HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 03/19/2018Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 1 of 60
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 March
19, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Sarah LaDart
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Jamison, Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember
Bentley, Councilmember Hewitt, Councilmember Longoria, and Councilmember Mohrig.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by Mayor Joe Lockwood)
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Add or remove items from the agenda)
(Agenda Item No. 18-091)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the
following changes:
• Add an Executive Session to discuss Land Acquisition.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 2 of 60
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following individual submitted a public comment card:
Scott Reece, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, GA 30004
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of the March 5, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 18-092)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and D A F
Concrete, Inc. for Traffic Calming Measures.
(Agenda Item No. 18-093)
(Sara Leaders, Transportation Engineer)
3. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Kittleson
& Associates, Inc. for Hopewell at Bethany Roundabout Peer Review.
(Agenda Item No. 18-094)
(Sara Leaders, Transportation Engineer)
4. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and InterDev,
LLC. For a GIS Assessment.
(Agenda Item No. 18-095)
(David Frizzell, IT Manager)
5. Approval of a Parks and Recreation Department Facility Use Agreement between the
City of Milton and Halftime Sports LLC.
(Agenda Item No. 18-096)
(Jim Cregge, Parks and Recreation Director)
6. Approval of a Contract Extension for a Professional Services Agreement to Provide
Medical Direction to Milton Fire -Rescue.
(Agenda Item No. 18-097)
(Bob Edgar, Fire Chiefi
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items.
Councilmember Bentley seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Update on Large Lot Incentives.
(Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 3 of 60
FIRST PRESENTATION (None)
PUBLIC HEARING (None)
ZONING AGENDA
1. Consideration of RZ18-01 - 2915 Webb Road - To rezone from T-4 Open to T-5 to
develop a 105,170 square foot self -storage facility on 3.339 acres by Piedmont Atlantic
Capital, LLC.
ORDINANCE NO. 18-03-341
(Agenda Item No. 18-080)
(First Presentation at March 5, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Mayor Joe Lockwood
Before Kathy speaks on this, and I have spoken with the City Attorney, my company, this applicant
has actually proposed on a project in the past years. I have never done any business with the
applicant but he has made proposals on bids. So, out of an abundance of caution, I am going to
recuse myself and ask Councilmember Longoria to act as Mayor Pro Tem.
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Good evening Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the City Council. As the City Clerk said, this
is RZ 18-01 located on Webb Road. The summary of this zoning request is as follows: To request
an infill rezoning from the T-4 Open Zoning District to T-5 within the Deerfield Form Based Code
in order to develop a 103,509 square foot self -storage facility on 3.286 acres. And, outlined in red
here on Webb Road is the proposed project site. This is directly to the west of the Assisted Living
Facility which is on the corner of Route 9 and Webb Road. And, in terms of the zoning, it is zoned
T-4 Open currently, the entire site. This is a site plan submitted on December 27, 2017 and slightly
modified on February 12, 2018 in that they were more accurate in terms of the elevation drawings
of the building as well as the stream based on the revised survey; it was moved a little further to
the west. So, the revisions are shown on the plan. The subject site contains 3.286 acres developed
with an office converted from a single family residence. There is also a stream that runs north to
south along the western portion of the site. It is located on the south side of Webb Road, west of
Brickmont Assisted Living Facility. The site is located within the T-4 Open designation of the City
of Milton 2035 Comprehensive Plan Map adopted on October 17, 2016. Based on the applicant's
revised site plan submitted to the Community Development Department on February 12, 2018, the
site plan meets the development standards for the T5 Transect Zone except for the density which
is discussed below. The applicant is requesting to rezone from T-4 Open to T-5. Below is a chart
comparing the by -right and additional Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) that are allowed
for each transect zone. And, you can see in the chart what is allowed in T-4 Open including what
is allowed by right which is the 5 units as well as the additional TDRs which is 4 units. So, T-4
Open would allow a total of 66,541 square feet of space in a three-story building. The applicant
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 4 of 60
is asking to move into the T-5 Zone and you can see what the difference is. By right, 9 units are
allowed and an additional 5 units of TDRs for a maximum square footage of 103,509 square feet
within a 4 -story building. And, that essentially, is what the applicant would propose to build. The
applicant has been working closely with the City Architect to design the building to be in keeping
with the Deerfield Form Based Code as well as with surrounding developments. And, the proposed
building is shown as follows. You can see that working with the City Architect they have broken
down the elevations of the building so that it looks almost like a townhouse development. It has
some verticality to it if I can speak for our Architect. The Environmental Site Analysis (ESA)
report is sufficient and satisfies the requirement of Sec. 64-2126. Based on the tree survey
provided by the applicant, the tree density is met from the undeveloped portion of site, however,
recompense is required. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plan and it meets the fire requirements.
In terms of transportation, the thresholds for turn lanes are 300 daily left turns in and 200 daily
right turns and you can see that the estimated left turns and right turns are far below what the
requirements are. On January 23, 2018 the applicant's representative was present at the
Community Zoning Information Meeting (CZIM) held at the Milton City Hall. There were
approximately four people in attendance at the meeting. They were concerned about the density of
the development and impact on nearby residential subdivisions. The applicant explained the
proposed use as well as provided some sketches of the proposed architecture that had been
reviewed by the City. The attendees seemed to be satisfied by the information and were not
opposed to the development. The applicant conducted their Public Participation Meeting on
February 13, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. at the Bethwell Community Center located at 2695 Hopewell Road.
The applicant and his attorney was present. There was one person in attendance that lives in a
nearby residential development. Issues that were discussed were the following: traffic, light
pollution, architecture and land use. The applicant explained that there would be on average no
more than 4 tenants at a time on the property; lighting would be in compliance with city code; the
design of the building was worked on in conjunction with the City Architect and that the proposed
use was already permitted for this property. The Design Review Board held a courtesy review on
February 6, 2018 and they indicated that the building design was fine, to be mindful of signage,
and the height is in character with the adjacent buildings. The Planning Commission reviewed
this application on February 28, 2018 and they approved the application. They also recommended
that a four -board equestrian style fence along Webb Road or as approved by the City Architect be
considered. Staff has analyzed the standards of review for a rezoning and details of which are
included within the staff report and this application does meet all the standards of review.
Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that RZ18-01 be approved conditional from T-4 Open to
T-5 based on the fact that there is a T-5 directly to the south and east and the stream buffer provides
transition to the T-4 Open to the west. In addition, the proposed architecture is consistent with the
size and scale of nearby and adjacent developments. If this petition is approved by the Mayor and
City Council, the rezoning of property located on Webb Road, it should be approved for
T-5 (Transect Zone) CONDITIONAL subject to the owner's agreement to the following
enumerated conditions. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulations and offerings
contained in the Letter of Intent, these conditions shall supersede unless specifically stipulated by
the Mayor and City Council.
1) To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pra
Page 5 of 60
a) Self -Storage Facility.
b) No more than 103,508 square feet at a maximum density of 14 units per acre,
whichever is less, based on the total acreage zoned. Approved 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 the use within the
approved development meet or exceed all the development standards of the City of
Milton. The total square foot 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
February 12, 2018*. 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.
3) To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
a) Architecture shall be consistent or similar in design with the elevation with
"Elevation A" below and approved by the City of Milton Design Review Board.
4) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication, and
improvements:
a) All necessary right-of-way and easements for the proposed future construction of
the Milton Trail along entire property frontage of Webb Road or construct the 10'
wide concrete trail as part of development with right of way no less than 1 foot
behind back of trail.
b) All necessary right of way and easernents for the future construction of turn lanes,
even if turn lanes are not warranted.
C) Provide median in place of gore areas created by left turn lane on Webb Road as
required and approved by Milton Public Works Department.
d) Building or structures shall be no closer than 50' from the centerline of Webb Rd.
5) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a) A stormwater management concept plan shall be submitted and approved by Milton
Public Works Department prior to submission of land disturbance application,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pra
Page 6 of 60
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
Do you have any questions?
Couneilmember Hewitt
I noticed in your presentation and then the item as it is on our agenda has a little bit of discrepancy
which is the 105,170 square feet versus 103,509 and the site area 3.339 versus 3.286.
Kathy Field.
Robyn will address that.
Robyn MacDonald, Zoning Manager
In the actual staff report, there is an asterisk that based on the revised legal description and the
letter of intent received on February 12, 2018. So, based on an updated survey that included a
change in the right -of --way the acreage went down a slight bit. It is fine to be advertised at a higher'
amount originally and then go down in density.
Councilmember Dewitt
So, if we were to go forward with this, we would need to make the changes in the motion?
Robyn MacDonald
You would just do whatever the recommendations are reflecting the new numbers.
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
Any other questions? We need to first hear from those speaking in support of RZ18-01.
Sdie Gordon, City Clerk
We have one individual speaking in support and that would be Stephen Kish. (Stephen Kish says
something to the City Clerk which is not able to be heard) And, in opposition ........ we have more
cards coming in. Mr. Ethan Underwood.
Mayor Pro 'rem Longoria
Okay, real quick, I want to make sure this is in opposition, correct?
City Clerk Gordon
No, this is in support.
Robyn MacDonald
This is the applicant.
City Clerk Gordon
So, in opposition, I do have an email that came in and I will read the name and address.
Mayor Pro Tern Longoria
Okay, sorry, go ahead.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 7 of 60
Ethan Underwood, Miles, Hansford & Tallant, LLC, 202 Tribble Gap Road, Suite 200,
Cumming, Georgia 30040
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the city council; I apologize, Ethan Underwood, we turned
in our form thinking at the time we file it when the applicant gets to speak so I am here representing
the applicant. Again, my name is Ethan Underwood, I am an attorney with the firm Miles,
Hansford & Tallant. Our address is 202 Tribble Gap Road, Suite 200 in Cumming, Georgia. As
stated, we are asking to modify this current zoning from T-4 Open to T-5. And, this is really a
question of scope. This is a piece of property that was zoned some years back. This was actually
the zoning that was approved by the city freshly after incorporation in 2007, actually, I think it
was the beginning of 2008. And, it contemplated a roughly 110,000 square foot storage facility
on the site. Now, since then, the Deerfield Form Based Code was passed and we would submit to
you that is probably, that prior zoning, was why the storage use was found to be appropriate on
this particular location. But, it was zoned with a T-4 Open zoning category. As stated, we are
here asking to be able to build a larger internal square footage. What this would translate to is
approximately 103,500 square feet but only about 70% of that is actually going to be leasable.
You lose about 30% to elevators, stairwells, office areas, etc. So, that is the gross square footage.
You will have about 70,000 square feet of net square footage which will be leasable. As you can
see, this is in a dense area of the Deerfield Overlay District. So, these are the folks who would be
needing storage facilities. It is in a higher density area and we think there is a feasible market for
this as well as folks in the surrounding areas. As stated, we have the site plan laid out here. One
of the questions that Councilmember Hewitt asked is, why has the square footage changed. And,
simply, during the process, staff pointed out that they actually think that Webb Road is a little
wider than what the title states. The title reflects a deed from several years ago. So, staff asked
us to look again at the width of the road and we did that and in doing so we found out that Webb
Road was larger. So the acreage went down slightly because of that we originally asked for
105,000 square feet, that brings the maximum down to 103,500 square feet. So, again, as we
stated, this property is already zoned for storage so why the change and why is the change in scope
appropriate? We would submit to you that the Deerfield Overlay doesn't distinguish and the
transect zones don't distinguish between uses when determining allowable square footage. So,
103,000 square foot retail center would generate lots more traffic and require lots more impervious
surface than astorage facility at 103,000. Candidly, we don't even need all of the parking spaces
that we are asking for, we just didn't want to ask for any variances. So, the code says you need X
number of parking spaces; we really think we need about eight parking spaces. But, in an effort
to avoid variances, we simply took the path of east resistance. Looking at this, again, we worked
very hard. We met with neighbors at community meetings and the initial architectural design was
rejected so that is not what we are looking for in Milton. So, Craig Harper who is with me here
today to answer any questions you may have. We worked very hard with your architect and came
up with this design. Now, we do want to clarify that the T-4 Open currently actually allows a four-
story building. I think the presentation said three, but the code allows four. We would submit to
you that the building that we are proposing could be built. If you were to look at the 69,000 square
feet and the 103,000 square feet from the exterior, you could not tell the difference from the
building. But, we are able to put in more square footage internally and that creates several benefits.
One, it creates more square footage that can be eased; that is a greater value, more tax revenue to
the city and county. But, two, it has a market effect, also, when you put more square footage in
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pn►
Page 8 of 60
this location. We all agree this is the right location for this use. It pushes competitors out further
so you are not going to over -saturate the market with more folks coming in and asking for storage
facilities. What we are proposing again, it is technically four stories, but as you can see from this
design, one story is going to be underground. This is actually a view that would be internal to the
property looking out toward Webb Road to your left. So, when you are coming down Webb, you
are really only going to see three layers of glass. As you enter into the facility, it will be four. The
fourth story actually looks like it is built into the roof-, it has the dormers coming off of the roof
area. Four stories sounds bad but we worked very diligently with your architect to reduce the
scope to make sure that it is something that staff could support. With that, we appreciate your
consideration. We are agreeable to the conditions that were recommended by the Planning
Commission. We will reserve the remainder of our time for any questions, continents, or rebuttal.
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
Sudie; is that everyone who would be in favor:?
City Clerk Gordon
I do have one from Mr. Craig Harper in support.
Craig Harper, 2135 Fairfax Drive, Alpharetta, GA 30009
My name is Craig Harper. I am the developer. Piedmont Atlantic Capital. 2135 Fairfax Drive in
Alpharetta. I will answer any questions.
Councilmember Bentley
Mr. Harper, where do you anticipate your customers for this storage facility coming from?
Craig Harper
Generally, in storage about 85% of your customer base will come from a three-mile radius of the
facility.
Councilmember Bentley
And, the demand for this facility, do you feel, that this will fulfill the demand in this area; this size
facility?
Craig Harper
The tiling about the size is that the smaller side of the site is not a viable project that is why we are
asking for this. And, we have done a lot of extensive feasibility work in the area. I am working
with a national storage operator which will be operating this facility and they have done their due
diligence on it too. And, yes, we think that there is sufficient demand in the area to justify this.
Councilmember Bentley
Is there any outdoor storage?
Craig Harper
No outdoor storage whatsoever. As a matter of fact, everything is internal including the loading.
