HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 01/22/2014 - MINS 01 22 14 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page I of 59
This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not the
intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice.
Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited
presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the Milton
City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded.
The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on January 22,
2014 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Tass Welch, Community Christ Church, Milton, Georgia'
t
ROLLCALL
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember
Lusk, Councilmember Hewitt and Councilmember Mohrig.
Councilmember Absent: Councilmember Longoria.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
(Agenda Item No. 14-018)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following
changes:
• Move Agenda Item No. 14-025 under New Business to directly after First Presentation.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Councilmember Longoria was absent.
PUBLIC COMMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of the December 16,2013 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 14-019)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 20f59
2. Approval of the January 6 , 2014 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 14-020)
(Sudie Gordon , City Clerk)
3. Approval of Change Order #1 to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of
Milton and Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. for the Crabapple Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment.
(Agenda Item No. 14-021)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Dire ctor)
4. Approval of the following Subdivision Plats:
Name of Development Action Comments
Tamsa Gottlieb
Minor Subdivision
Plat
Parcel subdivided into two lots -920 ,
953
Braeburn aka Office Village Final Plat Revision Add building 20 and redefine future
building 1O
Aycock Properties Minor Plat Create 3 lots
Baker's Farm Final Plat Subdivide parcel into 5 lots
Baker's Farm Final Plat Revision Added lot numbers to tracts
Lake Haven Subdivision aka
Holloway Subdivision
Final Plat Revision Remove lot 32, revise lot line between
Lot 47&51, add easement lots 11&12
The Manor Golf Course &
Country Club Phase 2
Final Plat Create 11 lots
The Manor Golf Course &
Country Club Phase 2
Final Plat Revision Modified lot line between lots 285 &
286
Blue Valley Phase 1 Final Plat Create 29 lots
Blue Valley Phase 1 Final Plat Revision Add lots 80 ,81 ,and 82 , add fire
easements same lots
(Agenda Item No . 14-022)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
5. Approval of Revisions to the Personnel Policy Handbook to Include Verbiage Regarding
Liability Insurance.
(Agenda Item No . 14-023)
(Sam Trager, Human Resource s Dire ctor)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember
Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was
absent.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22 , 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 3 of 59
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation Recognizing City of Milton 2013 Officer of the Year
(Mayor Joe Lockwood)
FIRST PRESENT A TI ON
I. Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend the City of Milton Radar Permit to Include the
Cambridge High School Zone.
(Agenda Item No. 14-024)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the First Presentation Item.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember
Longoria was absent.
PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning is transcribed verbatim
ZONING AGENDA
I. Consideration ofU13-04NC13-04 -13895 Hopewell Road by Jeff Runner for a Use Permit to
Use the Existing House and Approximately Five Acres for a Special Event Facility (Sec. 64
1812). A Three-Part Concurrent Variance for the Following: I) To Delete the 8 Foot High
Opaque Fence Along the South Property Line [Sec. 64-1812 (b)(2)]. 2) To Delete the 75 Foot
Undisturbed Buffer and 10 Foot Improvement Setback Along All Property Lines [Sec. 64
1141(3)(b)]. 3) To Delete the Three Year Period Requirement [Sec . 64-1812(b)(6)]. 4) To
Allow Access from a Local Street [Sec. 64-1812(b)(1)].
(Agenda Item No. 13-288)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-01-194
(First Presentation at December 2, 2013 Regular Council Meeting)
(Deferred at the December 16, 2013 Regular Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Mayor Lockwood
Let me step in for one second. Ken , excuse me for one moment. This is just a matter of business
clarification. Was I correct that since this has already had a public hearing in a previous meeting and it
has been deferred that this does not need to be a public hearing; a formal public hearing.
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney
Yes, the Milton Code and the zoning procedures law have been satisfied so this does not need to be a
public hearing from the standpoint of the zoning procedures law but to the extent that there is going to
be public comment, that is perfectly appropriate.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 4 of 59
Mayor Lockwood
To be clear, no matter what we will still have the public comment we just won't have to follow in order
of those for and against and the time restraints. We are certainly willing to open up public comment as
much as we have people who want to speak.
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the council. Since this is an item that was deferred from the
previous meeting, I thought I would just run through my presentation very quickly just as a means to
refresh you in terms of what the issues are on the proposed conditions of the zoning that you may want
to consider this evening.
This is a picture of an aerial view of the site plan. This is the site plan that was submitted in September.
