastern portion of the site. Other site plan considerations are
pursuant to Sec 64-2392, the Zoning Ordinance requires sidewalks which shall be constructed in
accordance with the Department of Public Works standard plan which requires sidewalks on at least one
side of the street. The site plan does not indicate the required sidewalks, but a condition is included to
provide a sidewalk on at least one side of the street. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting that
public sanitary sewer be served to the subject site. It is attached at the end of the Staff Report for your
review. The subject site is not included in the Intergovernmental Agreement between Fulton County and
the City of Milton to provide sewer service within certain properties of the City of Milton. Staff notes,
that without the service of public sewer to the site, the requested minimum 18,000 square foot lots
cannot be developed but minimum one acre lots served by individual septic systems can be developed.
Environmental Site Analysis - the Environmental Site Analysis (ESA) report is sufficient and satisfies
the requirement of Sec. 64-2126. A field survey of the site was conducted by Staff to verify areas
addressed in the ESA report. The proposed site does not contain wetlands, historical sites or sensitive
plant and animal species. The applicant has stated the following in regards to the site:
"There is a stream flowing through the eastern portion of the property that has been located and the City
buffers have been incorporated into the proposed site plan. Wetlands located on the site are located
within the banks of the stream and will be protected by the buffers. The property contains a slope
exceeding 25 percent of the stream. If constructed, the subdivision would have to gain approval of a 3
phase erosion control plan and best management practices to mitigate any damage to the steep slope."
Arborist Comments - There are two specimen trees located on site of which one shown to be removed.
The one that will be removed is a specimen poplar tree - 48"dbh (diameter at breast height) = 37.8 units.
It will require for replacement 54- four inch trees. This tree is a multi -trunked and in good condition. If
the tree was a single trunk, Staff would request re -configuration of the lot to preserve it, but given the
position on the site and the fact that it is multi -trunked, removal and recompense is acceptable.
In terms of the Fulton County Board of Education, there would be a negative impact on the Cogburn
Woods Elementary School as well as the Hopewell Middle School. However, there would be no impact
on the Cambridge High School.
In regard to the Financial Modeling Results over a 20 year period, it has been determined that revenue
would exceed cost of services by $45,375.
Public Involvement - On April 24, 2013 the applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information
Meeting (CZIM) held at the Milton City Hall. There was no one in attendance for the subject site.
The requirements of the Public Participation Plan and Report were met. There was a Design Review
Board Meeting held on May 7, 2013. The comments that generated from that meeting included the fact
that they would like to preserve trees along Hopewell Road or replant the trees if needed.
Standards of Review Questions:
1. Whether or not the proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development
of adjacent and nearby properties?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 6 of 29
The proposed 11 lot single family residential subdivision developed at a density of 1.22 units per acre is
consistent with the adjacent development to the south. If you look at #5 that is Milton Place zoned R-3
approved at a density of 1.67 units per acre. If you look at the area labeled #4, that is Coventry within
the City of Alpharetta zoned R-5 (Residential) at a density of 2.92 units per acre. The area labeled #3 to
the east, that is Hopewell Plantation within the City of Alpharetta and Milton, zoned AG -1. To the areas
of #1 and #8 which is to the north and west, these are scattered single family residences zoned AG -1 that
require a minimum of one acre lots. It is Staff's opinion that although the proposed use and density is
suitable with adjacent properties to the south and southeast, it is not suitable for properties to the north,
northeast and east.
2. Whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or
nearby property?
It is Staff's opinion that the proposal may adversely affect existing use or usability of the adjacent
properties to the north as described above since the proposal is not one unit per acre or less.
3. Whether the property to be affected by the proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently
zoned?
The subject site may have a reasonable use currently zoned AG -1 (Agricultural).
4. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome
use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools?
Staff does not anticipate a significant impact on public services or utilities. The estimated number of
new students for the proposed rezoning will have an impact on the Cogburn Woods Elementary School
and Hopewell Middle School. There is an existing curb cut on Hopewell Road via Newtown Drive that
currently serves the Milton Place subdivision. The additional 11 lots will require the applicant to
construct a left turn lane on Hopewell Road into the Newtown Drive. It is Staff s opinion that the
proposal will not cause a burden on transportation facilities if approved with the Recommended
Conditions.
5. Whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan?
The 2030 City of Milton Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be Agricultural, Equestrian, and
Estate Residential. In terms of the proposed use/density: Single Family Residential at 1.22 units per
acre is inconsistent with the plan. The Plan Map recommends Agricultural, Equestrian, and Estate
Residential for the subject site and the properties to the north and west, but Medium Density Residential
to the southwest, south, and further north. The proposed R-3 (Single Family Residential) development is
inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map.
6. Whether there are other existing or changed conditions affecting the use and development of the
property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the proposal?
Although the proposed development is consistent with the adjacent development, Milton Place, it is
inconsistent with the Plan Map recommendation of Agricultural, Equestrian and Estate Residential
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 7 of 29
which requires minimum one acre lots. Based on these facts, it is grounds to recommend denial of
RZ13-14.
7. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered environmentally adverse
to the natural resources, environment and citizens of the City of Milton?
The proposed use will not be environmentally adverse to the natural resources, environment and citizens
of the City due to the required development regulations as it pertains to stormwater facilities and tree
recompense and landscape requirements.
In conclusion, the proposed 11 lot single family subdivision is inconsistent with the City of Milton's
2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for "Agricultural, Equestrian, and Estate Residential".
Therefore, Staff recommends denial of RZ 13-14 to rezone from AG- I (Agricultural) to R-3 (Single
Family Residential). A set of Recommended Conditions are included if the Mayor and City Council
choose to approve this petition.
The Recommended Conditions are:
1. To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a) Single family detached dwellings and accessory uses and structures.
b) No more than 11 total dwelling units at a maximum density of 1.22 units per acre,
whichever is less, based on the total acreage zoned. Approved lot/unit totals are not
guaranteed. The developer is responsible through site engineering (at the time of
application for a Land Disturbance Permit) to demonstrate that all lots/units within
the approved development meet or exceed all the development standards of the City
of Milton. The total lot/unit yield of the subject site shall be determined by this final
engineering.