You might notice on your site plan that there is an internal loading bay that will accommodate four
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 9 of 60
trucks to be able to back into the facility and unload so that the clients will have protection from
the weather and also to alleviate seeing any loading or unloading.
Councilmember Bentley
So, you won't be able to see that from the outside? What about the sound because the assisted
living is very close to there.
Craig Harper
That helps with the sound also. Everything is internal including the loading and unloading which
will be in the back of the facility. There is a large area that is designated for trucks to be able to
back in and unload and four spaces are provided.
Councilmember Bentley
Are there times associated with loading and unloading?
Craig Harper
The hours of operation are Monday through Friday 9:30 am to 6:00 pm for the office hours and on
Saturday the hours are 10:00 am until 5:00 pm and Sunday is 10:00 pm to 3:00 pm. The gate
hours are different. They will be open to allow access into the building from 6:00 am until 10:00
pm but keep in mind that everything is in the back and also internal.
Councilmember Bentley
I didn't see any signage on your renderings. Can you tell me about what you have in mind?
Craig Harper
We have been working with the City Architect on that and he suggested that we use something
that is a vertical or blade type sign that would fit on one or two of the corners of the building that
indicated a self -storage facility. Otherwise, we would put signage next to the glass area that is
shown with the shutters.
Councilmember Bentley
It is a very attractive building and I think the signage will make or break it. We have some
examples in our city where we would not like the signage replicated. My only other comment is
that area of Webb Road is becoming more and more walkable. There are more residential uses
and that side of the road where your property is located is very dark; there are no street lights on
the other side as well. I did not see any lighting in your rendering either. If that could be a
consideration, I think it would add to your property and make it safer.
Craig Harper
We would be more than happy to work with staff to accommodate that request.
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
Are there any other. questions?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 10 of 60
Councilmember Jamison
I have a question but are we waiting on the opposition?
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
Okay, let's move into comments in opposition.
City Clerk Gordon
In opposition, I have two public comment cards
like their comments read into the record.
The individuals do not wish to speak but would
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney
Mayor Pro Tem, are we going to read these into the record?
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
Let me make sure I understand. These are public comment cards from people sitting in the
audience right now who would prefer not to speak so we are just going to read their comments in
the record.
City Clerk Gordon
They are in attendance.
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
They are here, Ken, so it is not an email that we are reading.
City Clerk Gordon read the following public comments:
Meredith Tims, 3329 Lathenview Court, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004
"I would ask that the council please follow your defined plan in the Deerfield Zoning Ordinance
and not allow deviation or exceptions to our defined zoning. Failure to do so will allow deviation
to the definedplan andfurther future density issues in our city. Please keep those existing residents
in the area in mind as you review this and future zoning requests to add additional square
footage. "
Richelle A. Foote, 3303 Lathenview Court, Milton, Georgia 30004
"There is no need for this facility and one that large in a residential area. It will set a new standard
and not what the City of Milton originally allowed. There are now two facilities being considered
in that local area on Webb Road. This one and then another one at Webb and Deerfield in another
residential area. "
City Clerk Gordon
I also have an email that came in today and was sent to the elected officials and it is from LeVar
Fraiser who is in opposition and this individual did not give their address. That is all I have.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 11 of 60
City Attorney Jarrard
Mayor Pro Tem, speaking to that issue, I know that the council needs to take some policy based
action to memorialize precisely what we are going to allow with respect to this. I will agree with
the council that I think the policy objective is sort of rewarding those folks that have gotten out of
their house and come down to City Hall to actually be here is worthy of recognition so I agree on
that point. However, I still believe our rules speak very specifically in terms of speaking. During
the public comment section, and perhaps this is a matter for another day; I just want to raise this
to the council that we need to really nail this down very precisely for the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
So, we need to take out what wiggle room is left is that what you are saying?
City Attorney Jarrard
Yes, that is what I am saying.
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
Okay, I agree with that. So, let's get back to questions.
Councilmember Jamison
I have a question for the applicant and for staff. When you said no outdoor storage, does that mean
no RV's, no boats, etc.
Craig Harper
That is absolutely correct.
Councilmember Jamison
A question for staff, with T-4 Open, you can have a multitude of uses that are "by right" and one
of those uses, I'm assuming, is townhome developments and, I'm assuming, one of the "by right"
developments if it is 9 units per acre you could maybe put 18 townhomes on that piece of property?
Robyn MacDonald
So, this is a little odd, this is our first "in fill" rezoning so typically the form based code is pretty
flexible but because they have asked for "in fill" rezoning it is conditioned upon the site, just like
a traditional rezoning. So, this is the only thing that is permitted on it at this point in time unless
somebody came in to do another rezoning or a use permit for a townhomes in Deerfield.
Townhomes are required to have a mix of non-residential with townhomes so it would be pretty
impossible to do that.
Councilmember Jamison
Okay, so what is the "by right" zoning on here and what could they do "by right"? I'm just curious.
Robyn MacDonald
For T-4 Open it is fairly flexible so you have retail, you have office, all the typical mixed use type
of things. And, the maximum would be five units per acre "by right" and then additional TDR's
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of 60
of four for a maximum of nine units. They are asking for the additional TDR*s which anybody
can do that.
Councilmember Jamison
I was curious about what the uses are and the impact of those uses. I would consider this to be a
low impact use.
Robyn MacDonald
It would be typical commercial office space, not particularly residential. It could be another
assisted living possibly; it is pretty flexible.
Craig Harper
Isn't storage "by right" also here?
Robyn MacDonald
It is, but you are asking for the additional square footage by going from T-4 Open to T-5. It gives
you more "by right".
Councilmember Jamison
The parking, on an average day you said you would have maybe four to eight people, but you have
21 spaces.
Craig Harper
People will be coming in and out.
Councilmember Jamison
Would it be possible if parking was reduced that you could add more buffers and landscaping? I
know that is a zoning issue but could the parking be reduced?
Robyn MacDonald
They are meeting what the requirement is so if they wanted to do less they would have to come
and get a variance which is another extra step. It would have to be advertised, etc.
Councilmember Bentley
I have a question about the TDR's. Can you tell me what the sending location is?
Kathy Field
The sending location would be any area within the city that is zoned AG -1.
Councilmember Bentley
So, we are preserving that in exchange for this density?
Kathy Field
That is correct.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 13 of 60
City Attorney Jarrard
Members of the council and Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, just as a point of order here, if the council has
questions of anyone, I think they need to come down address the questions and then return to their
seat. Just not to camp out at the podium. Just as a respectful reminder.
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
We were sort of drifting between questions of staff and questions of the applicant.
Councilmember Hewitt
Kathy, in regards to parking, would you be allowed to do a typical administrative variance without
having to re -advertise?
Kathy Field
I can waive 10%.
Councilmember Mohrig
Just to confirm what Councilmember Jamison asked, if someone were approving this as a re-
zoning for this use, let's say this fell through; they changed their mind and they wanted to put
townhomes, they would have to come back before council for a new re -zoning, correct?
Kathy Field
Correct, because we are making this use a condition of your approval. It states that the owner
agrees to a self -storage facility.
Councilmember Mohrig
Okay, thank you.
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
Are there any other questions? Any more questions for the applicant?
Councilmember Kunz
I have a question for the applicant. Do you have any issues with the staff's conditions for approval?
Craig Harper
We are fine with all of that. I had my civil engineer look at all that and we are fine with it.
Councilmember Bentley
Are you willing to provide lighting for this area on Webb Road? Or, is it planned for your parking
area?
_ Craig Harper
The back parking area will be well lit because we certainly want to make sure it is safe back there
and there will be fencing all around. Yes, we will work with staff to provide front street lighting
which will enhance the area.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 14 of 60
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
Okay, but we don't have any conditions that stipulate any type of lighting requirement other than
whatever the standard is.
Kathy Field
Carter, would street lights be required as part of this development plan?
Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager
I don't think I can respond to that since I have not seen the development plan.
Kathy Field
Sara is in the audience, I know, and she has volunteered to come up so perhaps... As far as I know,
we have a lighting code and there is lighting on the site that is required and has to meet our code
and, of course, it has to face down. But, also, in terms of the roadway, street lights....
Carter Lucas
Well, I think we could certainly work with the applicant to develop a lighting plan for the front of
the property also.
Kathy Field
Should we make it a condition?
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
Hold on. I'm not sure that was the point of the question.
Councilmember Bentley
I do want to make sure that there is lighting but if the parking area is in the back, it doesn't help
the front of the property which is where the issue is. I just want to make sure that the applicant
will work with us in good faith to provide a safe environment on that side of the street.
Steve Krokoff, City Manager
Can I make a recommendation on that? We will go back and look at the requirements and give
Carter a chance not to run on the fly here and potentially make a mistake. But, if you are inclined
to do anything with this, I would recommend, even if it is already part of our code, say what you
like as one of the conditions, and we will ensure that it coincides with whatever we have or
supersedes that. Would that work?
Kathy Field
I think that is fine.
Councilmember Jamison
The only other condition I was thinking about was the back parking lot. I would not want any
future outdoor storage, RV's, boats, etc. That is not part of the recommended conditions and I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 15 of 60
know the applicant said they were not going to do that but I would like to ensure that is adhered
to.
Mayor Pro Tem Longoria
I will let whoever is going to make a motion include that language. Do we have any other questions
or is someone ready to make a motion?
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-080 as follows:
Consideration of RZ18-01 - 2915 Webb Road - To rezone from T-4 Open to T-5 to
develop a 103,509 square foot self -storage facility on 3.286 acres by Piedmont Atlantic
Capital, LLC.
And, also to include all the Staff Recommended Conditions included in the packet as well as the
following conditions:
• No outside storage allowed
• The Developer and the City of Milton Architect to work together in good faith to implement
a lighting plan that is acceptable to the Architect and otherwise consistent with all
applicable city codes.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-0). Mayor Joe Lockwood
recused himself from the vote.
2. Consideration of RZ18-06IU18-01NC18-01- 3505 Bethany Bend — To rezone from O -I
(Office -Institutional) to O -I (Office Institutional), A use permit for a private school (Sec.
64-1831) to increase the size of the existing school from 6,000 square feet to 9,500
square feet and the number of students from 150 to 220 students and a concurrent
variance to delete the landscape strip from 20 feet to 0 feet where the existing turnaround
is located (Sec. 64-1090(a)) on 2.89 acres by Wisderium, LLC.
ORDINANCE NO. 18-03-342
(Agenda Item No. 18-081)
(First Presentation at March 5, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 16 of 60
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the council. The summary of the zoning request for this
application is as follows: (1) to rezone from O -I (Office) to O -I (Office) to permit the increase in
heated square footage from 6,000 square feet to 9,500 square feet within the confines of the attic
of the recently completed building. This is needed for expanded daycare facility. This is the issue
related to RZ18-06. In addition, we have a use permit which is to request a private school to
expand the current capacity of 150 students to 220 students which also includes some daycare
students. Lastly, we have a request for a concurrent variance to allow the turnaround to encroach
in a portion of the 20 foot landscape strip. Those are the three actions that we are looking for
tonight. Here is the site. You can see that it is located on Bethany Bend and the corner of Morris
Road. This is outside the form based code so we are into the old 0-1 zoning. The future land use
map calls for this area to be office. This is a site plan submitted on December 27, 2017 and on this
plan you can see the encroachment which is the reason for the variance request. This turnaround
is encroaching into the twenty foot buffer strip. There is no addition to the building. Only the
inside will be changed. They are going to use the attic space. The subject site contains 2.89 acres
and is developed with a newly constructed building 6,000 square foot and an older existing
structure with approximately 2,000 square feet zoned O -I pursuant to RZ15-14 approved for a
Private School pursuant to U15-04 in the existing building and a total of 150 students. Based on
the applicant's revised site plan submitted on December 27, 2017 to the Community Development
Department offers the following considerations: Based on the requirements pursuant to Sec. 64-
730, the site plan indicates compliance with the development standards for O -I (Office -
Institutional). Based on the requirements pursuant to Sec. 64-1831, the site plan indicates
compliance with the development standards for the Use Permit. The proposed expansion of the
Montessori school is required to meet the State Route 9 Overlay District standards within Chapter
64, Article VII, Division 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan shows compliance with the
requirements of the State Route 9 Overlay District with the exception of the following: The Site
Plan is compliant except for the 20 foot landscape strip, with the following required landscape
strip and buffers as required by the State Route 9 Overlay District: 20 foot landscape strip adjacent
to Bethany Bend and Morris Roads. There is an encroachment where the turnaround is and is
discussed below as a concurrent variance. Delete the landscape strip from 20 feet to 0 feet where
existing turnaround is shown. The driveway was constructed to allow the traffic to flow in a
forward direction. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the requested concurrent variance be
approved based on the fact that the request complies with the considerations of Section 64-1883.
In reference to the Environmental Impacts to the site, it satisfies the requirement of Section 64-
2126. There will be no specimen trees impacted by the proposed expansion. Site density has been
met through the undeveloped area. Ten foot landscape islands are required for every six parking
spaces. The Fire Marshal has no objection to the proposed site plan. The thresholds for turn lanes
are 300 daily left turns in and 200 daily right turns in. The daily distributions are based on 50%
entering and 50% exiting trips.
Daily Trips - 986
Daily left turns in - 296
Daily right turns in - 197
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 17 of 60
If at such time the Department of Public Works determines that the left turns into the site impact
the operations of Bethany Bend, the owner will be required to conduct a traffic study to determine
if the development warrants any additional improvements at no cost to the city. If improvements
are determined to be warranted, owner shall install those at no cost to the city. On January 23,
2018 the applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information Meeting (CZIM) held at the
Milton City Hall. There were two members of the community in attendance. The community
asked the applicant some general information questions about the project. The applicant held a
meeting on February 12, 2018. There were seven members of the community in attendance. The
community asked the applicant some general questions and the overall look of the project. The
Design Review Board had no objections about finishing out the attic space or adding a staircase
on the back. The Planning Commission recommended at their February 28, 2018 meeting that
they approved all three actions; the rezoning, the use permit, and the concurrent variance. The
Planning Commission discussed the maximum number of students requested by the applicant.
They were concerned about at what point would the applicant be required to provide a left turn for
the project. Staff explained that if the site requires a left turn lane, the applicant will be responsible
for providing the traffic improvement. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that
the applicant be limited to the number of students approved by the Georgia Department of Elderly
Care and Learning but not to exceed 220 students. Staff has reviewed the use permit consideration
for the private school which is U18-01 and finds the requirements consistent. In addition, staff has
reviewed the standards of review for the rezoning to O -I which is the RZ18-06 and finds them
-- consistent. A detailed analysis of both of these standards of review is found in the staff packet.