The applicant's revised letter of intent states that the applicant proposes to host events in the range of
100-200 people at most. The applicant proposes the events will cease artificial noise at 10:00 p.m. The
existing house outbuildings, patios, drives, etc. will provide for the proposed use. Parking, including
handicap, will be handled in existing paved and grassed areas. The driveway at 13895 Hopewell Road
will be utilized for entrance only and the exiting of vehicles will be at the applicant's property located at
13835 Hopewell Road. There are some variances that are requested along with the use permit. The first
is VC 13-04 Part 1, to delete the 8 foot high opaque fence along the south property line. The subject
site's driveway abuts the single family residence to the site and this driveway would be utilized for the
ingress of the subject site which would impact the adjacent property. However, we did receive a letter
of support from the adjacent property owner on the south side who requests that this requirement for the
opaque fence be deleted. The next variance requested was VC 13-04 Part 3, to delete the 3 year period
requirement. It is staffs opinion that this time limitation is provided to allow each event or event
facility to be evaluated by the Mayor and City Council on its impact on adjacent and nearby properties.
Therefore, staff recommends denial of this variance request. VC 13-04 Part 4, to allow access from local
street. It is staff s opinion that a proposed use such as an event facility shall not be accessed from a local
street and therefore, we recommend approval of this variance request. Since this area, this site rather, is
in the northwest Fulton Overlay District, the applicant comes under the prevue of this district and its
requirements, therefore, the following concurrent variance is required by the applicant. VC 13-04 Part 2,
to delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback along all property lines. The
applicant states in the revised letter of intent that the configuration of the venue property will allow for
at least a 100 foot buffer set back for surrounding properties except for the access drive affecting the
property located at 13855 Hopewell Road. Staff recommends that an equestrian style fence 5 feet in
height be constructed along the east property line and a planted screen not to exceed 5 feet in height
interior to the fence. Therefore, staff would recommend approval/conditional of VC 13-04 Part 2.
Conclusion: If approved with the recommended conditions, staff recommends that this use variance
U13-02 be approved conditional. In regards to the concurrent variances, staff recommends approval
conditional of VC 13-04 Parts 2 and 4 and denial of VC 13-04 Parts 1 and 2. In terms of the
recommended conditions that we would suggest accompany a proposed approval, should you approve
this use permit, we would recommend the following:
• The existing single family house and property within the 4.697 acre site be utilized for events.
• The existing barn, out building, pool house, and garage not be expanded in size as depicted on
the revised site plan presented to us on September 26, 2013.
• The number of guests shall not exceed 100 people for a single event.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 5 of 59
• The owner will agree to the revised site plan that was received by our department on September
26,2013.
• The owner will agree to delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement set back
along all properties lines.
• To provide a 5 foot high equestrian style fence along the east property line and a planted screen
not to exceed 5 feet in height interior to the fence.
• The permitted curb access shall not be from a local street.
• The artificial sound emitting from the facility shall cease at 10:00 p.m.
• The owner will agree that the site shall be subject to the approval of the City of Milton's Public
Works Department.
In terms of public involvement, there was a Community Zoning Information Meeting on September 24,
2013, and attendees at that meeting expressed concerns about the number of people attending the events,
the potential impact of noise and lights, how many events would be scheduled, and the possibility of
outside event structures. The City of Milton Design Review Board did a courtesy review on October 1 sl
and they were concerned that the approval of this use would open the door for other uses that may
inconvenience the neighbors. The Planning Commission met on November 20, 2013 and they had
several recommendations:
• To approve VC 13-04 Part 1 to delete the 8 foot high opaque fence with the following conditions:
• To delete the 8 foot high opaque fence along the south property line provided staff receives a
letter stating support from the property owner. As I mentioned, we did receive that letter.
• To deny VC13-04 Part 3 with the understanding that after the 3 year period the applicant has
been compliant with the regulations and no issues pending, they can ask for the deletion of the 3
year limit at the renewal time.
• To delete condition 3(b) requesting a 5 foot high equestrian style fence along the east property
line as recommended by staff.
• To change the number from 100 guests to 150 guests as recommended in condition 1 (c).
• To condition that artificial noise must come from the west side of the house.
That brings us to the council meeting of December 16, 2013. At that meeting, the Mayor and City
Council voted to defer the use permit U13-04 as well as VCI3-04 . The Mayor and City Council asked
the city staff to investigate a solution to monitor the special event facility without the 3 year sunset
requirement. The city staff, including the City Attorney, met with the applicant, Mr. Rwmer, to discuss
solutions to monitor the use without the 3 year sunset requirement. One option that was proposed was to
require Mr. Rwmer to obtain an alcohol license which would be renewed yearly as required by the city
code. During that renewal, it was found that the operation of the business was not undertaken in a
maMer that served the best interest of the health , safety, and welfare of the city. A public hearing
before the Mayor and City Council would be held to decide if the alcohol license should be renewed.