2. To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a) To the revised site plan received by the Community Development Department on
June 17, 2013. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, all other applicable city ordinances and these
conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise
noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of
the first Certificate of Occupancy.
b) All areas which are not part of an individual lot and held in common shall be
maintained by a mandatory homeowners association, whose proposed documents of
incorporation shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for
review and approval prior to the recording of the first final plat.
3. To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
a) Minimum one acre lot developed for single family residences along Hopewell Road.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 8 of 29
(Note: Applicant has created a common area along Hopewell Road that will negate this
condition.)
b) Minimum heated floor area per unit — 2,500 square feet
4. To the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication, and
improvements:
a) Extend 5' concrete sidewalk that currently exists along the frontage of Milton Place
subdivision along the entire frontage of the proposed development and provide for
necessary drainage improvements.
b) Provide a southbound left turn lane on Hopewell Road at Newtown Drive in accordance
with Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the City of Milton Code of
Ordinances.
c) Maintain 50' right-of-way throughout the subdivision.
d) Provide 5 foot sidewalk with 2 foot beauty strip on at least one side of internal streets.
e) Dedicate, at no cost to the city, at least 10.5 feet of right-of-way from the back of curb of
all abutting road improvements, along the entire property frontage, as well as allow the
necessary construction easements while right-of-way is being improved.
f) Proposed right-of-way shall be located no closer than one foot behind the back of
sidewalk.
5. To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a) Prior to the application for a land Disturbance Permit, the developer/engineer shall
submit to the Department of Community Development a Stormwater Concept Plan. The
plan shall comply with the requirements of the Stormwater Division of Chapter 20
Environment of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances.
b) The stormwater management facilities shall utilize earthen embankments, where possible.
Walled structures are not encouraged. If walled structures are proposed, they must meet
the acceptable design standards of the City of Milton Department of Community
Development and the Department of Public Works.
c) Where side slopes for stormwater management facility are steeper than 4:1 the facility
shall have a six foot high, five -board equestrian style fence with two inch by four inch
welded wire constructed around it, or equivalent as may be approved by the City of
Milton Public Works Department.
d) Prior to issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit, an amended "Intergovernmental
Agreement for Extraterritorial provision of Sewer Service by Fulton County to Certain
Property Located within the City of Milton" indicating sewer service to this parcel
F1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 9 of 29
described as 13174 Hopewell Road (Parcel ID 22 495010370209) must be approved by
the Milton City Council and the Fulton County Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor, that is my presentation and I am open for any questions.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay. Before we move forward, does anyone have questions for Kathy at this point; before we open up
the hearing for presentation?
Bill Lusk, Councilmember:
Kathy, Milton Place, when was that approved? Was it approved after we were incorporated or prior to?
Kathy Field:
That is a Robyn question.
Robyn MacDonald, Principal Planner:
It was prior. It was zoned in Fulton County and started in Fulton County.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, anybody else? I will open up the hearing and first ask for those speaking in support of this
application.
Scott Reece, 846 Cowart Road, Dawsonville, GA 30534
Mr. Mayor and members of council, I am Scott Reece with Brumbelow-Reese & Associates, Inc. doing
business at 13685 Highway 9, Milton, GA 30004. I am here tonight representing Duke Land Group and
their application to rezone the property located at 13175 Hopewell Road from AG -1 to R-3. We are
proposing eleven lots on 9.04 acres. We have met with the Public Works and Engineering Departments
and I think we have addressed all of their concerns pending finalization which would occur at LDP. I
guess the only real major concerns that I see with going forward with the application, the COUP, the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, designates this property as AG -1, or Equestrian Residential. We
typically try not to go against the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We feel like this is a little bit of a
special case in that it is an island. You have properties or subdivisions on all sides that are less than one
acre in development or are virtually the same designation that we are asking for. You have Milton Place
to the south, City of Alpharetta with small lots to the east, Hopewell Close and Brookshade to the north
and northwest, and Vickery Crest to the west. They are all similar zonings to what we are proposing
here. We feel that the property due to its size and topography is not viable for agricultural use. Steep
topography and small acreage is not really viable for an agricultural use. So, we feel like that residential
is the best use for the property and the R-3 zoning allows for a development in keeping with the
developed neighborhoods in the immediate area. There is sewer through the property and adjacent to
the property. I understand the sewer map, we have gone through that many times, but we have
submitted to Fulton County, we have approval as far as routing and treatment capacity so I don't think
there is any problem there. The one acre, we are not fronting Hopewell Road, I know it is not in the
ordinance but it was a Fulton County process and city that any lot fronting Hopewell Road, as we
understood, in keeping with other lots that fronted with driveways, so we tried to design a buffer
between and also have a house that is neither fronting nor backing up to Hopewell Road, it would be a
side but it would be protected by the permanent landscape strip. Everything else, I think, is pretty well, I
mean, it would be, there would be a sidewalk on both sides of the interior street. We met with Carter as
far as designing detention; we are going to try everything we can to go with earthen embankments. We
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 10 of 29
are probably going to be trying to move the detention pond from the existing lot to the stream to the lot
due west of it but as in all those matters we are not going to finalize anything until we have firm
engineering on that process. So, I guess I am going to hold back any time for response to questions and
rebuttal. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have any other comments in support of this?
Sudie Gordon, City Clerk:
We do, Mr. John Duncan, and for the record, Mr. Duncan has completed and executed an affidavit to
represent Milton Place HOA.
John Duncan, 2357 Milton Place, Milton, GA 30004
Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council. I represent the Milton Place HOA and we are in support of
this community. Thank you.
City Clerk Gordon:
That is all we have for support.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, I'll open it up for any of those who would like to speak in opposition.
City Clerk Gordon:
We do not have any in opposition.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. And, basically open it back up to council for any
questions both for staff or the applicant.