The proposed expansion of the school is consistent with the City of Milton Comprehensive Plan
Update suggestion of Office. Based on the fact that there is higher density residential adjacent to
the north, southwest and east within the City of Milton and retail commercial to the east in Forsyth
County, it is Staff's opinion the proposed rezoning from O -I to O -I is appropriate and therefore,
recommends Approval Conditional of RZ18-06 and U18-01. In addition, Staff recommends
Approval Conditional of VC 18-01. If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, it
should be O -I (Office -Institutional) Conditional and a Use Permit for a Private School subject to
the owner's agreement to the following enumerated conditions:
1) To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a) Restrict the use of the subject property to a private school and day care facility in
the existing structure on the southern portion of the site and 9,500 square foot
structure at a maximum density of 3,287.2 square feet per acre, whichever is less,
based on the total acreage zoned.
b) Restrict the number of students to 220.
C) Hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday, 6:30 a.m. — 7:30 p.m.
2) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a) To the revised site plan received by the Community Development Department on
December 27, 2017. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 18 of 60
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) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, comply with all regulations of
the Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning.
3) To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
a) To delete the landscape strip from 20 feet to 0 feet where existing turnaround is
shown. (VC 18-01)
4) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedications, and
improvements:
a) If at such time the Department of Public Works determines that the left turns into
the site impact the operations of Bethany Bend, the owner will be required to
conduct a traffic study to determine if the development warrants any additional
improvements at no cost to the city. If improvements are determined to be
warranted, owner shall install those at no cost to the city.
5) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a) A stormwater management concept plan shall be submitted and approved by Milton
Public Works Department prior to submission of land disturbance application.
Mayor Lockwood
Do anyone have questions of staff?
Councilmember Hewitt
On the variance to reduce the landscape strip, that would be where the existing turnaround is?
Kathy Field
Yes, just where it touches.
Mayor Lockwood
We will now hear from those who are speaking in support of this application.
City Clerk Gordon
We have one person and that is Ziad Nassar.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6;00 pnl
Page 19 of 60
Ziad Nassar, 3521 Hershey Lane, Tucker, Georgia 30084
Actually, I am in support but I am part of the project. Briefly, just to explain, we are not changing
much. The building is staying the same. The only thing added is a set of stairs on the back and a
shed roof which the Design Review Board tended to feel the building was too bland on the back
so that actually improved the view of it. Other than that, we are here to answer any questions
regarding the project.
Mayor Lockwood
Sudie, do we have any other speakers for support?
City Clerk Gordon
That is it for support.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, do you have any for opposition?
City Clerk Gordon
I do have one email that was sent to the elected officials. It is from LeVar Fraiser who did not
give an address and this individual is in opposition. And, that is all.
Mayor Lockwood
I will now close the hearing. Are there any questions for the applicant or staff? I have a general
question, if you are expanding into the attic, I assume either the original design would support that
or you will have to do alternations to make sure that for building code and safety that the attic will
support an additional load.
Ziad Nassar
There will be a new floor put in on top of the ceiling joists. That was not put in originally because,
honestly, the assumption was maybe five years down the line we would get to this point. Luckily,
they built up the student body fast enough so there was no point in spending the money on the
floor. But, the main structure is designed to be able to handle that. And, that is all in the permit
application..
Mayor Lockwood
Any other questions? If not, I will open it up for a motion.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-081.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 20 of 60
3. Consideration of U18-02/U18-03/VC18-02 -12655 Birmingham Hwy – To request a use
permit for Apartments (Sec. 64-1839) and a use permit for Senior Housing (Sec. 64-
1834) to develop 42 condominiums on 4.37 acres at a density of 9.6 units per acre and a
concurrent variance to delete the required 300 cubic feet of separate, contiguous storage
space for each dwelling unit (Sec. 64-1839 (8)) by Strawberry Fields Milton LLC.
ORDINANCE NO. 18-03-343
(Agenda Item No. 18-082)
(First Presentation at March 5, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Here is the summary of the zoning request before you this evening. The
applicant proposes a mixed—use development including four office retail buildings and 42 senior
condominiums at a density of 9.6 units per acre. The requested use permit for apartments is for
the use and not for rental of multi -family units. It is to allow for stacked flats and because the
request exceeds 30 units, it is not under the category of neighborhood apartments. Therefore, to
allow this use, a use permit for apartments, which is U18-03 and then one for senior housing which
is U18-02 is required. So, in order to build the senior condominiums, both of these use permits
would have to be allowed. The intent of the 42 units is for sale and not rental. In addition, the use
permit for senior housing requires the units to be for sale and not for rent. Therefore, staff will
refer to this issue as senior condominiums within this report to better represent the actual use. In
addition, the applicant is requesting a concurrent variance which is VC18-02 to delete the
requirement for a minimum of 300 cubic feet of separate contiguous storage space for each unit.
Here is the parcel. I think many of you are familiar with the Strawberry Fields gallery and it is
just off of Birmingham within the Crabapple Form Based Code area. The current zoning shows
the western end of this parcel to be in the T-5 zoning district and then the eastern half is zoned T-
4 Open and that is the area where the senior condominium housing is proposed. This is the site
plan that shows the entire development on the western side we have mixed use buildings and
starting here we have the senior condominiums. The subject site is zoned T-4 Open and T-5, and
developed with a single family residence that has been converted into an art gallery. Located on
4.37 acres, the property is in the Crabapple Form Based Code. The site plan also shows mixed use
development on the western portion of the property which will be developed concurrently with the
senior housing on the eastern portion of the site. The residential units on the west portion of the
site are allowed by right within the T-5 transect zone. And, those are not senior housing. I think
most of them are loft style types of housing units that will be on the west side. The focus of this
report is on the required use permit for the 42 units of senior condominiums. Based on the
applicant's site plan to the Community Development Department on January 5, 2018, it meets all
required standards for both the senior housing use permit and the apartments except for the
concurrent variance discussed below. In terms of this concurrent variance, the applicant is
requesting a concurrent variance to delete the requirement for a minimum of 300 cubic feet of
separate contiguous storage space for each unit. The requested concurrent variance meets the
following considerations:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pra
Page 21 of 60
(1) Relief, if granted, would not offend the spirit or intent of this zoning ordinance;
(2) There are such extraordinary and 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 due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant;
(3) Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding
properties; and
(4) That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done.
Separate outdoor storage is typically seen in garden style apartments, and is not appropriate for
loft style condominiums in the Crabapple area. No detriment to the public will be caused by the
approval of this variance, and substantial just shall be done. Therefore, Staff recommends
Approval Conditional of VC 18-02.
The City Arborist has reviewed the plan and this is based on the old ordinance, this came in when
the old ordinance was still in effect. So, based on the old tree ordinance:
• Tree density is met through parking lot, street trees and specimen tree replanting.
• 95.1 units removed= (136) 4" trees or $68,000 in specimen recompense.
• Two additional trees may reacquired removal with parking lot grading.
• 10 foot wide landscape Island required every 6th parking space.
The fire marshal has reviewed the plan and it meets the fire requirements. The thresholds for turn
lanes are 300 daily left turns in and 200 daily right turns in. Therefore, no turn lanes are required
for the site. Access to the site shall be subject to the approval of City of Milton Department of
Public Works, prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit, and also we are requesting two
driveways to be provided at locations coordinated with the Northeast Crabapple Connector
Roadway project and approved by Milton Public Works. The Environmental Site Analysis (ESA)
report was completed as required. A community zoning information meeting was held on January
23, 2018 the applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information Meeting held at the
Milton City Hall. There were approximately 12 members of the community in attendance at the
meeting. The following issues were brought up at the meeting:
Concerns about `apartments'. The applicant explained that these units are actually for -sale
condominiums.
The style of the buildings was discussed. They will be reminiscent of older buildings that
once housed a mill or factory and has now been converted into a loft/condo.
The Design Review Board held a courtesy review on January 9, 2018 and they were supportive of
the concept. The City Architect will work closely with the applicant regarding design which will
be required to be approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of the building
permit. The applicant held the Public Participation Meeting on February 8, 2018 at the Strawberry
Fields Gallery building on Birmingham Highway. There were 5 attendees. The applicant reviewed
the plans with the attendees and there were no major concerns after discussions with the applicant.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 22 of 60
The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their February 28, 2018 meeting and they
approved all three items. In terms of the use permit considerations for senior housing, staff has
reviewed the standards of review for the use permit for senior housing and finds them consistent
with the application. A detailed analysis is included in the staff packet. Staff has also reviewed
the standards of review for the use permit for apartments and we find them consistent and a detailed
analysis is included in the staff packet. If approved with the Recommended Conditions, the
proposed mixed used development including 42 senior condominiums is consistent the
Comprehensive Plan and Crabapple Form Based Code. Therefore, Staff recommends U18-02 be
approved conditional and that U18-03 be approved conditional. Additionally, staff recommends
VC18-02 be approved conditional. If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, a
Use Permit should be approved for Senior Housing (Sec. 64-1834) and a Use Permit should be
approved for Apartments (Sec. 64-1839) subject to the owner's agreement to the following
enumerated conditions. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulations and offerings
contained in the Letter of Intent, these conditions shall supersede unless specifically stipulated by
the Mayor and City Council.
1) To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a) Senior Condominiums (U 18-02 — Senior Housing and U 18-03 - Apartments)
b) No more than 42 total dwelling units at a maximum density of 9.6 units per acre,
whichever is less, based on the total acreage zoned. Approved 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 units within the approved
development meet or exceed all the development standards of the City of Milton. The total
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 site plan received by the Community Development Department on January
5, 2018. 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.
3) To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
a) To delete the requirement for a minimum of 300 cubic feet of separate contiguous
storage space for each unit. (VC 18-02)
4) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication and
improvements:
a) Access to the site shall be subject to the approval of City of Milton Department of
Public Works, prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit, Subdivision Plat
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of 60
or Certificate of Occupancy (whichever comes first). Entrance(s) shall conform to
Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the City of Milton Code
of Ordinances.
b) Provide two driveways at locations coordinated with Northeast Crabapple
Connector Roadway project and approved by Milton Public Works.
5) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a) A stormwater management concept plan shall be submitted and
approved by Milton Public Works Department prior to submission of land
disturbance application.
Mayor Joe Lockwood
Are there any questions for Kathy? I don't see any so we will open it up to public comment. Is
there anyone speaking in support?
City Clerk Gordon
That would be the applicant, Rob Beecham.
Rob Beecham, 500 Mill Creek Road, Woodstock, GA
I will yield my time for any questions.
Mayor Joe Lockwood
Okay, we will hear from those in opposition.
City Clerk Gordon
In opposition, we have an email that was sent to the elected officials from Mr. LeVar Fraiser in
opposition and he did not give his address. And, that is all we have.
Mayor Joe Lockwood
Okay, I will close the public hearing and open it up for questions for the applicant or staff from
council.
Councilmember Hewitt
Kathy, is the condition to call it senior condominiums, does that alleviate any future concern of it
being for rent versus for sale?
Kathy Field
Yes, and the senior housing limits, part of the ordinance that it has to be condominiums; it cannot
be for rent, so it is already inherent in that.
Councilmember Bentley
Kathy, is the senior condo living adjacent to the elementary school?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 60
Kathy Field
It will be to just the south of it. It is the parcel to the south.
Councilmember Bentley
So, is it right next to it or is it.... Okay, my comment on that is there no buffer there?
Kathy Field
We do not have a buffer requirement, do we Robyn?
Councilmember Bentley
It is interesting that there is senior living right next to an elementary school; I was just raising that
issue of sound and whatnot.
Robyn MacDonald
I think the elementary school on the southside has somewhat of a buffer. It is not just straight on
to the parking lot. They actually have a buffer. If you look at the aerial there is a buffer.
Councilmember Kunz
How will we enforce someone who may own a condo but decides to rent it out?
City Attorney Jarrard
It is challenging. Typically, what we see is that is enforced by why of covenants that the private
entity will impose.
Councilmember Longoria
Our ordinance only contemplates the operation of the facility as a for rent type of facility. It does
not contemplate individual ownership that in turn rents it out through Airbnb or something like
that.
Mayor Lockwood
Usually, within an HOA or covenants, the residents will help enforce the rules as much or more
than the city.
Councilmember Jamison
So, the 42 units, the density, is allowed by -right, correct?
Kathy Field
Yes, the density per unit for seniors is.....
Robyn MacDonald
The use permit for seniors goes up to 20 units per acre, by -right.
Councilmember Jamison
Not the use permit, but what is allowed right now by -right in the T4 -Open?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 25 of 60
Kathy Field
T4 -Open is nine units; let me double-check that.
Councilmember Jamison
The subject site states 4.37 acres. Is that the entire development not just the use permit site,
correct?
Robyn MacDonald
It is the entire development including the mixed-use to the west. The use permit is going to cover
the entire legal description.
Councilmember Jamison
So, the T4 -Open is probably 2.5 acres, give or take?
Kathy Field
Yes, it bisects it almost in half.
Councilmember Jamison
Okay, so I was just curious what the by -right density is today on the 2.5 acres.
Robyn MacDonald
It is 5 units and an additional 4 by TDR. So, 5 units by -right and 4 units by TDR.
Kathy Field
So, it is nine units allowed per acre in T4 -Open.
Councilmember Jamison
So, give or take, 20 units is allowed by -right today.
Kathy Field
Correct, so this proposal is about double that amount.
Councilmember Jamison
I am curious how your whole development will look; specifically what the commercial will look
like and on buildings 3 and 4 what that mixed use is going to be like and if you could please explain
to me the size of each condo.
Rob Beecham
Since we made the initial application, the staff requested two entrances. Initially, we had one
entrance now we have two. So, now instead of four larger buildings in the front it has been broken
down into five units.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 26 of 60
Councilmember Bentley
Item number three in staff considerations, "the effect of the proposed use on traffic flow" I just
want to say that this density 9.6 units is allowable, I understand that, but I don't necessarily
embrace that. I do think this is going to have an impact on this area and so I would like to keep a
close watch on this. I know that citizens are a little bit disappointed that so much residential is
going into our areas that we have held a close watch on for commercial use. So, having said that,
I agree that senior living has kind of less than an impact on our schools and traffic patterns, so I
do understand this use, but I do have a concern with the Form Based Code on our infrastructure.