The staff and applicant did not agree on a viable alternative solution, therefore, the original pending use
permit application remains before the Mayor and City Council for reconsideration this evening. And,
very lastly, I believe that staff stated, and I would certainly recommend this, that a text amendment to
the zoning ordinance can be initiated to create a use permit that is more consistent with the development
of a special event facility than the current use permit that is being requested. This process , however,
would take approximately 4-6 months to complete. And, that is my presentation.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 6 of 59
Mayor Lockwood
I will open it up for questions but, Kathy, for the record can you clarify or explain why in this one
ordinance that there is a 3 year sunset clause or renewal clause or the reason that it was adopted from
Fulton County.
Kathleen Field
It came from Fulton County and it is really the use permit that came through and it really lends itself
more to the Renaissance Festival, or circuses coming to town, but that is really what we have for a
special event use permit and it is the only one we have that has a sunset clause in it which is the three
years as you know. That is why I would certainly recommend that we look at other model ordinances to
really come up with a more appropriate type of use permit. At this point in time, that is the use permit
that we have on our books and that is the permit under which Mr. Runner made his application.
Councilmember Lusk
To that same point Kathy, you may not have had enough time to research other use permits throughout
the state, but just off hand, perhaps either you or the City Attorney could answer the question if you are
aware of any other use permits throughout the state that have the same type of sunset clause.
Kathleen Field
I will let Ken answer that. I am not aware of any.
City Attorney Jarrard
In the jurisdictions that I work in, I am not aware of any use permits that contain a sunset. Most of them
are indefinite in length and run with the land.
Mayor Lockwood
Are there any other questions for Kathy? I am now going to open it up for public comment, again, if
there are any questions I'm sure Kathy or other staff members could come back up. Sudie, if you will
open up public comment for this item and take them in the order you have received them.
City Clerk Gordon
Our first public comment is from Jeff Runner.
Scott Reece, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am representing Mr. Runner and the application.
City Manager Lagerbloom
I will need to interrupt. If we are doing public comment and the first name that was called under public
comment was Jeff Runner, then Mr. Runner needs to speak, not his attorney.
Jeff Runner, 13895 Hopewell Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I'm sorry. I'm a little confused. I don't have a public comment, per say. I have some things I want to
talk about as far as the buffers and the variances and things but as far as public comment there is really
not anything I want to say other than I am all for this.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 7 of 59
Mayor Lockwood
Mr. City Attorney is it appropriate for Mr. Runner to public comment now or if someone wants to ask
him a question. How would you suggest?
City Attorney Jarrard
Well, obviously if the council has questions following the closing of public comments, he can come up
and answer those questions at this time. This is a time for your typical standard public comments unlike
a zoning presentation. So, if Mr. Runner is done, he can have a seat and if you have questions during
that portion of the meeting you can call him up.
Mayor Lockwood
Mr. Runner, are you okay with that? Obviously, you are in support and then if there are any questions
afterward, then council can ask you to come up.
Scott Reece, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004
To restate the obvious, I guess we will answer in rebuttal.
Marc Godwin, 2695 Bethany Creek Court, Milton, Georgia 30004
I just wanted to, first of all, as an individual homeowner in that neighborhood that is adjacent to this
property, I lend my support to the recommendations but I also wanted to urge the council. I am the
HOA President there but I want to make it very clear that I do not speak for the neighborhood and
neither do any of the other individuals who have presented before you in the past regardless of their
level of passion. Please take that into account and weigh each individual's comments equally. This is a
neighborhood divided, certainly, and there is support and opposition to this. Regardless of the level of
passion, please keep that in mind as you make your decision this evening. Thank you.
Tom Leonard, 13840 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
I live in the Bethany Oaks Subdivision with my wife, Teresa, and my family. I will keep this brief. My
wife and I would like to express our wholehearted support for this permit and wedding venue at Yellow
House Farm. We think that the surrounding horse farm provides more than adequate buffering to the
Bethany Oaks Subdivision. Our home is directly behind the largest structure of Jeff runner's property.
We are the single most exposed home adjacent to his farm. We have no buffering and a direct line site
into the stables . We have been in our house for eight years and can only recall one event taking place at
the riding stables. During that same period, we have had two wedding receptions, several high school
graduations, and countless ALTA meets at our tennis courts and clubhouse. Naturally, there was no
neighborhood opposition to these events. Other than the one event, the farm is run very orderly and is
for the most part a great neighbor. I don't recall hearing any blaring radios or loud music from the staff.