Karen Thurman, Councilmember:
I have a question for the applicant. You made a comment that there was sewer adjacent to and running
through this parcel. Do we have any kind of map that actually shows that there was already sewer on
this parcel because I know that you understand that sewer is a hot topic in the community?
Scott Reece:
Well, we have the "as built" that we obtained from...
Robyn MacDonald:
Here is the staff report.
Scott Reece:
The sewer going through the property was placed, well, I don't want to age myself, but whenever
Brookshade and Hopewell Close, so late 80's, early 90's. And, the manhole adjacent to on the south,
that was placed with the construction of Milton Place and that is the tie in point that the Fulton County
Water and Sewer Department is requiring us to use which is much better for us from an environmental
standpoint. We would really not like to go in to that 30% slope area. But, it has been, sewer has been
on this property for at least 15 years.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 11 of 29
Mayor Lockwood:
Ken, can I ask you a question on sewer? As Karen said, that has been a hot topic and an important issue
to a lot of folks. The mandatory connection, or criteria, I know it is either the county or the state if there
is sewer available then you are supposed to get a hook up. Do you have any comments on that to clarify
that?
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney:
Two thoughts, Mr. Mayor, that is a good question. Legally, unless the IGA which Fulton County has to
have in place to be able to provide sewer which is basically a governmental function within the
corporate boundaries of Milton. If we have not authorized it pursuant to an IGA, it is not available. So,
even though there may be a manhole or line that crosses the property, unless we have given permission,
it is not technically available because we have not given permission. However, this may be a situation
where everything makes sense for that permission to be granted by way of a very slight modification of
the IGA. So, that shouldn't be a concern. But, from the standpoint of the, I think those are mainly DHR
regulations, I think that is not going to be an issue.
Councilmember Thurman:
But, the intent of the DHR regulations is to connect to sewer where available.
City Attorney Jarrard:
That is the public policy preference in the State of Georgia.
Councilmember Thurman:
So, the State of Georgia's preference would be to connect since it is available there on the property. It is
just a technicality in the fact that you have one jurisdiction providing the water and sewer and another
jurisdiction which is actually located in the city limits of another jurisdiction.
City Attorney Jarrard:
That's right. I think that makes perfect sense.
Lance Large, Councilmember:
Along the same lines, are we talking about a horse and a cart here? I mean, is this something that the
IGA ...
Mayor Lockwood:
The IGA would follow if this were approved. It would be brought back to us at another time.
City Attorney Jarrard:
The only thing you would want to make clear that the applicant understood, particularly looking at
staff's recommended conditions, is that we wouldn't necessarily be agreeing to the IGA by way of the
zoning. There would be two separate legislative acts, that's all. But, as far as the order, there is no
requirement of any particular order.
Councilmember Large:
Second question for the applicant; our eastern boundary lines; is that the city boundary?
Scott Reece:
It is the City of Alpharetta/City of Milton property line.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of 29
Councilmember Large:
So, everything to the east of this is the City of Alpharetta.
Mayor Lockwood:
Scott, obviously to fit into that agricultural zoning, would nine one -acre lots even be feasible on this
piece of property?
Scott Reece:
Well, from a developer's standpoint, always, more is better. In this particular case with the stream and
with the constraints of topography, it works much better with the ability to use 18,000 square foot lots in
the flatter areas and large lots in the other areas. That being said, of course, sewer versus septic always
rears its head, but, this property without sewer makes it very difficult because of the topography
concerns as far as trying to get it. The initial system is typically not the problem as trying to fit in a
reserve system and that is a state mandate that you have a backup system and with five bedroom houses
which are kind of the norm, this particular piece of property is under contract to a local builder. We sat
down with him and he is proposing roughly 4200 square foot five and six bedroom homes on this
property and trying to work that in. And, also with the setbacks, it just works better with the R-3 zoning
and also, it is a fact that if you are next to a neighborhood that is R-3, same size lots, it flows better. So,
I know I went around the bush but just trying to answer your question.
Mayor Lockwood:
Well, in a nutshell, my question is, it is one thing if we are talking say ten lots versus eleven, that's not a
big deal but I am kind of asking if it did not have this zoning of R-3, if it stayed AG -1 on one -acre
minimum lots with setbacks, streets, and all that, are we talking maybe five or six lots?
Scott Reece:
More like four or five lots.
Mayor Lockwood:
So, half the number of lots.
Scott Reece:
It will not work. It is not just a function of acres and lots.
Councilmember Lusk:
Scott, I am looking here at this matrix that Kathy presented here of the surrounding parcels. You
mentioned Brookshade had a similar zoning. I see here on this matrix where it is R -2A with .98 units
per acre.
Scott Reece:
It is kind of a franken subdivision, it and Vickery Crest, it has portions that the topography is such that
there is no sewer, so you've got the yield that ends up being considerably different. There are lots on the
Hopewell Road side that I think are 20,000 square feet in size, those are sewered, and as you go into the
rear then you have one -acre plus lots that were not sewer serviceable due to gravity flow. Fulton
County, in their infinite wisdom, said there will be no pump stations or lifting if it doesn't flow via
gravity, then it is a non-sewered lot. So, it is like Vickery Crest where you have a mix. In the Vickery
Crest case, we have 15,000 square foot lots and then one -acre and two -acre lots on the non-sewered
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 13 of 29
parcels. The Brookshade, I think there are 20,000 square feet and then one and two acre lots in the back.
I tried to say similar as opposed to exact but there are less than one acre lots in Brookshade.
Councilmember Lusk:
Wouldn't you see the same situation with this parcel that we are talking about that it could have different
sized lots? I believe you said that in the cul-de-sac they are.
Scott Reece:
Yes, in the LDP, we foresee that the lots around the cul-de-sac are now showing a common area lot. We
are 90% sure that we will be able to convert that to a house lot. It will probably be 1.2 acres in size just
due to the topography and substitute, and I don't have the lot number, but it would be the next western
lot on the north, put it as the stormwater management lot, and drop it down and do away with the wall.