Councilmember Jamison
I want to make sure we are clear. The by -right density is 20 units and this is 42 units. I don't have
an issue with the concept, I like the concept, but I didn't know it was going into 100% density
bonus.
Mayor Lockwood
Can staff explain... when you go into senior housing how that affects what is allowed with senior
housing.
Robyn MacDonald
The use permit itself kind of gives cart blanc for areas with sewer and multi -family; it goes up to
20 units per acre by -right.
Councilmember Jamison
So, by -right it is 20 units per acre in the T4?
Robyn MacDonald
No, it is senior housing.
Councilmember Jamison
But, you still have to get a use permit for that'?
Mayor Lockwood
A use permit allows that.
Robyn MacDonald
No, not the T4. It is like icing on the cake.
Mayor Lockwood
Any other questions? If not, I will open it up for a motion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 27 of 60
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-082.
Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed (5-2). Councilmember Jamison
and Councilmember Bentley were in opposition.
Motion and Vote to Extend Time for Public Comment for the folloiving Agenda Item No. 18-
083:
1. Mayor Joe Lockwood moved to approve extending the allotted time by four more
minutes for both those speaking in support and opposition. Councilmember Longoria
seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
2. Mayor Joe Lockwood moved to approve extending the allotted time by four more
minutes for both those speaking in support and opposition. Councilmember Longoria
seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
3. Mayor Joe Lockwood moved to approve extending the allotted time by two more
minutes for both those speaking in support and opposition. Councilmember Longoria
seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
4. Consideration of ZM18-01NC18-04 — Southeast Quadrant of Birmingham
Hwy and Birmingham Road, by OHC Birmingham LLC to request a zoning
modification and concurrent variance for the following:
1) Request to modify RZ2004-116, Condition 2.a. to the Revised plan Dated
February 2, 2018;
2) Request to modify ZM14-03 — To delete Condition 6.c., the reference to the
village green;
3) A Concurrent Variance to delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot
improvement setback along the south property line of the MIX -zoning district
adjacent to AG -1 — Sec. 64-1142(a)(3.)b; and
4) A Concurrent Variance to reduce the Village Green in the southeast Quadrant
from 13,000 square feet — Sec. 64-1324(b).
(Agenda Item No. 18-083)
(First Presentation at March 5, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
The parcel in question is located at the southeast corner of Birmingham Highway and Birmingham
Road. The current zoning is MIX and AG -1. This is a revised site plan submitted on February 12,
2018 and we received another revised site plan on March 16, 2018. We also have the original site
plan from 2004. This is a request to modify 1) RZ2004-116 condition 2.a. to the revised site plan
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 28 of 60
dated February 2, 2018 and to modify 2) ZM14-03 to delete condition 6.c., the reference to the
Village Green. To request a two part concurrent variance 1) To delete the 75 foot undisturbed
buffer and 10 foot improvement setback along the south property line of the MIX zoning district
adjacent to AG -1 (Sec. 64-1142 (a)(3)(b)) and 2) To reduce the Village Green in the Southeast
Quadrant from 13,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet (Sec. 64-1324 (b)). This is a clean-up
action. During the course of our review of all these applications, we found that a zoning
modification was erroneously included in the 2014 site plan that was approved at that time.
Condition 6(c) which reduced the size of the Village Green to 11,500 square feet. The 13,000
square foot Village Green requirement is regulated by the Birmingham Crossroads Overlay and
essentially in order to modify the requirement of the 13,000, you cannot do it as a zoning
modification. It must be handled as a concurrent variance. Therefore, we would like to delete
that condition of the zoning of that site plan which shows the allowance of the 13,500 because it
is not allowed as a zoning condition. It has to be requested by an applicant as a concurrent variance.
We are asking for your support to clean —up this inconsistency. The requested two part concurrent
variance is: Part 1: To delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback
along the south property line of the MIX zoning district adjacent to AG -1 (Sec. 64-1142 (a)(3)(b))
Part 2: To reduce the Village Green in the Southeast Quadrant from 13,000 square feet to 12,000
square feet (Sec. 64-1324 (b)). We advised the applicant that if he wanted to revise the size of the
Village Green, he would have to do it through a concurrent variance. So, he applied for a
concurrent variance which is to reduce the size of the Village Green; however, based on his latest
site plan submitted last Friday, he was able to meet that requirement of 13,000 square feet,
therefore, he wants to withdraw that variance. The subject site was rezoned from C-1 (Community
Business) and M-1 (Manufacturing) to MIX (Mixed Use) on November 3, 2004 by the Fulton
County Board of Commissioners. This site is one corner of three corners of the Birmingham
Crossroads that was zoned pursuant to RZ04-116 (subject site) and RZ04-43 (northeast and
southeast corners zoned C-1 Conditional). The final conditions approved for all three quadrants
were derived from numerous meetings between the original developer, AG Armstrong and the
community using the Birmingham Crossroads Plan (Amending the 2015 North Fulton
Comprehensive Plan) which was approved by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners on
March 3, 2004. In addition, the Birmingham Crossroads of the Northwest Fulton Overlay District
was approved on March 3, 2004. This newly created overlay also guided the ultimate outcome of
what was approved for the three quadrants of Birmingham Crossroads. The central premise of both
the Plan and the Overlay was that the Birmingham Crossroads should be a neighborhood node
consisting of 27.1 acres which at that time recommended up to 100,000 square feet of commercial
uses, up to 100,000 square feet of office uses, and up to five (5) residential units per acre. Since
the time of the rezoning in 2004, the northeast and southwest quadrants have been developed as
approved. The southeast quadrant has remained undeveloped other than the existing structures on
the 22.12 acres. At the June 16, 2014 Mayor and City Council Meeting, the applicant's request
pursuant to ZM14-03 to amend Conditions l.c., l.d., 2.a., and 3.b were approved which reduced
the approved density for the office, commercial retail, and eliminated the day care facility along
Birmingham Road. In addition, the approved site plan replaced some of the townhouse units
previously developed with single family detached homes. These amended conditions deleted the
requirement for the day care facility and allowed single family detached homes. After further
evaluation of the site plan, with original conditions approved pursuant to 2004Z-116 by Fulton
County, Staff determined that Condition 2.d. had not been met (Staff also notes that there are two
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 29 of 60
conditions numbered 2.d. and this is a typo from the Fulton County conditions). Therefore, the
need to modify it to eliminate the community park and community septic system. In addition, Staff
requested that Condition 2.a. be included to remove the reference to the "community waste water
facility" indicated on the site plan within the AG -1 portion of the development. This modification
was approved by the City Council on July 21, 2014. The applicant submitted his LDP for the
project to the Community Development Department on February 20, 2015 for review based on the
approved site plan and conditions as discussed above. After various comments from Staff and
resubmittals by the engineer, responses from the applicant's engineer stopped and the permit
appeared to be abandoned. The current owner, Mr. Tad Braswell requested a modification to the
approved site plan to replace the retail buildings along Birmingham Hwy with townhomes. Staff
recommended denial and the Mayor and City Council denied the request on March 21, 2016 based
on the fact that it was not consistent with the Birmingham Crossroads Master Plan which
contemplated this quadrant to provide a mix of uses including non-residential. The applicant
submitted revised LDP plans based on the approved site plan and conditions as discussed above.
Because of the length of time since the last submittal, Staff required the applicant to resubmit
review fees and a new LDP number was issued. Once again, the review process of the LDP
occurred with reviews by staff and re -submittals by the applicant. Staff informed the applicant in
January 2018 that a Zoning Modification to the site plan as well as concurrent variances would be
required to be in compliance with the RZ04-116 approved conditions and the Birmingham
Crossroads Overlay District. The applicant is requesting the following based on a revised site plan
submitted on February 12, 2018. The applicant was present at the meeting and there were six
attendees present at the meeting. They had the following concerns regarding the zoning
modification and concurrent variances:
• Increased traffic in the area, especially at the intersection of Birmingham Hwy and
Birmingham Road.
• In opposition to the approval of the two concurrent variances for the buffer and reduction
of the Village Green because it would be inconsistent with the Birmingham Crossroads
Plan.
• Encouraged the developer to utilize "rural section" or alternative design for roads within
the AG -1 subdivision.
Part 1: To delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback along the south
property line of the MIX zoning district adjacent to AG -1 (Sec. 64-1142 (a)(3)(b))
The Birmingham Crossroads Overlay District does not address buffers used to separate uses, but
the Rural Milton Overlay District (previously called the Northwest Fulton Overlay District) does
address this issue. The site is required to meet those development standards that are not addressed
in the Birmingham Crossroads Overlay District but required in the Rural Milton Overlay. Although
RZ04-116 was approved with a site plan without the required buffer shown in it, the Concurrent
Variance requested pursuant to VC04-178 was only approved by the Fulton County Board of
Commissioners to reduce the 75 foot buffer and 10 foot improvement setback to a 10 foot
landscape strip adjacent to the east property line which abuts the electric sub -station. The minutes
from the November 3, 2004 Board of Commissioner's meeting clearly states the concurrent
variance was only approved for the east property line and the south property line was not approved.
Furthermore, the conditions of zoning stipulate the following in Condition 2.a.: "Said site plan is
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 30 of 60
conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Resolution and these
conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit." Therefore, the zoning ordinance
(previously referred to as the zoning resolution in Fulton County) requirements must be met unless
a concurrent variance is granted. A variance must be based upon credible evidence submitted at a
public hearing compliance with 1 through 4 of the following:
(1) Relief, if granted, would not offend the spirit or intent of this zoning ordinance.
It is Staff's opinion that if the requested deletion of the buffer and improvement setback should
not be approved because it would offend the intent of the zoning ordinance to provide an adequate
buffer between non-residential uses and single family uses or property zoned AG -1.
(2) There are such extraordinary and 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 due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant.
The required 75 foot buffer and 10 foot improvement setback does not create an unnecessary
hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations based
on the fact that the site can still be developed with a mix of uses including commercial, office and
residential.
(3) Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding
properties.
The reduction of the buffer and improvement setback would not provide the necessary transition
from the MIX (Mixed Use) development to the AG -1 single family homes to the south.
(4) That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done.
The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that the public safety, health and welfare are
secured and that substantial justice was done.
Therefore, Staff recommends Denial of VC 18-04 — Part 1.
Request of Modification to ZM14-03
6. To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
Provide a village green on the south side of Birmingham Road that shall be a
minimum of 50 feet in with a minimum of 11,500 square feet in area measured
according to the current setback and an additional 1,500 square feet within the
development.
The applicant has requested the above deletion of Condition 6.c. based on the fact that the
Birmingham Crossroads Overlay District ('Zoning Ordinance) requires the Village Green on the
SE Quadrant be a minimum of 13,000 square feet in size. Staff recommends approval of the
deletion of 6.c (ZM14-03) in order for the correct method for the request for a reduction in size of
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 31 of 60
the Village Green be a Concurrent Variance. The applicant has requested the concurrent variance
pursuant to VC 18-04 – Part 2 to reduce the Village Green which is the appropriate procedure.
Since the time of the original submittal, however, the applicant has provided a revised site plan
received on March 16, 2018 that shows compliance with the required size of the Village Green of
13,000 square feet. Therefore, the applicant has requested to withdraw VC 18-01 Part 2.
Request of Modification to RZ05-116
2. To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a. To the revised site plan dated February 12, 2018 October 28, 2004 (Petitions 2004Z-0116
NFC and 2004Z-0043 combined) submitted to the Department of Environment and
Community Development. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Resolution 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.
(RZ04-116)
Based on the fact that Staff recommends Denial of the Concurrent Variance, Parts 1 and 2,
therefore, Staff recommends denial of the Modification of Condition 2.a. as referenced above.
— If the Mayor and City Council choose to approve the above requested Zoning Modification and
Two Part Concurrent Variance, Staff has provided the Recommended Conditions below.
In addition, if Condition 2.a. is approved, Staff recommends that the applicant reflect the number
and size of commercial buildings adjacent to Birmingham Hwy. The previously approved site plan
in 2014 indicated two buildings on the north side of the entrance and one building on the south
side of the project entrance off of Birmingham Hwy. Should the Mayor and City Council approve
this petition, the recommended conditions should be revised to read as follows:
2. To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a. To the revised site plan dated February 12, 2018 submitted to the Department of
Community Development. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or
exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance 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. (RZ04-116)
6. To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
q. To delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback along
the south property line of the MIX zoning district adjacent to AG -1. (VC18-04–
Part 1)
The Village Green in the Southeast Quadrant shall be a minimum of 12,000 square
feet. (VC 18-04 – Part 2)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 32 of 60
Mayor Lockwood
Are there questions for staff? Sudie, do we have any public comment in support of this
application?
City Clerk Gordon
We have three public comment cards in support. The first is from the applicant, Mr. Doug Dillard.
Doug Dillard, 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 1200, Atlanta, GA
Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of council. I appreciate the thorough analysis that has been
given to you by staff. But, the bottom line is that we are here for two purposes tonight. To amend
the site plan requirement and to eliminate the buffer requirement. We are not increasing density.