In fact, we can hear Northpark, Cambridge, and King's Ridge High School football games clearly and
much more loudly than any noise coming from the farm area. Several neighbors, including myself,
raised some questions about the operation once we heard of it. I think, for our part, Mr. Runner has
answered most of those questions and made some concessions to our benefit. Mr. Runner even made
himself available to the homeowners at our clubhouse. Disappointingly, the most ardent opponent to
this matter did not attend or make any attempt to reach out to him. This tells me that some of the
opposition to this venue is carried over from earlier times and may be of a personal nature. I asked my
neighbors who are so adamantly opposed to look at it from a less emotional perspective and keep in
mind my property values when forming opinions. Bethany Oaks has a long history of homeowner
disagreements. We have had to take legal action against a homeowner who had blatant disregard for our
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 8 of 59
sign covenants. That same homeowner is now in front of you in opposition stating that the devaluation
of his home is the result of the proposed wedding venue. Teresa and I both feel that the neighborhood
discourse and disregard for adjacent homeowners has a great downward pressure on homeowner values
than what happens on the runner property. In recent weeks, there have been several articles in the paper
written by the Mayor and others discussing the concerns of development and growth in Milton. As I
read these articles, I concluded that a reasonable conversation about the option we are given to convert a
beautiful home to a wedding venue seems more in line with the controlled growth and preservation and
beauty of Milton. A wedding venue seems to fit perfectly in the bedroom and horse community image
of Milton and this is why we moved here. There is no single voice that speaks on behalf of Bethany
Oaks Subdivision. We are individual property owners with our own perspective on this matter. My
wife and I support this project and ask those that oppose it to put aside personal arguments and past
grudges and look objectively at the alternatives and decide for themselves the value of the opportunity
we are being presented with. We ask the Milton City Council to be mindful of all the homeowner's
assets in Bethany Oaks and approve this venue. Thank you very much .
Sandy Chapin, 13900 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
I live directly behind the fann and I wanted to say first that I was very impressed with the last meeting.
I felt that the City Council tried to come up with a compromise that would make all parties happy and I
also believe that a compromise is in order. My family enjoys the view of the pastures behind our house
seeing the horses and we would like to see it remain that way. I also feel like it is in the best interest of
Milton to be more rural and not have some other building or residential area put back there. I feel that
Jeff and his family have been very responsible in this process. He has looked into other types of
screening to block the car lights. He has had two previous weddings and we had our windows open and
we did not hear any loud music. I am happy with any noise stopping by 10:00 p.m. but I don't believe
there will be a problem. I do have a feeling that if any issues do come up, we can work together. So, as
long as there is a feedback loop I feel like I could call him up on the phone and talk to him about it and it
would be resolved. I feel very comfortable with this. There are five families behind the property that
are all in favor of and support this special use permit. I would like to support him also in doing this.
Tony Sheppard, 710 Nettlebrook Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004
I have a house approximately one mile from the property. I also have other property that I own in the
general proximity of Yellow House. I also own horses that are stabled at Yellow House and I have a
daughter that rides there . If I thought for a moment that this would have any impact on the value of my
property or the safety of my daughter, I certainly would oppose it but given what I have seen and heard
in the way that the fann is run, the events that have taken place there in the past, I would see no issue
with approving this as Mr. RUMer has submitted it. I also think it would be good for the city to have an
event venue such as this. I know Roswell has them and it is a nice place to be able to go and have a
special event especially in a rural area such as it is. We talk in Milton about maintaining a rural
character well, what better place to have an event venue than in a rural area. I would also ask that you
approve this unanimously and not use this in any shape, form, or fashion as a bargaining chip with any
future project with regard to turnaround, roundabouts or anything that would be directly impacted by
Mr. RUMer. Thank you.
Lori DePucci, 1640 AJ Land Road, Canton, Georgia 30115
The City Clerk read the following comments into the record:
I have followed this property on Hopewell Road and the zoning issues that one or two neighbors have
brought to the City Council. As a resident of the area, I support having an upscale event facility and
equestrian facility in our area . For the unhappy neighbor(s), I can recommend selling as I have many
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 9 of 59
buyers who would eagerly purchase a home adjacent to this lovely property. The average Milton home
price is up 14% over 2012 ($510,000 average sales price) with less than a two month supply of available
homes in this price range.