But, until we have done a full hydrology, we always put the stormdrain facility at the low point until we
have a full hydrology assessment. But, those lots in the back will be, but we are also trying to preserve
as much common area, because we all know that once someone owns the lot, then they have the ability
to cut trees, do whatever. If we preserve that area to the east as common area around that stream, there
are mature hardwoods in there and we would just like to see it left the way it is. But, there will probably
be two one -acre lots and probably a'/4 acre lot around the cul-de-sac, so it would be a mix of 18,000 and
one -acre lots.
Councilmember Lusk:
You had also said that this parcel in question here is somewhat of an island among these other eight or
nine parcels in this matrix. I guess you could look at it conversely that these other parcels here are
islands amongst AG -1 area.
Scott Reece:
All of the developed parcels, when I say developed I mean a community, Hopewell Close, Brookshade,
Vickery Crest, Milton Place, the undeveloped, even though they are house lots, those parcels are the AG
one -acre plus and then of course the property across the road but that is just a large parcel that has not
come on the market yet.
Councilmember Lusk:
I believe when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was developed, obviously, this remained as AG -1
here and I am not sure, maybe our expert in the audience can talk about that, but I'm not sure the
adjoining Alpharetta properties had anything to do with how the land use plan was developed in Milton.
I think the overall concept was to keep as much AG -1 property along that corridor as we could in spite
of the fact that Fulton County had approved some of these other developments prior to our
incorporation.
Scott Reece:
And, we were sensitive to that and I wish he was here but at the Planning Commission meetings, the
representative purported himself to be the homeowner's association president for Hopewell Plantation
spoke in favor of this application. He was very, well, the entire neighborhood according to him, was
very pro to this particular development. I wish he was here tonight but I'm sure you guys have access to
the minutes of that meeting but he was purportedly the president of the homeowner's association and he
was in favor of the development.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 14 of 29
Councilmember Lusk:
Well, the expert that I was referring to was Mr. Ragsdale.
Scott Reece:
I'm sure there is always the thought process; I just feel like in this particular case where you have
developed neighborhoods on the periphery that are this particular zoning or very similar to this zoning,
that it is not like we are in an outer area where there is nothing like this. I don't feel like we are blazing
a new trail with it, per se, but that is my opinion.
Councilmember Thurman:
I know we try to keep one acre lots adjacent to Hopewell Road. And, I know the common area is not
technically a lot, but to me, it is still a lot; it is just a common area lot and not a residential lot.
Personally, I believe as such that it needs to be one acre in order to be consistent with what our board
policy has been in the past. I think that would be adding a .16 acres to that common area; give it a little
bit more buffer, is that correct, because it is .84 right now, is that correct?
Scott Reece:
Yes, and I absolutely understand the topography on the east is so steep that we tried to stay as much
away from that environmentally sensitive area. If you will look at some of the lots that are configured
up Hopewell Road, if you saw a voting district, some of those lots appear to be that; just trying to be
straightforward, not pull any crazy configuration of a lot to get to one acre or anything like that. We are
trying to do the most straightforward design; leave the buffer strip along Hopewell Road to preserve the
look and the feel of Hopewell Road; and as far as trying to leave the most environmentally sensitive area
on the east, this is where at LDP there may be a way to create or squeeze, we were just looking at what I
thought was the best compromise.
Councilmember Thurman:
I am just worried about the precedence it sets for us not having that be the one acre lot.
Scott Reece:
I understand and it is a technicality and technically we are not, it doesn't look, but everything is always
in the minutia of the details.
Matt Kunz, Councilmember:
On that point, you mentioned earlier that you might have that lot on the east, make that a house, and it
would be over the 1.2 acres; move the detention pond or stormwater drains further to the west; what if
you moved it all the way to the west, the last lot on the west, and then you started your first house on the
second lot on the left. I think that is what Karen was talking about as far as making it over, if you look
at the map over there, that far lot on the left could be your storm...
Scott Reece:
That is not possible due to the topography. The water must run downhill and we have to treat it at the
end not at the start.
Councilmember Kunz:
So, you can't go that far west. This is, we can conceivably move it one, and we are talking about a very
small amount of impervious area with one lot, but when we start talking about four or five lots and the
street itself, it is all running downhill. That is a non-starter. I understand, and I knew that when I was
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 15 of 29
creating the strip that I was skirting issues but some of us see the rules and we just want to push the
edge. At the Design Review Board meeting we were trying to come up with a way, and we knew if we
put that in the lot, then the owner has the ability to change that. He could cut the trees, conceivably,
once it is his, so we thought, well, let's pull it out as common area then it will be protected for infinity
and beyond.
Councilmember Large:
How wide is that strip?
Scott Reece:
It is 20 feet on an 80 foot right-of-way. Most of our streets are 50 and 60, Hopewell has an 80 existing.
It was an old farm to market road. Conceivably, at LDP, we do the hydrology, the detention pond,
hopefully, will shrink the area that we've got and we can enlarge that a little bit...
Councilmember Large:
Enlarge the strip?
Scott Reece:
Yes.
Councilmember Large:
Which will enlarge the parcel size?
Scott Reece:
Either way; we are hoping that there will be a little bit of extra land; you try on your front end when you
are designing to always have more area for the detention pond. The last thing you want to do is tell the
developer is that they are going to get a lot less lots because you squeezed the detention pond.
Councilmember Large:
That would be the only thing and then the only other thing is the kind of, talking with Kathy as well, as
far as the AG -1 property to the north. Right now, I don't see any condition for an undisturbed buffer or
anything as far as this development is concerned along that northern property line; as far as buffering the
more intense zoning from the less intense zoning.
Kathy Field:
If residential abuts residential, there is not a buffer requirement. It is only when you have residential
abutting commercial.
Councilmember Large:
I was just trying to understand if there was some concern about the impact even though it is residential
into residential; they have enough depth there, I see where the building envelopes are, they still have
enough rear yard they can still have an undisturbed buffer along that property line; this is a wooded
parcel, right?