We believe that we will have a better project primarily because we will have a greater number of
detached single-family homes; not townhomes. We will also have estate lots that will be included
in the eighteen site plan which Kathy has referenced. So, let me go through, briefly, because she
has done a very thorough job of the history of this property. This property was zoned in 2004. It
was accomplished in accordance with the Birmingham Crossroads Masterplan. And, I would point
out, at that time, that the applicant had support of the neighborhood organizations that were
involved in the future planning of this area. In Fulton County at that time, Fulton County, and this
is important, approved 33 townhomes on the mixed portion of the property with the balance of the
AG -1 property being developed with one acre lots, which would then yield eleven lots. So, the
total approved density in 2004 was 44 lots. In 2014, this property came before the Milton City
Council for a zoning modification. The city approved the zoning modification request with several
conditions, including a condition which expanded the residential options on the mixed use portion
of the property to 33 homes, or single-family homes, whichever was available. The city council
also approved a site plan for the property which showed no buffer between the AG -1 lots and the
MIX neighborhood node. And, to that extent, before Mr. Braswell bought the property, he came
to staff, he got a letter from Robyn, that confirmed that he had a site plan that showed that and
required no buffer. Now, Mr. Jarrard will tell you that we can rely on representations by staff and
administrative officials, however, if they are incorrect, then we cannot rely on that to vest our
rights in whatever site plan was approved. But, I will tell you that Mr. Braswell would not have
bought the property if he had not received confirmation from staff on what he wanted to do. During
the LDP process, it was determined that a variance would be needed to formerly remove the 75
foot buffer between the AG -1 and the MIX property. It is important, and I want to be very clear
about the request before you, the variance to eliminate the buffer is not being sought in order to
increase density. That is very important. The developer has already reduced the density from 33
townhomes, as currently entitled, to 24, and this is under the new plan, 24 single-family detached
home in the MIX zoning area. The single-family cluster in the AG -1 property is ten, so the total
development is 34 units as opposed to the 44-45 units as previously authorized by the zoning. If
we wanted to build with the current entitlements, we would build 33 townhomes on the MIX site
and sever it from the AG -1 site with a buffer. This would mean: (1) more density (33 townhomes
on the MIX site and 10 single-family homes on the AG -1 site); (2) an additional curb cut on
Birmingham Highway to allow access to the AG -1 site. If you notice, you really can't get there
under the proposed site plan because it comes in cul-de-sacs then goes out to the ten lots. If we
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 33 of 60
don't get the variance, then we will have to come off of Birmingham Highway with a separate
road. The water feature amenity we have agreed to install and would also have to be eliminated
under this scenario because we will not have room for it. The current plan entitlements are
certainly not as attractive as what is proposed by the developer with the 2018 development. So,
the proposed modifications, lower the density from what is currently approved, provides a buffer
on the AG -1 site, and provides inter -parcel connectivity between the two sites as was originally
intended in 2004. The proposed plan is consistent with the Birmingham Crossroads Masterplan,
significant open space and village green that shall be 13,000 square feet. We are asking for a
modification of that; we have withdrawn that request. The detention facilities will be naturalistic
in design; they will comply with that requirement. Utilization of the internal road system to
minimize curb cuts on the minor arterials, the internal streets shall have sidewalks and landscape
strips we provide; we comply with all of these requirements. Inclusion of trails within the
development is also included. We will have a variety of building types and sizes to create the
village environment which is already in place. If you look at the site plan, you will see that we
have some commercial left; one will be a pediatric center and the other is yet to be determined.
But, what is important are the sidewalks, the alternative pathways, the path connections from
nearby agricultural and residential uses shall be made to the greatest extent possible and I think
our plan shows that. The applicant has provided an internal road system within the MIX node and
between the MIX and the AG -1 parcels in accordance with this policy. I will call on Mr. Braswell
now so he can give you an idea of his vision for this property. But, the thing that I am asking you
not to forget is that we are asking for two things: (1) that conditions of zoning be modified to
include the 18 site plan and (2) that the 75 foot buffer be eliminated in accordance with the site
plan; not just eliminated but in accordance with the adoption of the site plan which call for fewer
units on this property than could otherwise be built. And, if this is denied, Mr. Braswell will have
no choice other than to load it up with townhomes and I don't think that is in the best interest of
everyone.
City Clerk Gordon
Respectfully, there is 1:19 left on the clock.
Tad Braswell, 5256 Peachtree Road, Suite 195, Atlanta, GA 30341
We have developed in Milton before. We developed Crabapple Station across the road. I am
going to go through the vision for our property pretty quick. This is the site plan you will see in
the top corner. The open space area where we have the park and have worked with the architect
to make this a site feature. It will have two ponds with water in them all the time plus an open
space and gathering area. There is a bridge that runs through there. There is more open space on
the other side of the road. This is the village green area which is 13,000 square feet. This is a site
view which gives you the lay of the land. Our contention is that the open space and the park that
we have that is actually on the AG -1 property really provides the buffer between the two uses;
between the MIX property and the AG -1 property. I think we meet the spirit of what the code is
looking for.
The council voted unanimously to extend four more minutes to both support and opposition (see
above Motion and Vote)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 34 of 60
Thank you, I appreciate that. One of the things to note from this slide is that if you can see how
the site slopes down from the power station, it drops down about ten feet to the pads that are on
that property line. These houses will face the road and are two stories in the front, this is a drive
under product, and then it drops down again to the parking lot and it is three stories on this side
and two stories in the back. This is much like the property that we built that faces the lake over at
Crabapple Station. This is another view from the entrance coming in and it shows you the trees
that are planted with the buffer and you really can't see the AG -1 property from the MIX property.
We feel that the buffer with the parks and the greenspace meet the needs. This is the architecture
for the pediatric building that we are going to build. The doctor is with us tonight and will speak
about his practice. This is a big practice; 6,000 square feet. This is the product we will build. It
is roughly 3,000 square feet with a master on the main. This product is very much needed in this
community. There is nowhere for people to downsize in the Milton area. All the homes are
detached. This is the cottage product that is two stories in the front and three stories in the back.
This is the product that will be facing the retail. That is our vision for the property. Originally,
when I bought the property, it was laid out for 30 lots and was a mixture of townhomes and single-
family. The market research we did we decided to build more single family detached and less
townhomes. In the variance request, it said it is to the southern property line. It is not to the
southern property line, we bought all of it. We are looking for the buffer between the zoning line;
between the AG -1 and the MIX. This site plan has been approved by council twice and the
community three times. We bought this property, we have done market research, we started the
LDP process in August and were told in January that we needed this variance. I will now leave
time for the doctor to speak.
City Clerk Gordon
There are 46 seconds left.
Robert Licata, 150 Spring Drive, Roswell, GA 30075
I am a general pediatrician. I have practiced for 32 years. I have two offices; one in East Cobb
and one in Johns Creek. We see about 20,000 to 25,000 patient visits per year. We have seven
physicians total. We have many patients who travel to these two offices from Milton. Prior to
entertaining the thought of opening a third office in this project, I asked many of our patients who
have moved to and live in Milton and they are thrilled at the possibility of having access to a
pediatric office in Milton. In addition, my son is in his first year of residency for pediatrics and
Milton is where he and his wife want to live so this would be the perfect office location for him.
The council voted unanimously to extend four more minutes to both support and opposition (see
above Motion and Vote)
Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004
Good evening council. Tonight, I am asking you to fulfill your duties to citizens. I am asking you
to honor your oath of office to uphold the laws of Milton. Tonight's applicant is requesting that
you break the laws of Milton. Once again, a developer is coming to council asking that the rules
be broken so he can increase his profits. Once again, a developer has not done his due diligence _ _
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 35 of 60
before buying a property and is now coming to council to fix his mistakes. The developer increases
his profits and citizens pay the cost. The developer's only argument is that both Fulton County
and Milton approved the site plans that did not include the 75 foot buffer, however, he conveniently
neglected to mention that a condition of approval for the previous rezonings was that all applicable
zoning laws must be followed. In other words, our zoning laws supersede rezoning site plans. My
understanding is that the developer submitted a new site plan on Friday afternoon. Council, as you
know, late submission of documentation is an often used and dishonest tactic of developers.
Submitting a plan or other documentation at the last minute is unfair to our staff but, more
importantly, it is unfair to citizens. It is an abuse of our process. Submission of a plan so late, the
citizens do not have a reasonable opportunity to analyze the plan, denies citizens due process, and
is, therefore, unconstitutional according to both the state and U. S. Constitution. The developer
has owned this land for two years. He had plenty of time to submit a compliant plan well in
advance of this proceeding. Furthermore, the developer has threatened that he will cram 33
townhomes on this property if his variance is not approved. These actions demonstrate that the
developer is not acting in good faith. Dishonest tactics and threats should not be rewarded by
council. I would also remind council that staff has recommended denial and has done a good job
explaining why. I would further remind council about the purpose and process for variances.
According to the American Public Planning Association, variances are meant for minor
discrepancies. In this case, the developer is not addressing a minor discrepancy. The developer is
requesting a major deviation from our zoning laws. Laws that he should have consulted before
buying the property. Furthermore, the applicant is required to show undue hardship; that the
hardship is caused by some factor that the applicant did not cause, and approving the variance
would not create significant negative impacts on the surrounding area. In this case, the developer
does not remotely satisfy even one of these three criteria. The American Public Planning
Association states that buying a property without knowledge of zoning restrictions is not an undue
hardship. The APA further states that while consistency with adopted plans is sometimes a criteria
for variance approval, often it is not. This means that zoning laws generally supersede site plans.
I have often heard council site local control preferences as critical to its decision making. It is
clear that citizens that live near the Crossroads want denial of this variance. Unfortunately, Milton
has a long history of granting developers what they want only to leave citizens holding the bag.
Fortunately, we recently had an election that once again clarified the desires of citizens. The 2017
election confirmed citizen's sentiments as expressed in multiple city surveys, citizen petitions, and
the overwhelming passage of the greenspace bond. Citizens have been very clear that they want
our zoning laws upheld. This is not too much to ask of council. In fact, upholding our zoning
laws is your duty and obligation as our elected representatives. Please deny this request.
Tony Outeda, 325 Taylor Glen Drive, Milton, GA 30004
I live a little bit south of the crossroads so this development will impact me. I will let the others
get down in the weeds about this and I will follow-up on what Tim said. There was an election
and I think the citizens, the residents, the taxpayers of Milton made a statement. So, I don't know
when the next election is and I don't know which of you will be running for re-election but I am
going to suggest that your campaign starts tonight with this vote.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 36 of 60
Heather Creran, 325 Taylor Glen Drive, Milton, GA 30004
That is my husband and now I am going to get into the weeds. I am here tonight to speak as to
why this variance needs to be denied. I am stunned that an updated plan can be submitted one
business day before the council will vote on it. Everyone has to quickly react so I apologize that
my notes are all over the place. There are three reasons: (1) this is a very visible location. We live
just south of it and we drive by it several times a week. What happens in this location is very
impactful to the look and feel of Milton; (2) that side of the town is going to look more and more
like Crabapple, unfortunately, with the last issue you approved which you had to, Crabapple is
starting to look a lot worse too. It is a shame we are going to lose the greenspace on that corner
and instead have to look at more commercial space that is going to sit empty and certainly high
density housing which is completely out of character for that area of Milton as well as all the added
traffic that is going to make that intersection even more of a nightmare than it already is. With
respect to the owner, Milton is not a downsize community. This is not something we need. It is
something that we are stuck with because of what was approved a long time ago. But, what we
can do is prevent them from making a bad situation even worse; and (3) this is an extremely
important issue for this group and an important vote for this group. Citizens of Milton spoke very
loudly in the last election and as one of those citizens who were thrilled with the outcome, the
message I and the others intended to send is represent me. Represent the citizens of Milton who
want to keep this amazingly beautiful and unique look and feel of the community and stop
representing the developers. I think the tremendous staff heard that message and they
recommended that this be denied. And, I think you all heard us too and, therefore, you know the
message you are going to send with this vote is critically important. You need to unequivocally
set a new tone and demonstrate clearly to all developers that want to do projects here in Milton
that it is not business as usual. And, what was done in the past is not going to be tolerated or
approved. If you want to change the zoning, you need to clearly show how it is going to benefit
the citizens of Milton. This does not and I am asking you to deny it.
City Clerk Gordon
There is 5:52 left on the clock.
Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, GA 30004
Before the clock starts, I would ask as a point of order, I know there are other speakers who would
like to speak, and given the magnitude of this, I would ask that if we get close on time that there
would be consideration of additional time recognizing that the applicant would also get equal time
but I certainly do not want to take the time away from the others who are here this evening and
have taken time out of their busy lives to be here. Another thing before my time starts, is that I
provided a letter and I have asked that it be spread onto the minutes of tonight's meeting. The
variances before you tonight are in direct conflict with the Birmingham Masterplan, the Milton
Overlay, the original zoning, and the zoning modifications that have already been sought.
Court Reporter
You need to slow down.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 37 of 60 -
Julie Zahner Bailey
As a matter of order, I will ask again from a timing perspective, I am feeling under pressure because
of the time and this is probably a 15 year in the coming issue for our community and I ask that we
be given adequate time to address our concerns. I am not sure why I am being asked to slow down.
I am trying to be considerate of the time constraint that has been placed on the citizens this evening
so I will ask for your consideration.
Mayor Lockwood
Continue, Mrs. Bailey.
City Clerk Gordon
Are we going to...
Mayor Lockwood
When we run out of time, we can address that.
Julie Zahner Bailey
So, as a matter of record, am I being officially asked to slow my pace?
City Attorney Jarrard
No, Mr. Mayor, the speaker needs to speak at the pace with which the speaker would like to speak.
Mayor Lockwood
Correct, this is all being videotaped.
Julie Zahner Bailey
And the clock is still ticking. I would ask that the clock be added back to the disruption that was
provided.
Mayor Lockwood
If we can take 30 seconds off the clock for now and then we will continue on when we run out of
time.
Julie Zahner Bailey
It is highly unusual that would be requesting in the middle of my comments to be asked by an
outside entity.
Mayor Lockwood
We are going to remove 30 seconds from the clock and continue on.
_ Julie Zahner Bailey
These variances are in direct conflict with the Birmingham Master Plan, the Milton Overlay, the
original zoning and the zoning modifications that have already been sought. I am requesting
denial of these concurrent variances and the zoning modification. These concurrent variances
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 38 of 60
would allow more density and visibility than what could be accomplished otherwise. No public
good has been demonstrated. These variances should be denied. There is no hardship. The
Southeast quadrant of the Birmingham Crossroads can be developed according to the
Birmingham Master Plan, the Milton Overlay and the zoning's approved to date. Please require
all applicants to stick to the plan and deny these variance requests this evening. The City of
Milton staff is recommending denial and delineates well all the reasons to deny this zoning
modification and the concurrent variances. These zoning modifications and concurrent
variances serve no purpose other than to allow more density than would otherwise be allowed. I
take issue with Mr. Doug Dillard's comment that it doesn't change the density; indeed it does.