Brent Reeves, 15030 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
It sounds like Mr. Runner already has plenty of supporters. I think everybody here has already looked at
the property and evaluated it over and over again. I looked at it and you can tell that this is the perfect
spot for this type of facility. So, I just actually want to talk about three key points. First of all,
precedence was brought up earlier. I own twelve acres in the City of Milton. I have a house that sits
well off of the road. It is an older, kind of larger establishment. In my view, I would be a perfect person
to stand up here and say, well, this is going to set a precedence for my place to have an events facility
and I wholeheartedly can tell you that would not be the case. Every particular property in the city is
unique and you have to look at everything on its face; on its value. So, you have to evaluate everything
and you already have. As far as access points, what the property looks like, how it is going to affect
everybody else. My property would not be suitable for this just because it is a large property. So, the
argument of precedence, I think, doesn't really hold much water. The second thing is that I want to talk
about two particular conditions. First of all, the three year renewal, I think you have already kind of
weeded through that and realized that it is kind of an unrelated type of thing that is being placed on this
property and not needed. Anybody that does business in the city already has to follow certain rules and
there is nothing stopping you today from going in and shutting somebody down that is not compliant
with those rules. So, to put a three year precedent and come back here and say, I have to ask you for
your permission again or prove to you that I haven't broken any rules seems a little bit redundant and
penal. The last thing is the number of guests. I saw where it looked a little bit like a bargaining chip.
Well, you wanted 100 guests; he wanted 200 guests and you landed on 150. Really, the number of
guests should be irrelevant at least from your perspective. The number of guests should be dictated by
the fire department and those that are in charge of the safety of the community. That is all I have to say.
Thank you.
Jeff Wright, 13880 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
The City Clerk read the following comments into the record:
Dear City Council. I am in support of the proposed wedding venue by Jeff Runner. I live directly
behind his property and I have no problem with this whatsoever. Mr. Runner has made every attempt to
show our neighborhood what his plans are for the property to squash all the rumors going around and
not one of my neighbors that oppose his plan bothered to show up at the meeting in our neighborhood.
Nor have any of the neighbors that oppose his plan have bothered to contact Mr. Runner to either get his
side of the story or tour the property in question. Therefore, in my opinion, they have been coerced into
opposing something that they've not taken the time to hear both sides of the story. Sincerely, Jeff
Wright.
James Schmitt, 13890 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
The City Clerk read the following comments into the record:
We moved to Milton and have enjoyed living amongst the great neighbors of Bethany Oaks and
Fortitude Farms. To our knowledge, Jeff Runner has been a great neighbor and we urge both the City
Council and Mr. Runner to come to agreeable terms in an effort to preserve Milton's rural heritage and
comprehensive plan.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 10 of 59
Richard Calhoun, 49 Atlanta Street, Marietta, Georgia 30060
I represent Ted and Janice Cox in this matter. First, I would like to thank the city staff, Ken Jarrard, and
Chris Lagerbloom for their discussions with us to try to attempt to reach a compromise in thjs matter. It
just wasn't going to happen. As we understood, Mr. Runner has refused to consider anything less than
elimination of the three year limitation on the use permit. And, I think in a sense , it is probably
appropriate that this public comment comes in the sense of a general comment not so much about this
case. This case is really a commentary on the integrity of the city's zoning process. The city got handed
a bad hand by Fulton County. I don't think there is any question about that. We sent a letter to you
today and it points out that in Mr. Runner's application to Fulton County for a lot of variances on his
property. He admits that the property is subject to the Overlay. That wasn't what he proposed and that
wasn't how he got his zoning in the first place from Fulton County. That is something that the City of
Milton inherited but they don't have to make it any worse and that is what is happening here tonight.
There is an attempt to shoe hom a commercial enterprise. There is already one very large commercial
enterprise that is operating on the property now in an agricultural district next to a residential district.
The structures that are there now, the covered arena and some of the other structures, those would not
have been allowed under the overlay ordinance. They are illegal today. You cannot commence a
construction of an illegal structure and then somehow have it grand fathered because you have managed
to get it approved by the authorities that allowed it to be done. That doesn't work. Grandfathering
cannot begin illegally and then somehow become legal. That is the problem that the city has right now
because even under that fiction that Mr. Runner presented to Fulton County the residential structure, the
Yellow House, was a principal use. That is not effective to grant him the ability to throw aside the
overlay and build buildings that are not in compliance with it and as a result, there is a 47,000 square
foot building in the Cox's backyard and other buildings, of course, that are accessory to that. The
second issue, I think, that the city needs to be particularly aware of is in the city's code, it doesn't define
what a festival or an event is. It refers you to Webster's Dictionary and a festival or event in Webster's
Dictionary can be virtually anything that Mr. Runner can imagine it to be. It is undefined and I think it
represents a complete opportunity for abuse here because that has been the history of this property.