Scott Reece:
Yes.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 16 of 29
Councilmember Large:
That would be to maintain as much of the existing trees that are along that 20 foot section along the
edge, to me, would go a long way to help and mitigate the impact on the adjacent properties. Now, the
other properties look like small strip properties. There would have to be some sort of assemblage or
something really for any type of development on those properties of any type other than just building on
the existing lots there. So, that would be my only constructional condition.
Scott Reece:
A 20 foot undisturbed buffer...
Councilmember Large:
Yes, I think something like that would be a good thing in terms of, since you do have, even though it is
residential against residential, you have a much less intense residential versus more intensive residential.
And, the staff s report was the impact that this had on some of the surrounding properties although the
properties to the east are our good friends, Alpharetta, but those are the properties to the east and it is
less intensive to the north and everything to the south and of course the west is the road so to have that
might be a good condition.
Scott Reece:
The only thing I would ask is that it be on the buildable lots because the detention pond lot whichever
one it becomes will have a standard city 20 foot planted strip, it will be already incorporated in that.
Councilmember Large:
I think having a backdrop with those mature trees too will really help with your home values as well.
Councilmember Thurman:
Have you spoken with the people adjacent, that one property owner?
Scott Reece:
Yes, we have sent letters, made phone calls, and we have met, they do not have a problem with this site
plan. When we showed them and told them that this is what we are proposing, there were no, and this is
a rarity for me because we are in the world's biggest "not in my backyard" area ever and this is a first
for me in twenty years. But, I have found no one in opposition.
Councilmember Lusk:
Could you please clarify what you were talking about?
Councilmember Large:
As far as the buffer? An undisturbed buffer along that northern property line.
Councilmember Thurman:
Right where the 13155 is.
Councilmember Large:
'They have a 35 foot rear building setback.
Scott Reece:
So, it would be 20 within that envelope. It would be within the setback but not the entire 35.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 17 of 29
Councilmember Large:
Right, that is what I am saying, 20 feet of that 35 feet. As you can see, outside of their setbacks, they are
showing their building envelopes, you still have a fairly good size yard and you still have 20 feet. And,
the 20 feet can still be understory and still part of the yard.
Scott Reece:
If sewer goes through, there will be no concern whatsoever. If it is septic, then you always have a
reserve system. There is one thing, in the sewer interagency agreement, I think it said 13174, we are
13175.
Robyn MacDonald:
Okay, we will change that.
Mayor Lockwood:
If there is no more discussion, then I will open it up for a motion.
Councilmember Kunz:
I make a motion that we approve the consideration of RZ13-14, Agenda Item No. 13-160 with the
recommended staff changes along with the recommended 20 foot undisturbed buffer by Councilmember
Large.
Councilmember Large:
Second.
Councilmember Kunz:
Did I say that right?
Councilmember Large:
Along the northern property line.
Councilmember Kunz:
Along the northern property line.
Mayor Lockwood:
Robyn, do you want to clarify?
Robyn MacDonald:
You need to say for buildable lots so he doesn't have to do it.
Councilmember Kunz and Councilmember Large (in unison):
For buildable lots.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we need to clarify that motion?
City Attorney Jarrard:
If you could restate it one more time and withdraw your second.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 18 of 29
Councilmember Large:
I withdraw my second.
Mayor Lockwood:
Matt, just restate your motion.
Councilmember Kunz:
I make a motion to approve the consideration of RZ13-14, Agenda Item No. 13-160 with the
recommended staff changes/conditions and the 20 foot undisturbed buffer along the buildable lots on the
north end.
Councilmember Large:
Second.
Mayor Lockwood:
So, we have a motion for approval by Councilmember Kunz with staff recommendations as well as the
addition of a 20 foot undisturbed buffer along the northern property line on the buildable lots only and a
second by Councilmember Large. Is there any discussion?
Councilmember Thurman:
I would just like to ask if the applicant would be willing to try to make that into a one acre lot adjacent
to Hopewell Road if they are able to.
Scott Reese:
Any extra property that is obtained in the LDP, we will more than gladly place in that lot.
Councilmember Kunz:
For discussion, I think it is a great transitional property with what you are trying to do, obviously, the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan is something we really need to go on most of the time, but in this
particular case, I think it makes sense to look at this more uniquely as such. The Planning Commission
passed it through; I think that is a good thing. So, I am just glad you guys are being inventive. I do
hope that you would look at Councilmember Thurman's request on that Hopewell Road but that is why I
made the motion.
Councilmember Lusk:
I would like to reinforce what Karen brought up too. I think that is important along Hopewell Road and
rather than going on the possibility that there is going to be any additional land as a result of doing your
stormwater management system, I think that is kind of vague. Somehow, I would like to see reworking
that entryway, even if it means eliminating that lot number one or adjusting houses down that south row.
I think you are packing a lot into that site particularly because of the 23 degree slopes on the east and the
west. You are going to have problems with those. It is pretty steep.
Mayor Lockwood:
At this point right now, we have a motion and a second on the table. Obviously, we could ask staff to,
when this does come into LDP, for the record to work with the applicant to try to make sure that
happens. Again, without any, right now, the motion and second is stated so that could certainly be a
concern that can be addressed or if this motion fails to pass you could discuss it more and come up with
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 19 of 29
another motion. Am I correct, Ken? Talking during class. We have a motion and second on the table,
waiting on a vote and Councilmember Lusk has pointed to taking that lot and increase it to a one -acre
minimum on the front of the buffer area. Again, as the applicant said, once they do all their final
engineering and all that, there is a possibility they will have more land and they can do that. My point
is, I guess, we have the option of telling our staff that we would like them to work together to try to
make that happen, but in order to have that as a requirement of this motion, it would have to be. So, I
said, basically we need to vote on this motion and if this motion fails then it could all be brought up as
another motion adding that in there. Is that correct?
City Attorney Jarrard:
That's right, that's right. Or, if you have a motion and second you could have a motion to amend.
Mayor Lockwood:
I know until you get all the engineering done it is hard to say but it is also a condition you can put on it
and they have to work with it.