When you remove 75 feet of undisturbed buffer and 10 feet of improved setback, it absolutely
changes the density that would otherwise be developed. Many citizens and many years went
into the Birmingham Crossroads, the Milton Overlay and the underlying zonings. The
conditions of those plans are very clear. Undisturbed buffers, setbacks, specific greenspace
placed in a conservation trust for perpetuity -- and many other design details -- were always the
intent for the Birmingham Crossroads; nothing has changed. This zoning modification and
concurrent variances must be denied. The fact that the applicant has submitted a revised site
plan at the 11 th hour, which is outside the boundaries of due process, changed nothing other than
the fact that the latest site plan should not be considered tonight. Regardless, however, even the
revised conceptual site plan still does not meet the requirements of the Birmingham Masterplan,
the Milton Overlay or the zonings or zoning modifications. The site plan upon which the staff's
analysis was conducted as well as this most recent site plan both asks for required undisturbed
buffers to be removed to the tune of 85 feet. The removal of these buffers in both the original
site plan and the site plan submitted as recently as Friday, is in direct conflict with the
Birmingham Crossroads Masterplan, the Milton Overlay, and the approved zonings of the zoning
modifications. Any conceptual plans are required to meet the standards and laws that apply to
those parcels. This holds true here as well. The buffers are intended to appropriately transition
from higher density back to the AG -I zoned land, regardless of who owns it. The removal of
these buffers serve no public good and only serve to increase the density of this applicant. This
is wrong on all levels. Staffs analysis provides the following critical information that so clearly
supports nothing other than denial on both the site plan submitted earlier and the one which was
just submitted on Friday. The minutes from the November 3, 2004 Board of Commissioner's
meeting clearly state the buffers to the south of the development shall remain intact. These
buffers were always intended to remain in place and to allow for an appropriate transition from
the higher density within the quadrant to the agriculturally zoned land. They were also always
intended to prevent more density than what was intended from being built. This area was always
intended to be contained. Furthermore, the conditions of zoning stipulate the following in
Condition 2.a.: "Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of
the Zoning Resolution and these conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit."
Therefore, the zoning ordinance (previously referred to as the zoning resolution in Fulton
County) requirements must be met unless a concurrent variance is granted and there is no basis
for anything other than denial of the zoning modification or the concurrent variances. A variance
must be based upon credible evidence submitted at a public hearing compliance with 1 through
4 as stated in staff's analysis. (1) It is Staff s opinion that if the requested deletion of the buffer
and improvement setback should not be approved because it would offend the intent of the
zoning ordinance to provide an adequate buffer between non-residential uses and single family
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 39 of 60
uses or property zoned AG -1. (2) The required 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot
improvement setback does not create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography
or other extraordinary and exceptional situations based on the fact that the site can still be
developed with a mix of uses including commercial, office and residential. (3) The reduction of
the buffer and improvement setback would not provide the necessary transition from the MIX
(Mixed Use) development to the AG -1 single family homes to the south. (4) The applicant has
not provided sufficient evidence that the public safety, health and welfare are secured and that
substantial justice was done. These are all clear and very legal and well-grounded reasons to
deny these variances. Based on the discussions tonight, it has come to our attention that the
variance tied to the greenspace has been withdrawn I, therefore, will not enumerate the reasons
that too should not have been allowed.
City Clerk Gordon
Respectfully, 14 minutes has elapsed for the opposition.
The council voted unanimously to extend four more minutes to both support and opposition (see
above Motion and Vote)
Julie Zahner Bailey
As you all know, what happens at this corner is critical to the long-term look, feel and viability of
the most rural area of the City of Milton. This zoning modification and concurrent variances must
be denied. There is every legal reason present to deny this request for zoning modification for the
variance to reduce the required 75 foot undisturbed buffer and the 10 foot improvement setback.
There has always been a requirement for the Birmingham Crossroads and zoning modifications to
include this buffer and setback. It has always been understood and made clear that conceptual site
plans are just that; conceptual. And, again, the zoning ordinance previously referred to as the
zoning resolution requires that everything must be met unless a concurrent variance is granted.
Please deny this zoning modification and concurrent variances. There is no hardship. There is no
reason that this applicant should not have to meet the requirements of our zoning laws, overlays,
and masterplans. I appreciate your service. Thank you.
Joe Whitley, 1250 Birmingham Road, Milton, GA 30004
I am a lawyer but I am not going to speak to you as a lawyer tonight but will speak to you as a
Milton citizen. I just wanted to add to this equation, my perspective on this as a business owner,
at the southwest corner, and Curtis Mills is also a business property owner but could not be here
tonight, but he is also in opposition to this re -zoning at this particular corner. This has been plowed
ground. It has been plowed over many times by this council and the Fulton County Commission.
I have looked at this many times and standing our ground and drawing a line in the sand is a good
thing because you are going to have more of these hearings if you don't draw a clear line in the
sand that this particular Birmingham Overlay, Milton Overlay masterplan is something that you
are going to stand by. It is important to send a clear message tonight and I would ask you to do
that. When I travel down Birmingham Road to Hickory Flat and I see an example of sprawl over
there in Cherokee County, I do not think that is what we want. One of the things intended by the
85 foot buffer is to prevent that from happening. If you can have residential areas near commercial
areas, that is a good thing. And, I think those residential areas are contemplated in this city with
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 40 of 60
one acre lots with one house and we have moved away from that at some point. But, what is
contemplated here is consistent with that. Also, factors that have not been mentioned but maybe
touched on here tonight is the overwhelming traffic in this area already that has to be addressed at
some point by the city. I thought at some point there was going to be a roundabout at that corner
and I don't know how this particular setting is going to change that. I don't know, geographically,
how much space is going to be needed for that but I know as an owner of property at that corner,
I want to be able to get to my property and at certain times of the day, you cannot get there. I also
want to mention sewer and septic which is something the council should consider. I don't know
how the existing sewer system can accomplish the growth that is contemplated. Even at the lower
level that Mr. Dillard alluded to in his comments. In closing, I would like the council to consider
denial. I don't think denial means the end of things. I think it means the beginning of a process.
And, certainly Mr. Dillard and his client are capable of engaging in that process with the planning
board and city staff. I commend the city staff for the work they have done here. I ask the council
to support their recommendation of denial.
City Clerk Gordon
There as a card that came in late and I need to ask if we can accept this for public speaking. It is
in opposition and came in after the item was called.
Mayor Lockwood
Is the council okay with allowing this individual to speak? There is a little bit of time left for the
opposition.
City Clerk Gordon
12 seconds.
City Attorney Jarrard
Mr. Mayor, for my own edification, I want to confirm that we had the original 10 minutes, then
we added four minutes then another four minutes; so 18 minutes total for both sides.
Mayor Lockwood
Yes, correct. I am willing to make a motion to add two more minutes for both sides.
The council voted unanimously to extend two more minutes to both support and opposition (see
above Motion and Vote)
Carolyn Lauterbach, 649 Citation Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004
In looking at the time, I can say everything I want to say, basically, ditto what all these folks said.
And, the fact that the new site plan came in late, does not give us any time. Please deny this.
City Attorney Jarrard
City Clerk, how much time is left for each side?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 41 of 60
City Clerk Gordon
There was a total of 20 minutes for each side and they have each used 14 minutes so each side has
6 minutes left. I have emails that were sent to the elected officials and I would like to read the
name, address, and position.
Mayor Lockwood
Let's read those after public comment.
Tad Braswell
I want to hit on just a few comments. The buffer on a typical development may cause density to
go down but if you look at the conditions of this zoning, there are no minimum lot sizes or home
sizes; there is no minimum, so we can reduce our lot sizes to what we need to make the remaining
property work. With the conceptual site plan that we have, we can fit the 33 townhomes if that is
what the council desires. We cannot make the connection through the two. This was always
looked at as being one mixed use development with AG -1 connected to the MIX. If I have a 75
undisturbed buffer through there, I cannot make that connection. So, I have to make another curb
cut so we would go back to the approved site plan of 2004 for the AG -1 property. It has its own
site plan that was approved by Fulton County so we would go back to that site plan. We would
have to revise our conceptual site plan. I agree that the site plan is conceptual and we can make
modifications to that to meet the zoning condition and all the ordinances if that is what you desire.
Our site plan meets the minimum greenspace requirement and the 75 foot buffer is not a gorgeous
greenspace; it is shrubby trees, etc. However, if that is your desire, then we can save it and work
around it. Mrs. Bailey said that the original zoning always intended the buffer to be there. I wish
she had said something about it in 2014 and 2015 before we bought the property. If it was always
supposed to be there, then why didn't anyone in the community mention it at that time? If it was
a big part of the original zoning, someone should have said something about it then. If it was a
big part of it in 2014 and something they were expecting to see, it seems like someone would have
said something about it then and saved us a whole lot of time and effort. About the sewer, there
is sewer capacity for us at the Publix plant which we paid for when we bought the property.
Doug Dillard
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate your patience to say the least. Point of order, Mrs. Bailey
spoke from a prepared text. Did she file that with you?
City Clerk Gordon
What document?
Doug Dillard
A prepared text.
City Clerk Gordon
A prepared text? She gave me an email to put into the record.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 42 of 60
Doug Dillard
Is your letter in the record, Julie?
Julie Zahner Bailey
Hi Mr. Dillard. Nice to see you, sir.
Doug Dillard
Always a pleasure, Julie.
Julie Zahner Bailey
Always a pleasure. It is my pleasure to respond to the question that I submitted a letter. The same
letter that I sent to Mayor and Council and Staff and the City Manager. It is the same letter that
has been received and I am happy to provide that same copy to Mr. Dillard.
Doug Dillard
I want what you spoke from tonight.
Julie Zahner Bailey
Those are my personal notes. I did not provide that so I will not be providing you my personal
notes.
Doug Dillard
Well, my court reporter had a hard time taking it down.
City Attorney Jarrard
Mr. Mayor, we cannot negotiate that but this meeting is videotaped and it will all be on recorded
videotape.
Mayor Lockwood
I agree with that. You can definitely go back and review the tape.
Doug Dillard
Hopefully, we won't have any trouble doing that. Let me just say in response, we realize that this
issue has been before you and the Fulton County Board of Commissioners for a long time. We
also realize that relative to the standards that you have to look at relative to the hardship and those
other criteria that you see in your variance code, it is difficult for this applicant to meet those
standards. However, what is not difficult for this applicant to meet, is the constitutional right that
he has to use this property based on its current zoning and whether or not that is reasonable or not.
And, the thing that we cannot rely on is that from Robyn and staff, we got a letter confirming that
the plan was in conformance but we cannot rely on that, even though we spent over $2 million
buying this property on a letter from Mrs. MacDonald that was wrong. Now, I have to ask you
and Ken is more than qualified to tell you what the law is, but there is a time when equity has to
step in. There is a time when you have to do what is right for the property owner. There is a time
when you have to try to balance the rights of the individual against the public purpose that you are
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 43 of 60
all elected to protect. We are asking for two things: (1) that this site plan that we filed be adopted
and, (2) the 75 foot buffer be eliminated. We can develop this property without the variances. It
is not going to be pretty. But, we have a zoning that you cannot take away from us at this point.
You could file a petition to do so. But, what I am suggesting to you is that we are here in a spirit
of compromise. We are here in a spirit of trying to work it out. This neighborhood since 2004 has
been very much involved in the zoning of this property. In 2004, 2014, and 2015 when Tad came
in here to try to change the commercial, which was denied. After that, he still got confirmation
from you that what he wanted to do was okay. He files the application for LDP and the LDP is
approved and then he gets a call saying it is not good. And, now he has to go through this and
after $2 million of expense; and to have this property not modified, not changed to some great
different type of land use but slightly modified.
City Clerk Gordon
The extra 4 minutes has elapsed.
Mayor Lockwood
Thank you. It will still be open for questions from council if they have any. There are two minutes
left for rebuttal for those in opposition.
City Attorney Jarrard
That is based on the two minutes you added at the end.
Mayor Lockwood
It looks like Mr. Whitley may have a comment.
Joe Whitley
Thank you. I appreciate your attention to this. The site plan is only conceptual and the council
knows that and it is something that can be adjusted. I have absolute support from Mr. Dillard and
the property owner. Their presentation tonight has been very impressive but has not been accurate
or consistent with what the law is and that is what you should be considering with this re -zoning
and variance. Having done a little bit of real estate law earlier in my career, there is something
called "buyer beware" which is something that Mr. Dillard is very aware of. When someone buys
a piece of property, they assume the risk that the property may have problems. Assuming there
are problems, I am not saying there are, but that is something that is the responsibility of the
purchaser. I would also say, let's not threaten litigation in this situation which is implicit in some
of what I have heard tonight. Let's make this work. I think there is an opportunity for the city
staff to meet again with this developer and talk about other opportunities but in this particular
situation, I ask the council to deny this rezoning application. You have heard from Julie Bailey
and Tim Becker who have made more precise arguments and laid out the case for you tonight. I
encourage you to be open-minded to the developer's request, but at the same time I request that
you see this as an opportunity to continue the good growth, smart growth that we need in our city.
This is an opportunity to do that here tonight and continue that so I suggest you vote against this
request for change of zoning and the variances. Again, I do not think there are any threats that
were delivered here tonight but, certainly, I support growth at that corner. I think it would be good
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 44 of 60
for all the properties but not in the fashion this applicant is seeking. Also, I have a letter that was
sent to the Mayor and Council and I will submit that for the record.
Mayor Lockwood
If there is not anymore public comment then I will close the public hearing. Sudie, would you
please read the emails indicating name, address and position that were received.
City Clerk Gordon
All of these emails are in opposition and were sent to the elected officials:
Kim Horne, address was not given.
Debbie Beauchamp, 500 Hickory Mill Lane, Milton, GA 30004
Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, GA 30004
Jeff and Maureen Cook, 1660 Birmingham Road, Milton, GA 30004
Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Milton, GA 30004
Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, GA 30004
LeVar Fraiser, address was not given
Joe Whitley, 1250 Birmingham Road, Milton, GA 30004
Mayor Lockwood
Are there any questions from council for staff?
Councilmember Longoria —
Kathy, there has been a lot of talk and there has been a lot of information related to this and there
are a lot of dates and this is one of those things that goes back a very long way. The whole story
seems to start in 2004. But, the first question I have for you is, how close to the actual meeting is
an applicant allowed to submit changes to a drawing that we are going to discuss at that meeting?
Kathy Field
Robyn and I have talked about that very circumstance earlier today and Robyn, could you please
respond because you have the institutional memory about how often this happens.
Robyn MacDonald
It is not untypical for a revised site plan to come in. I think the rules say that you cannot bring
something during the meeting but as far as prior to the meeting, we do not have any particular rules
or regulations to that fact. And, it is not uncommon for when we are in the throes of doing
rezonings, or if we have not done a lot of them or revised site plans, it is not uncommon that the
applicant would bring a revision based on further discussions with staff.
Councilmember Longoria
There are material revisions and then there are immaterial revisions, correct? If we were just
updating some stuff to make sure that it was 100% accurate, doting is crossing is that kind of
stuff, I am not worried about that. Did we get an updated submission on Friday or recently on
this?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 45 of 60
Robyn MacDonald
Correct, the revision was emailed to us on Friday.