Nobody builds a 47,000 square foot arena and a 38 stall bam for their personal family use. This
property was intended to be run as a business and that is Mr. Runner's agenda. It always has been and it
hasn't stopped now other than the fact that he has left it. It has no personal meaning to him. It is purely
a business. In Mr. Runner's negotiations with the city, as I understand it, it was proposed to him that he
would take out an alcohol permit and that permit would be looked at annually as a renewal matter and if
there were any problems with the operation of the property, he would be subject to having his alcohol
permit denied and the continuation of the use permit terminated. He refused to do that. What he is
asking you to do is rezone the property by means of a use permit. That is basically it. It is a backdoor
zoning. It sets a horrible precedence for the city in terms of not only accepting what Fulton County has
handed you, which wasn't your fault, but now Mr. Runner is asking you to take an affirmative action to
compound the problem and allow not just one business but another business with 100-200 guests or
however many Mr. Runner can cram into his property right in the backyards of a residential area .
Despite what the neighbors say, that may not bother them but it does affect the process of this city in
terms of this zoning and whether or not it is faithful to its ordinances. So, our position is that the permit
should be denied and if Mr. Runner wants to come back for a re-zoning that is fine and is his right to do
so but this is trying to cram a square peg in a round hole. It is obvious and it should not be allowed.
Thank you.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 11 of 59
Theodore Cox, 13860 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
I guess there was snow in New York so I couldn't take my flight last night so I get to come here instead.
I don't know if that is good or bad . This is an unprecedented attempt to change an AG-l property into a
business. Staff has acknowledged that to us. Your own packet that you received tonight about this
matter states that it would take 4-6 months to craft the proper rules and regulations that would address a
use permit. We heard last month, Joe Longoria made the point about the square peg in a round hole.
Here we are tonight and we are still trying to figure out how this particular use facility fits into your
ordinance. I would strongly suggest that you take the 4-6 months, defer this matter, and allow a use
permit to be properly crafted. I don't understand why there is any rush tonight to do this. The second
thing is that regarding the sunset provision. The reason that Fulton County has a sunset provision is
because there is a history of people violating the rules and regulations that they are supposed to operate
under. As you read in the letter that was operated by Milton City Attorney, Mark Scott, Mr. Runner has
a history of operating unlawfully. That is an exact quote of your attorney. Mr. Runner has a history of
operating unlawfully. We can document those and unfortunately we may have to. The last thing I want
to make is that Mr. Runner made an offer in December to install buffers along the Bethany Oaks
Subdivision line. We accept his offer and we hope that City Council will enforce that. We accept his
offer. He offered to put a buffer in. He actually made that offer in 2006 also. It has been eight years
and it still hasn't been done. Thanks very much.
Mayor Lockwood
As I mentioned before, I will open it back up if council has any comments or questions for staff.
Councilmember Thurman
I did have a question for Mr. Runner concerning what buffers you had agreed to put in.
Jeff Runner
I'm sorry. I didn't hear your question.
Councilmember Thurman
I had a question concerning what buffers you had agreed to put in to satisfy the neighborhood.
Jeff Runner
At that time, we were talking about buffering between our property line and their property line for those
that wanted it. Since then, we have gone back and talked to everyone, other than Mr. Cox, and found
out that most of them would rather have us, and we have agreed to do some sort of temporary thing that
we would put up in front of the cars so· that if there are any headlights shining in the way, we would put
it up before each event rather than have a fence or some sort of screening blocking us from our property
or blocking them from seeing our property, we would put up some type of retractable screen across the
front of the cars.
Council member Hewitt
So, that would be something similar to the condition of 3(b) where you put a fence, nothing higher than
five feet, you are talking about something that would ...
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of 59
Jeff Runner
Yes, something that would actually because the five foot fence; our property where the parking is slopes
down dramatically from there and so the five foot fence in a lot of cases would be below the headlights
of a pickup truck or SUV.
Councilmember Hewitt
So, something similar in lieu of that.
Jeff Runner
So, in lieu of doing that we will put across a screen or some sort of protector. And, then for us, that is
great because we can take it down during the day when there is nothing there.
Councilmember Thurman
I have one question of staff. You recommended denial of the part of the variance concerning the eight
foot opaque fence even though the adjacent property owner does not want it, was that recommendation
of denial prior to getting that letter?
Kathy Field
Yes
Councilmember Thurman
So, if you had had the letter prior to it you are really not recommending denial of the variances as much
as it currently is as it was originally when it was filed before receiving the letter.
Kathy Field
Yes, we want to protect the rights of that property owner and clearly she borders on the egress driveway
in and we felt that to protect her rights with that opaque fence. She then subsequently sent us a letter
which the Planning Commission noted and recommended that we not deny that variance.
Council member Thurman
So, you do not have a problem with the approval of that variance based on the letter?
Kathy Field
Correct.
Councilmember Lusk
Kathy, one thing that had been discussed I think at the last session was that Mr. Runner was going to
provide police help during these events to help inflow and outflow of traffic. What is your
recommendation on that?