Councilmember Lusk:
So, you said one of the conditions...
Councilmember Thurman:
So, are you making a motion to amend it to add that condition?
Mayor Lockwood:
We would have to make a motion to rescind the last motion and second and then do another one.
City Attorney Jarrard:
You can make a motion to amend the pending motion on the floor. Then you would need to take a
separate action to that amendment. If it passes or fails, then it will revert back to the main motion.
Councilmember Lusk:
Now, to phrase that amendment.
Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager:
Maybe I can make it a little bit quicker. Who made the original motion? So, are you likely to accept an
amendment that would be similar to what Bill might propose?
Councilmember Kunz:
Yes.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
The quickest way to do it would be to remove your motion and start over.
Councilmember Kunz:
My only concern about that is it structurally possible. Are we making a motion to force something that
can't be done?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 20 of 29
City Manager Lagerbloom:
I've got to tell you that "work with" is a hard thing to do. Because we can work with it all day long and
we can work with it until it doesn't work anymore. And, then we really don't have the teeth of anything
to do much more than "work with."
Councilmember Kunz:
I think we need to verify that if we are going to do that. I will rescind it but that is what we need to find
out.
Mayor Lockwood:
That is my only concern is that it may make this whole application kind of null and void from what we
are voting on. It may have to be totally redone.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
That is totally up to you. If you want to withdraw your motion and withdraw the second and start over
with different stuff, that is fine. If you want to take a vote on the motion that exists now that is good as
well.
Councilmember Kunz:
And then we can make a motion to amend after what we pass?
Councilmember Thurman:
We can make a motion to amend beforehand.
Mayor Lockwood:
We can vote on it, and if it passes, it is fine. If it doesn't, we can do that or you can withdraw it and we
can amend it. Again, that is my concern by putting those conditions; it may be a totally different site
plan that comes up. It may not be what...
Councilmember Thurman:
If you've got 18,000 square foot lots and you are only at 1.22 density; you ought to have a little bit of
leeway in there.
Mayor Lockwood:
You'd have to ask the engineer on that.
Councilmember Kunz:
I'm not an engineer so, but I'll tell you what, I will rescind the motion and then...
City Attorney Jarrard:
The maker of the second would need to agree.
Councilmember Large:
Okay.
Mayor Lockwood:
You don't have to.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 21 of 29
Councilmember Large:
I know I don't have to.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Okay, so now, as we stand, we have no motion on the floor and we are prepared to take a new one.
Mayor Lockwood:
Again, I would like to ask the applicant then if adding this condition on there makes this possible
because this site plan may come back totally different.
Scott Reece:
I see loss of a lot. We tried. If the area up in the front due to the cross drain under Hopewell Road has
to be some sort of stormwater facility. The Milton ordinance is that a stormwater facility is not part of a
lot; it has to be a separate lot. So, we create that, we separated off the parcel where we are not fronting
on Hopewell Road, even though it is not an ordinance, or the ordinance does not say that any lot fronting
Hopewell well has to be an acre, that was Fulton County practice and it was inherited by the City of
Milton. We tried to work in that so we created the buffer area along Hopewell Road to preserve the
landscaping and the look and that was our intent. I know it is financially is not, I understand, if it
doesn't work for a developer, he's got to go on down the road; that is not the city's interest. But, it is
real world and nine lots works a lot better than eight lots.
Councilmember Large:
This one acre along Hopewell Road, is that considered a buildable lot. Because what they are creating
there is less than an acre. It is not an actual lot that is going to have a house on it. So, if you have an
acre with a 5,000 square foot home on it, you would have less open space than you would if, because
you are only shy .11 of an acre?
Councilmember Thurman:
.16 of an acre.
Scott Reece:
But the common area is not part of the lot so...
Councilmember Large:
So, really, if you look at the common area as though it is not part of the lot in that first lot it is way more
than an acre with a house sitting on it. So, visually, it appears to be more than an acre that will front
Hopewell Road, anyway. My point on the requirement or old Fulton County is I would think that would
be any buildable lot or house lot fronting Hopewell Road would have to be an acre or more. Well, here
we are dealing with a lot that is less than, but it is not a lot it is common area.
Scott Reece:
It is a parcel of land...
Councilmember Large:
And, anybody looking at it will look at it, not knowing any better; well that is part of that first house's
lot.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 22 of 29
Councilmember Thurman:
Clearly, if you look at it, it looks like that parcel was carved out to avoid the one acre minimum on that
one lot. Because, if you didn't carve that out, the lot would not be an acre so you would not be in
compliance with our current policy. If you look at it, it just looks suspicious.
Scott Reece:
And, I fully understand that but it was at the behalf of the Design Review Board that we create that.
Councilmember Thurman:
It just seems like to me for .16 of an acre, you could find a way to make it work without losing a whole
lot. It is not moving it that much and it would keep us from having a precedent set that we may not
want.
Councilmember Lusk:
Why can't you shift everything east?
Scott Reece:
The slopes we are talking about; I guess I am somewhat confused. You are saying that you want the one
acre total in the common area plus the lot.
Councilmember Thurman:
No, if you had one acre in the common area, because that is what would be adjacent to Hopewell Road,
then I think it would be okay. So, it would just be adding a.16 to that common area.
Scott Reece:
If you will look at Hopewell Close, there is a parcel of land that fronts Hopewell Road on the number
two. It is a stormwater management area that is considerably less than one acre on the schematics. So,
the precedent is for lots, buildable lots, to be one acre. That was always the Fulton County and it was an
unwritten rule and when we were doing lots, or subdivisions, and it was typically, if we were going to
front houses on Hopewell Road with driveways, they wanted one acre lots on that, even if we were
doing something, or if we were backing a house up. They did not want the back of a house or the front
of a house on a small lot being very close to the road because the typical sumped up houses that had
existed on Hopewell Road were typically 100 feet back or so from the road and that works with a
subdivision lot. But, the stormwater management facilities, if you will look on that schematic number
two, have always been less than an acre whether they front or not.