Councilmember Longoria
Is that what we got in our packet?
Robyn MacDonald
No, because the packet went out in the middle of the week. Mrs. Field's presentation was based
on the revised site plan.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, thanks.
Mayor Lockwood
I would like to address that too because that does happen sometimes and I would say in the spirit
and this is not from support of one side or the other, sometimes we do see, I guess the spirit would
be is this improving the application or not and if there is a lot of push back from the community
and council on let's say, density, and they submit something that is more favorable than what the
community and council wants, I would welcome that more than if someone submitted something
late that was adding density.
City Attorney Jarrard
On a lot of these issues, the jurisdictions grabble with this notion of late submissions. I have seen
different governments do it different ways. I have even seen governments modify their zoning
codes to put hard stops such as; shall not supply any additional information seven days before a
council meeting. Then, of course, it invariably backfires because something good would have
been worked out within that seven day period but they won't go through with it because it builds
in an automatic delay if they do. I am suggesting to you that there is not necessarily a right or
wrong answer. I will tell you that if something was submitted your staff and they believe that it is
inconsistent or a substantive modification or inconsistent with what they received before, every
expectation I would have would be that it would be met with a request by staff for a deferral of
this while they could get a hold of that concept plan and make sure it is consistent. That has been
my experience.
Councilmember Longoria
I am concerned about a couple of things. I am not as worried about me because I can respond and
we can listen to what is presented. I have more concerns about citizens who are preparing specific
comments and opinions about what was submitted and they do not have access to the updates that
we have. So, it is a challenge. I don't like the idea that we are letting that happen. But, I appreciate
that answer. The second thing is that there is quite a bit of confusion on the number of units that
are actually allowed on any one of these plans. And, I know we approved a revised plan in 2014
so I don't know why the 2004 plan is even mentioned because if we revised it in 2014, that is the
one we should be talking about it. It doesn't matter what was in 2004. Let's talk about what was
in 2014. How many units can be built on this property that is considered residential?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 46 of 60
City Manager Krokoff
Councilmember Longoria, you are correct. The 2014 site plan is the one that will be applicable.
It will also be the one that is subject to condition 2(a).
Councilmember Longoria
I heard 44 and that is what I am trying to figure out.
Robyn MacDonald
So, you have it in front of you. We are going to just look at zoning modification 14-03 in the MIX
area site plan. And, so I guess you can't just throw out the 2004 site plan because that is the basis
of what was approved. It was approved for 33 townhomes with no single-family in the MIX area.
Then in zoning modification 14-03 which was the major change to the site plan, the applicant
submitted a site plan with 6 townhomes and 19 single-family per site which is a total of 25 in the
MIX area. In the 14-06, they deleted the package plant and common area, it still remained the
same in the MIX area, 6 townhomes and 19 single-family per site plan. The latest version that was
submitted on Friday, they are asking for a total of 24 single-family. Previous to that, the first
submission for zoning modification 18-01 had 6 townhomes and 19 single-family so I think they
have lost one unit net. And, I also want people to know about the AG -1. The original site plan in
2004 showed 11, there were no conditions because it was AG -1 minimum one acre lots per the
zoning classification of AG -l. Zoning modification 14-03 showed 9 of the AG -1 lots. Again, the
second one in 2014 showed 9 and finally, this most recent one did not change between the two site
plans of ZM18-01, it is 10.
Mayor Lockwood
And, to further that question based on what was submitted Friday, was it one unit less?
Robyn MacDonald
Correct, an overall net of one less. Yes, on the MIX. And, there was always 10 in the AG -1 from
the February 12, 2018 site plan as well as the March 16, 2018 site plan.
Mayor Lockwood
Assuming the applicant started from scratch, what by -right number of units could he put cin this
property?
Robyn MacDonald
The basis is 2004 so it would be 33 because we are saying that the zoning modification in 2014
cannot be developed in such a way because there is not a buffer so I will defer to Ken as far as
what would be permitted by right.
City Attorney Jarrard
Well, what I can tell you is that if we approved a site plan in 2014, I assume that the yield on the
site plan to include the buffer is what they can build. Now, to ask what can go on a conceptual
site plan and what can actually be built is almost impossible to do at this meeting. But, just looking
at the piece of paper in front of me which is the same thing that the gallery is looking at, ZM14- _
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 47 of 60
06 site plan to include all the buffering requirements that have been the subject to the debate this
evening.
Councilmember Longoria
The other thing I was going to ask, Robyn, just in case there is a chance you might remember the
discussion that we had in 2014. 1 remember discussing this a couple of times. The most important
part of that memory is the denial we gave when they wanted to eliminate the commercial
component of this all together. And, so, I do remember that piece. I remember all of us arguing
about what needed to be added and what needed to be taken away from a residential point of view.
I don't remember ever really talking about the buffer piece of it.
Robyn MacDonald
It was not discussed.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, so we really didn't talk about that.
Mayor Lockwood
And, that is where I struggle. I have listened to everyone who has spoken tonight. The buffer
thing, and we have spoken legally, as Ken and I talk, there is a technical answer and a practical
answer. The practical answer is that when you come before council and it gets approved, everyone
is aware of it and the buffer is not shown in there. And, we have talked about the legal and technical
side so that is what is making this a tough decision based on what was approved by the city,
assumed, and moved forward. I am not placing any blame on anybody for that.
Councilmember Bentley
I just want to quickly agree with Councilmember Longoria. I have a problem with late submissions
of site plans. I feel like it diminishes our public participation process. Folks come out and
participate in that. I would like to confirm with staff that in the conditions of zoning, the statement
is in there that states, "the said site plan is conceptual only." That is stated in the conditions that
this site plan was submitted under.
Kathy Field
Yes, we always put that condition in.
Councilmember Bentley
So, it is there and so that site plan is required to meet those standards of the Rural Milton Overlay
District.
Kathy Field
Yes, all conditions; all overlays.
Councilmember Bentley
Thus, the request for a variance to not adhere to that law.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 48 of 60
Kathy Field
Correct.
Mayor Lockwood
Does anybody else have any more questions for staff?
Councilmember Kunz
From the 2004 approval by Fulton County, I am asking this question because if this is denied what
will happen so we are all clear on that, so in 2004 it was approved for 33 townhomes yet our
current overlay requires MIX use, correct? So, we are not at risk of 33 townhomes from the 2004
site plan?
City Attorney Jarrard
Councilmember Kunz, I am not sure that the 2004 site plan, from my perspective and it may not
be from staff's perspective, from my perspective it is interesting from an informational standpoint
only.
Councilmember Kunz
But, that is it.
City Attorney Jarrard
But, that site plan has been repealed, nullified by subsequent council action. That goes back to the
question that I tried to address earlier which was what can be built there. Irrespective of whether
a buffer was shown on that site plan or not, that buffer continues to exist. Otherwise, a mistake
can negate the ordinances and rules of the city, which it cannot do. So, it would be whatever is in
that approved site plan to include the buffer.
Mayor Lockwood
So, to clarify that, if you base it on that, the applicant would have to go back and rearrange the lots
and locations and whatnot; whether there are townhomes or single-family homes or whatever.
City Attorney Jarrard
Yes, with a buffer, the applicant would have to do exactly that.
City Manager Krokoff
I would like to clarify something for Councilmember Kunz. I believe we have an error in the
section where it states, "to request to modify 2004-116." I believe in the July 2014 meeting, under
Section 2(a) we adopted a new site plan and as a result of that zoning modification. That is the
question that Councilmember Kunz is asking. Can you confirm, from a staff perspective, that in
2014 at the July 21st meeting that the site plan dated June 17, 2014 that was in fact adopted at that
time as a zoning modification? And, if that is the case, that is going to be the site plan that
determines what can be built at this point. I don't want to confuse that with 2004.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 49 of 60
Mayor Lockwood
Could you clarify that for me? So, what you are saying is that the 2014 site plan that was approved
that is what could be applicable but it did not include the buffer?
City Manager Krokoff
That is entirely correct, if in fact, in 2014 the new site plan was approved. It is all correct going
back to 2004 when the buffer wasn't on there but that, of course, has to conform to zoning.
However, when we are talking about what could happen if this is not approved tonight, it doesn't
mean it goes back to the 2004 site plan; it goes back to what was adopted in 2014 at the July
meeting. I just want to make sure that the June 17, 2014 site plan was adopted at the July 21, 2014
meeting because that is what is in all the history that I have seen. I was not here at that time and
before we mislead you, I want to make sure we are giving you correct information.
Councilmember Mohrig
Along that same line, what I remember in 2014, because that was a long meeting also, we went
through the basis between the two different 2014 plans was the request to eliminate the commercial
along the front to put in more residential and we came back with the answer, "no, we have limited
commercial and we are going to keep that commercial." And, I think what we adopted and
approved was the site plan of a total of 28 single family; 9 in the AG -1, if you look at what Robyn
showed and then 19 single-family detached that were in the MIX and an additional 6 towr4iomes
in MIX. So, that is the plan that we approved right now and if anyone wanted to change that, they
would have to go back to staff and because this is not a minor plat; minor subdivision, it would
come back before council for us to have to approve it. It would not be anything that would
automatically; they could not go back and say, "I want 33 townhomes" and they get it because one
time it was set up that way. Kathy would bring forward the revised site plan, if one was submitted,
and that would come before council again for us to review and hear your recommendations and as
it stands, the last thing we have is what we have approved. So, what is approved to build on for a
site plan right now is 6 townhomes, 19 single-family in the MIX, and 9 in the AG -1. Is that correct?
City Manager Krokoff
If that was the site plan that was allegedly adopted in the July meeting in 2014 that would be
correct. It is site specific zoning and that is exactly how it would be handled. Please jump in if I
am mistaken. I am hoping we are getting that answer as we speak.
Mayor Lockwood
To simplify, I think what we are asking is if the July 2014, if let's say, in August or September of
2014, if they started construction, what could they have built? Is that the question we are asking?
Robyn MacDonald
Let me separate something; the commercial denial was actually in the beginning of 2016. So, I
want to make sure that you understand that was not a part of what was done. There were two
zoning modifications that were done and the significant one was approved by you on June 16,
2014 and it was based upon a revised site plan that was submitted on June 9, 2014. I have that site
plan here as well as all of the zoning conditions.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 50 of 60
Councilmember Longoria
So, this concept of a site plan being conceptual cuts both ways, right? It is conceptual because it
has to abide by all the other rules that exist in the city of Milton. The picture cannot become the
law; the law is the law and the picture has to conform to the law. At the same time, just because
we drew 9 townhomes and 2 regular homes on there and we said that we were going to allow them
6 plus 19 plus 9 or whatever the number is ... just because it is not in the drawing that doesn't mean
anything either. That is what they get. So, I want to make sure because now I have heard two
different things. It is 6 townhomes, 19 single-family, and then .......I wasn't paying attention and
I missed that part. I apologize. I thought the AG -1 residential line was some kind of a reference
to what else could go on the property for AG -1.
Councilmember Kunz
And, Joe, if you will ask the question another way because I am getting to the crux of the matter
here as well. The real question that everyone is asking is with the buffers where they are, are the
townhomes then going to be eliminated; will they not be able to build them according to the
existing law. So, if we deny this, we go back to 2014 and you basically strike out the 6 townhomes
and he is left with 19 single-family and then 9 AG -1. That is the question.
Robyn MacDonald
I have the first what was approved zoning modification conditions but I would like to give you a
little bit of history of how we have dealt with modifications; whether it is the right way or the
wrong way. We are very conservative with our site plans with our zoning modifications because
I think that was from the beginning of the inception of our city, which I have been here since the
beginning, is that we want to make sure that everything; that the community can see what is
happening; transparent. So, we are very conservative on our modifications probably maybe a little
too conservative because, like you said, it slices both ways; we say it is conceptual but when a
developer comes and swaps out units even though it is allowed, we say, "hey, we want to make
sure the community knows what is going on." So, I think we tend to go for the conservative side
of that double-edged sword. With that said, this is what you approved in June 2014. So, the
condition 1(c) was amended from the 2004 because originally it said no more than 33 townhomes
on 6.63 acres. And, then we amended it, or you approved it to say 33 townhomes and/or single
family dwelling units to give the flexibility so it did not have to be townhomes. So, if you ask the
question, "can it be 33 townhomes?" from what I understand, Mr. Jarrard, it looks like they could
do all 33 townhomes if they could physically fit it on.
City Manager Krokoff
I am going to jump in. If you go to the second zoning modification in 2014, and I am going to ask
Ken how this applies, so in the second modification, condition 2(a) changed this to the revised site
plan dated June 17, 2014. I don't believe that site plan indicated 33 townhome units. What would
determine the number of units that could be applied? I was under the impression that it was zone
specific to the site plan and, therefore, whatever was on the June 17, 2014 site plan would be the
controlling number. Not 33 from the condition 1(c) from the previous site plan. Do you
understand my question?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 51 of 60
City Attorney Jarrard
I do.
Robyn MacDonald
So, what was approved on the second ZM14-06 I can put on the screen. So, this is the second one
in 2004. So, it takes away a portion of 1(d).... the community park and community septic system
in the area that is AG -1. And, then the site plan was revised which is identical to the site plan that
was approved the month before.
City Manager Krokoff
So, my question is, doesn't that become the controlling site plan for the number of units that can
be developed on the site?
City Attorney Jarrard
It becomes the controlling site plan but the condition that Mrs. McDonald referenced above, the
33 townhomes, hasn't gone away either so, candidly, I am going to have to rely on staff to how
they would interpret the site plans if there is a difference between the two. The way I would
ordinarily read that is it is a site plan specific zoning condition; is the way it appears, "to the
owner's agreement to abide by the following: to the revised site plan dated etc. etc. but I am
concerned about the condition, "no more than 33 townhomes and/or single-family." That almost
goes to Councilmember Longoria's point about the conceptual nature of the site plan cutting both
ways so it might be helpful to get this nailed down this evening if it is going to be the basis for the
council's action.
Councilmember Mohrig
This comes back in my mind for us to understand. I thought when we have a zoning, but then we
have a site plan. The site plan is submitted to staff, staff reviews it, then staff brings that back to
council. If it is three or less and you approve it then it does not have to come before council. A
minor plat does not have to come before council but it would be in the Consent Agenda.
City Manager Krokoff
This is a zoning modification.
Robyn MacDonald
It is not a preliminary plat.