Kathy Field
Again, because I think it would be, when we give a special event permit, it is a one-time permit and we
look at the amount of people attending where the parking is and we decide whether or not the police are
applicable but he will be running a special event facility so I think it will be up to him to determine
when policemen would be available or not. Because we would not be monitoring it every week. So, I
think that is something we can certainly sit down with him and give him recommendations if there is a
large event that under certain conditions but it would be clearly something he would be responsible for.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday , January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 13 of 59
Councilmember Kunz
I guess for Mr. RUMer, do you have any problems with some of the other variance requests regards to
music being on the west side of the house? Just from a noise perspective. I guess the primary concern
that we have as far as neighbors. What I have heard is headlights coming in as far as people leaving;
they don't want to have lights shining in their area. There is also the question of noise and just trying to
make sure the music; I think one of the variances was on the west side of the house. Your thoughts on
that. I think the patio is on the west side. Is that primarily where the bands are going to be or the music
would be or the OJ and that sort of thing?
Jeff Runner
Yes.
Councilmember Kunz
Or inside the house, on the western side of the house?
Jeff Runner
Most of the music, as we envision it, will be on the inside. But, that that isn't, will be on the west side.
But I don't know of any variance on the west side.
Councilmember Kunz
I thought I had seen something here but I will look at it again.
Council member Mohrig
It is under recommendations. I have a question for Mr. RUIU1er. When staff proposed the alcohol
license part of that, can you explain why you did not want to go through the aMual renewal?
Jeff RUDDer
There are a couple of reasons. One is that we were trying to find a solution to a three-year renewal and
we came up with something that required an aIU1ual renewal. So, that was a problem. So, that meant
now I am coming back every year. The real problem with the liquor license was that we don't want to
have a liquor license. I don't want to have the liability as a venue owner as having a liquor license. I
would rather have that be with the catering company that we use and it puts me one step removed from
the liability that occurs. Not that we aren't going to monitor it or anything but liability lies with them.
Councilmember Thurman
I can tell you that having plaIU1ed a wedding three years ago that if he has a liquor license, he has to be
the one that has the liability, he has to handle the buying, he has to do a lot of the work with that that
may not necessarily go with the event facility itself, so.
Councilmember Lusk
Mr. RUMer, one of the points that have been brought up by your opposition and even those in support, is
the noise issue. Speaking to Matt's point here, I'm sure you don't want the Code Compliance coming
out there every event and monitoring noise transmission from your property over to the adjoining
properties. What kind of provisions are you going to take to ensure that you are in compliance with the
noise ordinance and you are not violating it by emitting noise greater than the 65 decibel limit?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 14 of 59
Jeff Runner
We have purchased in anticipation of not having a battle here; several months ago we purchased sound
equipment that monitors that we will carry walking throughout the property. We are going to have
parking attendants; and this is primarily going to be a concern at the bigger events. We are going to
have parking attendants that have noise meters with them and be able to monitor the noise. Over time,
we will get very familiar with what is acceptable and what isn't but until we do we will make sure we
monitor it on a regular basis.
Mayor Lockwood
I would just like to make a comment and I certainly see the pros and cons and I see there are two sides to
this and I certainly understand both positions. There are a couple of other issues with the applicant
versus the ordinance which again, I think we can all agree that this ordinance; sometimes we either
inherit ordinances or sometimes a certain situation will make us craft an ordinance but then at some
other point you realize that it doesn't really help and it needs to be adjusted. With that being said, I
would just ask whether your support or approval of this facility; look at it for the use and the city and all
involved and not look at both the history of any issues that might be bad blood but also realizing that I
understand the situation with the applicant versus the three year renewal and I would just ask the
question; is there any other business that we would impose that restriction on and look at ti that way
because ifit were my business or if you are putting money into it; I don't think anybody else is subjected
to that so just keep that in mind whether you support it or not.
Councilmember Kunz
The horses that are there, from that perspective, that you have in the stalls. How do they respond to a lot
of noise?
Jeff Runner
Not well. When we first opened the bam, the subdivision over at their clubhouse had a fourth of July
party, and they shot off fireworks and we didn't think anything of it at first and we went in the barn and
every horse was freaking out. Granted, that is a loud pop over their head or several hundred feet away
but they do not respond; if we were to have a loud rock band or drums banging the horses would freak
out.
Councilmember Mohrig
I have a question for our attorney. Mr. Runner is applying for this special use permit. If he were to sell
the property, does this go along with it or would we have to have the new owner come in and apply.
City Attorney Jarrard
It is my position that the use permit would run with the land and would convey automatically as a matter
of right to the subsequent owner.
Councilmember Thurman
Can a use permit be made contingent upon him owning the property?