Mayor Lockwood:
Well, he's the builder, I'll kind of leave it up to you, kind of pushing this and we can go back and
approve it as it the way we had the first motion or if you want to make a motion different, you are
certainly welcome to. And, again, we can if one passes or one doesn't we can ask for another one.
Councilmember Kunz:
Just so I get clarification on this as well. Obviously, what we are talking about is if a house has one
acre, we want that one acre with a house to front Hopewell Road, that is what we are saying and that is
what we are trying to do. The reality is that we have a piece of property in front that has no house on
it...
i
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of 29
Councilmember Thurman:
The reason why it has no house on it because you have actually carved out that little thing so you make
sure you don't have a house on Hopewell Road.
Councilmember Kunz:
But, even then, if you put that and the other house on top of that, then how much do we have on an
acreage basis?
Councilmember Thurman:
It is not anywhere close to an acre. If you cut that off at that corner and had that little 20 strip parcel be
part of the other lot, that lot would not be a one -acre lot. That is why it is done that way.
Councilmember Kunz:
I don't know.
Mayor Lockwood:
Anybody want to make a motion?
Councilmember Lusk:
I would kind of like to see them reduce the; come off the 9 parcels and make the adjustments up front
there; it would be more compatible than what we have been trying to approve down through this
corridor. The fact that there are existing idiosyncrasies in these other developments really didn't happen
under our watch; they happened before we were incorporated. So, I think it is important that we try to at
least comply with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to the fullest extent that we can. If it means losing
a lot up front like that to be compatible with what we are trying to achieve down through here, I think
that is what I would like to see happen.
Mayor Lockwood:
Maybe with some help from staff too, though. What are we trying to comply with? Obviously, we are
not complying with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The one acre, and Karen, I know you have been
with Robyn, do you know what the one acre; is it set in stone, is it like what Mr. Reece said, just a
practice?
Robyn MacDonald:
It has been historically a board policy by Fulton County, but we need to also remember that it is not on
this grid, but when the piece of a bond came through for Beazer Homes, you all approved a one acre lot
along Hopewell, so that was the most recent policy of you all. Just FYI.
Mayor Lockwood:
Was that a one acre building lot or one acre...
Robyn MacDonald:
I would have to look. I think it was a one acre lot along; they ended up building like a park lot so there
were no houses, it's like a mini -park that abuts Hopewell Road so there are no houses adjacent to
Hopewell and it is not 20 foot; it is probably 40, 50, 60 feet wide if not more.
Councilmember Lusk:
A common area?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 29
Robyn MacDonald:
A common area for the front.
Councilmember Large:
As far as trying to get this thing off center, the motion, without me making a motion, I could but, just to
make the motion basically the same as what we had on the table prior but you could put the condition
that the common area up front be a one acre minimum, then let the engineer's see if they could squeeze
out that extra .16 and still get your eleven lots, God bless you, and if you can't, you can't but that way be
satisfied, but don't say, I want ten lots or eight lots, or whatever, just say, we are okay with that layout
with the exception that we want that front common area to be an acre.
Councilmember Lusk:
They've got to come up with the area somehow.
Councilmember Large:
Right, and again, you are dealing with some cul-de-sac lots, you are dealing with a stormwater parcel
back there that possibly may have some flexibility in it so to find that .16 of an acre, I have been tasked
with those types of things before myself, in Virginia, of course.
Mayor Lockwood:
You are the one that rescinded your second, if you hadn't rescinded, we could have just moved on. I am
going to open it back up for a motion again.
Councilmember Kunz:
Okay, I'll do this again. I started it so I'll finish it. I make a motion that we approve the consideration
of RZ13-14 Agenda Item No. 13-160 with the recommended staff changes and a 20 foot undisturbed
buffer along the north end for the buildable lots as well as a one acre minimum on the far west common
area adjacent to Hopewell Road.
Councilmember Thurman:
I'll second that.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Before you go any further, because of that .84 acres that exists, only .297 of it at this point is listed as
common area, the other part of it is listed as a residential lot of .42 so, if you are going to put that lot
together, it is not common area that you are putting together...
Mayor Lockwood:
I think you have got to label it as the lot plus the common area...
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Correct, because it is not going to be common area as in; it is going to have a house on it so, there is no
common area there, right now if you add the common area plus the parcel that has lot #11, you end up
with .839 acres, which I think we have talked about, so the .16 that you have to come up with, you are
adding it to a residential lot.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 25 of 29
Councilmember Kunz:
So, I would say it is the common area plus...
City Manager Lagerbloom:
I would say that you would site it as lot #11 plus the common area, that land area, equals at least one
acre.
Councilmember Kunz:
Lot #11 plus the common area along Hopewell Road equals at least one acre.
Councilmember Thurman:
I'll second that.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, do we need to clarify that, staff, is that fairly clear?
City Attorney Jarrard:
Let's make sure everybody understands. The second is with...
Mayor Lockwood:
I can restate it if we need to.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
I think we got it.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, so we have a motion by Councilmember Kunz for approval with those conditions and
Councilmember Thurman second, any discussion?
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 13-160 with the
following recommended staff changes:
• Provide a 20 foot undisturbed buffer along the buildable lots on the north end.
• The parcel that is lot #11 plus the common area must equal at least one acre located adjacent to
Hopewell Road.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Councilmembers Hewitt and Longoria were absent from the meeting.
End of verbatim transcription
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 26 of 29
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
An Ordinance To Amend Chapter 54, Telecommunications Sections 54-3, 54-5(A), 54-6(f), 54-
7(a)(1), and 54-7(a)(2) to Include the Definition of "Modification(s)", to Revise Maximum
Telecommunication Tower Heights, and to Provide for an Expedited Variance Process.
(Agenda Item No. 13-162)
ORDINANCE NO. 13-07-180
(First Presentation at July 1, 2013 Regular Council Meeting)
(Discussed at Work Session on July 8, 2013)
(Ken Jarrard, City Attorney)
Ellen Smith, 100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1800, Atlanta, GA 30339
I am representing AT&T and a number of other wireless carriers and tower owners in my role as the
Georgia Wireless Association Regulatory Co -Chair.