Councilmember Mohrig
I understand that. My question is that if this was denied because we are talking about denial or
approval or some change but if it was denied, does it not go back from a zoning standpoint and
from a site plan back to what has already been approved by council in 2014. If that wanted to be
changed, if the applicant wanted to change it, they could come forward and submit once again to
staff and say, "We have changed our mind, this is what we want to do." But, once again, if it is a
number like this, it is going to come back to council for us to approve whatever that site plan is.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 52 of 60
But, as of right now, it is the 2014 site plan the numbers we have seen; isn't that we are lookin"
at?
City Attorney Jarrard
The issue I am grabbling with is that I am assuming that June 2014, maybe June 17`h concept plan
may have showed a mix of some townhomes and a mix of some single-family detached. Let's
assume that's what it shows for just a moment. But, then I have a zoning condition and the zoning
stili identifies 33 townhomes. So, the question is, if you are trying to reconcile a zoning condition
that shows 33 townhomes by a site plan that is conceptual that shows a mix of single-family
detached and townhomes, how would that be interpreted by staff? Does everyone understand the
hypothetical I am setting? It may not be hypothetical at all.
City Manager Krokoff
It sounds to me like it should have been stricken at the time when that was done in 2014. At that
point, shouldn't that have been red -lined?
City Attorney Jarrard
Well, it would have been to take out the 33 townhomes and reduce that dramatically to make it
more of a mix of townhomes and single-family.
Councilmember Kunz
Could you please repeat what you just said?
City Attorney Jarrard
What I am grabbling with is that if you have a 2014 site plan that is apparently very important to
the council in 2014 that shows a mix of some townhomes but also single-family detached, that is
probably what the council thought they were voting on and perhaps even the configuration. But,
you still have a zoning condition that states 33 townhomes and so I am suggesting to you that there
might be a divergence between the zoning conditions and the site plan and I want to get to the
bottom of that so you can make the best decision you can make.
Councilmember Jamison
That was two separate meetings?
Robyn MacDonald
Yes, that is correct.
Councilmember Jamison
You had two separate meetings and the first one had the 33 townhomes...
Robyn MacDonald
And/or single family.
Councilmember Jamison
And, the more recent meeting just had the site plan, it didn't even mention the townhomes, correct?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 53 of 60
Robyn MacDonald
So, the first meeting, and I don't know if this makes any difference, but the first meeting in June,
ZM14-03 with a site plan of June 9, 2014 and (c) states no more than 33 townhomes and/or single
family dwelling units. I think the intent that the applicant wanted was the flexibility to do what
they needed to do on that site plan. And, then the next zoning modification that was before you in
July that was only 8 days later, the site plan dated June 17, 2014, and only 1(d) was amended so
that was not 1(c) that was amended a month before.
Mayor Lockwood
I would like to step in for a minute; everyone hold their thoughts. For our audience with different
thoughts and positions, as you can see our staff and council, we are really digging into this and
grabbling with it so I appreciate your time and patience. We are trying to dig in as hard as we can
to figure it out. I realize you may have gone into this with one position but you can see how
convoluted it is. So, if everyone will just bear with us as we continue to discuss this and research
it.
Councilmember Hewitt
Convoluted is probably an understatement. Conceptual site plan, and I was leaning one way going
into this, I don't think we can use it; it is just a conceptual plan here but use it the other way. It is
not a conceptual plan here and we are going to use this number here. I am very concerned about
that. I don't think we can fit 33 townhomes on it because it didn't have the 85 foot buffer;
townhomes or single-family. But, I have a feeling that when we have a non -conceptual condition
of zoning, unfortunately, I think that may take precedence over a conceptual site plan as much as
that pains me to say that. I don't think they can fit 33 townhomes on it if they take into effect the
85 foot buffer.
Mayor Lockwood
Ken or staff, do you have any comment on that?
City Attorney Jarrard
I think that is the issue in play right now. Exactly that.
Mayor Lockwood
Clarify that. Are we talking that the condition is 33 townhomes; zoning wise, whether they can
actually fit those in or not. Or, the conceptual site plan June 2014 with less than that. Conceptual
plan but did not show a buffer.
City Attorney Jarrard
Right, again, I think the zoning conditions are going to be powerful. They say what they say;
however, I also think the site plan, I think exactly what the city council was probably focusing on,
the visual depiction of what they thought they would build out there. Candidly, Mr. Mayor, to the
extent that you want a final answer as to which one is absolutely going to control for purposes of
you making a decision, I think I want to campout with staff a little more and ask them some
questions about historical practices and get a little better understanding of the timeline of this to
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 54 of 60
be able to give you a definitive answer one way or another. I don't want you to make a decision
that you feel is not based on as good of information as you could have.
Mayor Lockwood
I do think that is important. When you talk about "campout" is that something you can do tonight
for a certain period of time or is that something that would require a deferral?
City Attorney Jarrard
I think it would require deferral because I need to talk to staff and look at some of the historical
files on this and ask some questions about how these sorts of discrepancies have been resolved
previously.
Councilmember Longoria
Just to be clear, if that is even possible at this point. If the applicant had submitted a drawing back
in 2014 that had one home on all of this acreage, and we said the site plan is conceptual only, the
goal would have been to go back to the language that was part of this to understand what could be
put there. So, if this is just a conceptual drawing and I want to update it, there has to be limits as
to how I can update it. The limits need to be called out in the language, correct?
City Attorney Jarrard
That would be a reasonable expectation, yes.
Councilmember Longoria
So, right now, what we are grabbling with is a disconnect between the language and the picture.
City Attorney Jarrard
It is a disconnect between which one will control.
City Manager Krokoff
Would it be safe to say, and I know the direction this is probably going, but would it be safe to say
when you are considering the intent of council, when considering that original zoning
modification, and obviously we are going to have to go through the minutes, but would it be safe
to say that the intent of council in approving those zoning modifications, would have been based
upon the conceptual plan. I know we are talking about it going both ways but, the purpose of the
wording that it has to abide by existing zoning, would be for the reason to be able to if there are
errors in the basic concept plan, i.e. the buffer; that would not preclude the city from holding them
responsible to it. I don't think it is intended to not hold the applicant responsible for whatever it
was that they agreed to. That is what was driving the council's decision to be able to determine
whether or not they were going to approve those zoning modifications.
City Attorney Jarrard
And, that may, in fact, drive the analysis on this but I will also tell you that the typical reason
between a concept plan and an engineered plan is the fact that one is engineered and one is not.
So, what we don't want to have is an approved zoning concept plan that a developer can come in
and say, "Well, you approved that line to be right there and it is not engineered and it is not
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 55 of 60
consistent with our plan." So, it does cut both ways but I agree that the intention of the council is
worthy of some thought.
Mayor Lockwood
I will make the statement that may not be popular but, at the time 2014, what the council supported
was the concept plan which did not show a buffer. So, in my mind, looking at the current
application, is this better than what was approved in 2014?
City Attorney Jarrard
Well, the buffer is a product of your code and so if the buffer was left off, that is exactly the reason
you see language that states that it is conceptual because things like that get missed but they are
not going to be missed in an engineered plan that is getting ready for an LDP. That is one of the
reasons why we focus on that so folks can't omit things and then bypass our rules because they
omitted them. That is fine and the way every jurisdiction does it but I am simply talking about
what I am grabbling with to make sure that I am answering you correctly regarding what is in a
stated condition versus a concept plan from four years ago.
Mayor Lockwood
To play devil's advocate on that, basically when council approved that plan, even though it was
not expressly stated, it is eliminating the buffer by default, or were we eliminating the buffer?
City Attorney Jarrard
You were not because I do not believe, unless there is some kind of bona fide advertised variance,
that you can do that inadvertently.
Councilmember Kunz
To understand the risk, the buffer will still be there, if it is denied, and he can still take the same
number of homes and figure it to our existing codes, with the same number and we are not really
sure what we will get if that is the case.
City Attorney Jarrard
That is the risk and that is obviously what is driving this discussion. The council is wanting to
know that if, hypothetically, if there is not support for this, what will you get. I suspect that is
what is driving the debate right now. So, if you do not know that answer, it is difficult to make a
decision.
Mayor Lockwood
My concern would be, does it go back to the drawing or do we get something that is less desirable
than this. That would be my concern.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, we have never had an LDP pulled with the final site plan. All we have had is a conceptual site
plan back in 2014 approved conceptual plan saying, "yes, this is what we would like to see." And,
in 2016 all we denied was the change of the conceptual plan where they wanted to eliminate the
commercial and put more housing.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 56 of 60
City Attorney Jarrard
But, I will say, the language in the condition is pretty clear, "to the owner's agreement to abide by
the revised site plan." So, I am going to have to talk to staff and give some serious consideration
to historically how that has been construed in the past. But, I do think it is intended as a
manifestation of the council's will and the developer's agreement to do those things. So, I want
to be very clear about that before I answer definitively. I want to speak to staff.
Councilmember Hewitt
As much as I hate kicking the can down the road, I think this is a prime example of something we
need to defer so we can try to make the best decision for both sides and for the city. I would like
to propose that we defer this until the May zoning meeting.
City Attorney Jarrard
I will defer to council as to when you want to defer it to but this will be a decision only. You do
not need to kick it that far if you don't want to. We can have this answer for you before then.
Councilmember Hewitt
I would like to make a motion to defer this item to the next regularly scheduled city council meeting
on April 9, 2018.
Mayor Lockwood
I don't typically like to defer something if we are just dragging it out. I have total respect for the
applicant and also the citizens but it sounds to be like we need more information to make a
decision.
Julie Zahner Bailey
I would like to make a point of order, if I may. You may not be aware that April 9t" is the first day
after spring break for the entire Fulton County and all of City of Milton citizens. April 9" might
not be convenient for citizens.
Councilmember Longoria
I would like to request that we have the 2014 site plan, however conceptual it is, in the materials
for us to review for that meeting because I think that would be helpful.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to DEFER Agenda Item No. 18-083 until the
April 23, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting. Councilmember Bentley seconded the motion. The
motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 57 of 60
Consideration of RZ18-02 — To amend Article XIX Crabapple Form Based Code to
amend Table 8A Building Function.
ORDINANCE NO. 18-03-344
(Agenda Item No. 18-084)
(First Presentation at March 5, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Discussed at March 12, 2018 City Council Work Session)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a proposed amendment that we just discussed at the work session
last week. The purpose of this text amendment is to amend the T-4 transect zone within the
Crabapple Form Based Code and specifically to amend Table 8A to allow additional office uses;
not just on the ground floor as currently written. It is staff's opinion that office should not be
limited to just the first floor with the other approved uses in the T-4 transect zone such as retail
and restaurants. Office uses will serve to provide suitable transitions of uses from residential to
commercial as well as promote a live, work, play downtown village in Crabapple. Staff requests
your consideration of this text amendment.
Councilmember Kunz
Is this for the office space we were talking about last week? So, it is for attorneys, CPA's, etc.,
not for retail?
Kathleen Field
Correct, office use as we have defined it.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-084.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
6. Consideration of RZ18-03 — To amend Article XIX Crabapple Form Based Code to
amend Table 9 Specific Function.
ORDINANCE NO. 18-03-345
(Agenda Item No. 18-085)
(First Presentation at March 5, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Discussed at March 12, 2018 City Council Work Session)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is the same explanation that I previously discussed with you but it is
to change Table 9 within the Crabapple Form Based Code as it relates to the T-4 transect zone.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-085.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 58 of 60
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of a Resolution of the City of Milton, Georgia, Approving a Release,
Acknowledgment and Indemnity Agreement In Connection with Third Party Use of a
Mobile Fire Training Facility.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-03-469
(Agenda Item No. 18-098)
(Bob Edgar, Fire Chiej)
Bob Edgar, Fire Chief
This is for your approval of a release and indemnity agreement. Over the years, we have utilized
fire training facilities in other municipalities. Today, we have our own mobile fire training facility
and we would like to share the facility with our neighbors has they have done for us in the past.
This agreement will protect those cities as well as the City of Milton.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-098.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
2. Consideration of a Resolution of the City of Milton Authorizing Reimbursement of
Expenditures Related to Acquisition, Construction and Equipping Police Station, Court
Facility and Fire Stations with Bond Proceeds.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-03-470
(Agenda Item No. 18-099)
(Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager)
Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager
This resolution is simply to state that we are using the bond proceeds to reimburse the city while
we are going through the issuance process of the bonds.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-099.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 59 of 60
01111 t�� . x- C 1111111"03"
Department Updates
1. Community Development
2. Police
3. Communications
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
You will soon be seeing a request for a use permit with a concurrent variance at 13655 Cogburn
Road located just south of Cambridge High School. This is a use permit for alternative senior care
in the T-2 zoning district within the Deerfield Form Based Code. It will consist of eight residents
within an existing home with an addition and detached garage. There will also be a use permit for
a 9,700 square foot daycare facility in T-4 open in the Crabapple Form Based Code which will be
located near the intersection of Arnold Mill and Crabapple. We also have a re -zoning and
concurrent variance at 3170 Webb Road to rezone from T-5 to T-6. This is a 100,000 square foot
self -storage facility locatedacross from Freedom Park on Deerfield Parkway. There will also be
text amendments proposed. One will be to amend the Crabapple Form Based Code to amend Table
1 regarding transect zone descriptions as they relate to T-4. In addition, we would also like to
increase the number of hotel units allowed in the Crabapple and Deerfield Form Based Codes so
you will see text amendments related to lodging. We will also be proposing to eliminate gates in
the downtown village area.
Rich Austin, Police Chief
Accidents are up by 19 since this time last year so we are shifting some resources to address this
issue. Our Part 1 offenses are down 46% o. hi February, we had Coffee with a Cop which was very
well attended. We will have our promotional ceremony on March 29th
Shannon Ferguson, Communications
We sent a communications survey as an insert in our tax bills to save money and as you all know
the tax bill situation was a bit of a mess this year. So, we only received 307 responses of a possible
13,000. Therefore, I am looking at financial resources to conduct another survey. Our email
updates has been very well received. We had about 150 individuals attend the State of the City
and it was a huge success. We are continuing to work on updating our forms on our website which
has been very helpful to our citizens.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to go into Executive Session to discuss land
acquisition at 9:59 p.m. Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-
0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 60 of 60
RECONVENE
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to reconvene the Regular Meeting at 10:09
p.m. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 18-100)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lockwood moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 10:1 1
p.m. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Date Approved: April 23, 2018
Sudie AM G rdon, City C erk
1/2
/,Z
Joe Lockwo d,ay