I just wanted to thank you on behalf of the industry for your consideration of this ordinance.
This has been a very lengthy process consisting of several months of work
However, with practical considerations in a real business situation, this ordinance will achieve your goal
of ensuring that Milton will not have an abundance of cell towers, but at the same time be able to serve
the wireless customers in the area.
There are several representatives with me tonight, so if you have any technical questions we will be
happy to answer them.
Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager:
This ordinance modification has been presented to you multiple times.
It seeks to modify our telecommunications ordinance by making a couple of changes.
The modifications would consist of considering two co -location options that did not previously exist
which we would incentivize.
The positive thing about this change is that in allowing one of these co -locations to exist, we would be
eliminating the need for an additional cell tower in the City of Milton.
One change would allow for a tower extension up to an additional 30%.
Our height limit today is 150 feet, so additional height would put our cell towers at a maximum of 195
feet which is still lower than the height requirement by the FAA for a cell tower to be lit.
This ordinance would also incentivize the replacement of an existing cell tower.
We would be able to work with an applicant to replace an existing cell tower with a more updated tower
that has new and better technology.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item No. 13-162.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmembers
Hewitt and Longoria were absent from the meeting.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 27 of 29
2. Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 10, Buildings and Building Regulations, to
Provide for Enforcement of Certain Applicable Codes Relative to the Safe Use of Real Property
in Accordance with Georgia Law; to Repeal any Conflicting Provisions; and for Other Purposes.
(Agenda Item No. 13-161)
ORDINANCE NO. 13-07-181
(First Presentation at July 1, 2013 Regular Council Meeting)
(Discussed at Work Session on July 8, 2013)
(Ken Jarrard, City Attorney)
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney:
This is a proposed modification to the City of Milton Building Code Chapter 10 which pertains to
buildings and building regulations.
This modification is being conducted to ensure that the city code more closely resembles O.C.G.A. 36-
61-11 which authorizes municipalities to identify structures and buildings that are not compliant with
code or may be unfit for human habitation.
It designates the Chief Building Inspector as the primary contact with the community for purposes of
inspections and implication of such structures.
In the event an inhabitable structure is identified, it sets forth a process by which the individual property
owner is placed on notice of the problem setting in motion a series of events that can lead to the
initiation of litigation by the City of Milton court.
We want to ensure that we are complying with state law to the fullest extent possible.
Councilmember Lusk:
Would this ordinance cover any current citations that have been issued?
City Attorney Jarrard:
Yes, it would cover any processes of this nature that have already begun.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item No. 13-161. Councilmember
Large seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmembers Hewitt and
Longoria were absent from the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Baldwin Paving
Company, Inc. for the FYI Road Reconstruction and Resurfacing Projects.
(Agenda Item No. 13-171)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 28 of 29
Carter Lucas, Public Works Director:
We are asking your consideration for our annual paving contract.
This contract includes the reconstruction of three roads, resurfacing of five arterial collector roads, non -
subdivision roads, and thirteen subdivision roads.
In accordance with our normal bidding practices, we bid this project and received six bids.
The low bid was Baldwin Paving in the amount of $2,794,323.98 which was a little bit over budget.
We have modified the bid by changing our plans for Dinsmore Road.
We were going to reconstruct the entire Dinsmore Road this year, but now we will repave the road from
Freemanville down to North Valley this year.
We will continue paving the road during our next paving cycle next year so we can stay on our annual
resurfacing budget of $2.5 million for this year.
So, tonight we are asking for your approval of our annual paving contract of $2.5 million with Baldwin
Paving Company.
Councilmember Thurman:
Are we seeing the cost of paving going up to the point that we may need to use some our reserve funds
in order to get more paving done?
Carter Lucas:
We saw some slight increases. We got a little bit aggressive in the number and amount of paving that
we wanted to do this year. Some costs fluctuate considerably particularly the cost of asphalt.
Councilmember Lusk:
How far along are we with the reconstruction process?
Carter Lucas:
I would say that by next year we won't be reconstructing anything. We will be in a paving and
preservation mode.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item No. 13-171. Councilmember
Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmembers Hewitt and
Longoria were absent from the meeting.
2. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Baldwin Paving
Company, Inc. for the Construction of a Roundabout at the Hopewell Road/Cogburn Road at
Francis Road/Hopewell Road Intersection.
(Agenda Item No. 13-172)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
Carter Lucas, Public Works Director:
This is our first roundabout construction project.
Tonight, we are asking your consideration for approval of a contract with Baldwin Paving Company.
This contract is in the amount of $786,606.00 for the construction of the roundabout at the
Hopewell/Francis/Cogburn intersection.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 29 of 29
This amount is below our budget.
This roundabout went through a very long public process that we have been working on for quite a
while.
Weather permitting; we will be ready to begin construction on this project at the beginning of August.
Mayor Lockwood:
What is the time frame of this project assuming the weather cooperates?
Carter Lucas:
It will be a 9-12 month construction project.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 13-172.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Councilmembers Hewitt and Longoria were absent from the meeting.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Large moved to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation
and land acquisition at 7:53 p.m. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously (5-0). Councilmembers Hewitt and Longoria were absent from the meeting.
RECONVENE
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Large moved to reconvene the Regular Meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Councilmembers Hewitt and Longoria were absent from the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 13-173)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Large moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at
8:17 p.m. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Councilmembers Hewitt and Longoria were absent from the meeting.
After no further discussion the Regular Council Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Date Approved: August 5, 2013.
Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk
Joe Lockwood, Mayor
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF FULTON
CITY OF MILTON
AFFIDAVIT RE: CLOSURE OF
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 a Regularly Scheduled City Council Meeting held on July 15, 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]
1. X 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)(1)(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
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.C.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.
,`��11111
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBr�6'�
this 15th day of July, 2013. ) ��•�cp8%90 �•.
:D 40 )T Z
fn y�
Notary PublicU&7
My Commission Expires: 1101111,110%
MAYOR J L CKWOOD