City Attorney Jarrard
The only problem I would have with that is that would anticipate that if he sold the property the use
permit would automatically go away. Because a use permit, I believe, under the zoning procedures law
is in fact a zoning action, I think there would actually need to be compliance with the zoning procedures
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 15 of 59
law before we took the use pennit away. I am not an attorney that subscribes to the notion that zoning
can be necessarily taken away without some sort of public hearing.
Mayor Lockwood
I assume that obviously, if there was a use permit, any conditions that went along with that would
transfer with the property. Is that correct?
City Attorney Jarrard
That's correct.
Councilmember Kunz
I am not going to be the father of a bride any time soon but I imagine that that three year deal might
deter customers from locking in something if there is an issue of them having to renew on a regular
basis. My question, though, is from a business perspective, if things did get out of hand, how would the
city respond. What issues, obviously noise ordinance is one, but what other actions would the city take
if there was not a three year delay, how would we be able to control a situation like that or could we?
City Manager Lagerbloom
It would be in the ordinary course of government code compliance.
Councilmember Kunz
If there was a drug party or something like that; what would happen?
City Manager Lagerbloom
We would have those that would enforce; those that have the power to enforce, our Code Enforcement
Department or a sworn law enforcement officer would enforce whatever the violation was by issue of a
citation for an appearance in Milton's Municipal Court then it would fall into the court's jurisdiction to
enforce whatever that citation was .
Councilmember Hewitt
It sounds like Mr. Cox is interested in a buffer. How can we ensure that buffer gets placed?
City Manager Lagerbloom
Let me ask a follow-up question too because I am anticipating some of the council comments that may
be going here in a little while and I was asking him to start to put some thought around a retractable
screen idea because that is the first I had heard of that. Is that the type of buffer you are interested in or
are you interested in crafting; are you interested in asking the question what it looks like to make sure a
planted buffer goes in?
Councilmember Hewitt
It sounded like Mr. Cox was interested in a buffer along his property line; he mayor may not be the only
one, but how can we ensure that, if that is the case, that that happens?
City Manager Lagerbloom
As a condition.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 16 of 59
Councilmember Hewitt
I don't know if this is for Kathy or Scott or Mr. Runner; the property that has the arena on it now is a
separate parcel?
Scott Reece
That is correct. Any special use pennit has to be defined. There is a legal description involved with the
particular parcel and as we went over before, we tried to create a parcel that created the most buffer; 330
feet plus or minus, to any of those adjoiners to the east, so we crafted that.
CouDcilmember Hewitt
But even as it sits now, without that buffer, it is a different parcel.
Scott Reece
It is a different parcel completely.
Councilmember Hewitt
You could be the owner of one and not the other.
Scott Reece
Tax parcels being, you know, Fulton County and the City of Milton with subdivision regulations; a
property cannot be combined or subdivide without going through the subdivision process whether it is
major or minor. When he bought these properties at different times, different owners, so without going
through a combination minor subdivision plat, they are ...
Councilmember Hewitt
Five or six different lots.
Scott Reece
Tax parcels, just the standard.
Councilmember Hewitt
So, anything that is attached to the, Ken you may listen to this, anything that is currently attached to the
place where the arena is now, that has its own little deal over here.
Scott Reece
That is correct.
City Manager Lagerbloom
To the extent that we, and I just looked at the map, to the extent that we led you to believe you could
write a condition that could cause plantings to occur on the property between Mr. Cox's house and the
property line of the arena; I don't believe you can do that because that part of the parcel is not one that is
subject to this use penn it tonight. So, I guess Mr. Runner could contend to it but I don't know if you
can add it as a condition if you choose to approve this use pennit.
Council member Hewitt
Okay, I understand what you are saying.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 17 of 59
Councilmember Kunz
On that same point, just to make sure from a legality perspective, if people were to be leaving this
premises and going down to the property that is not included in this parcel on the southernmost exit
point past the bam, how does that correlate to these parcels not being together?
City Attorney Jarrard
Are you suggesting then that if they are using a piece of property that is not subject to the use permit as
part of their driveway to leave that somehow that's... I think that would be something I would have to
discuss with Conununity Development staff and see if they could get comfortable with it.
Councilmember Thurman
Is it possible to make this contingent upon an agreement with the homeowners and then include in the
agreement what the screening and all would be rather than actually listing out what the screening is on a
piece of property that may not be part of the property that is part of the use permit but the agreement
itself could be contingent upon a signed agreement.
City Attorney Jarrard
The actual use permit, my respectful reconunendation, is that it should not be contingent upon a private
agreement that is reached. You should just condition it the way you feel is appropriate to condition it
and it should be mandatory and it should be in front of the council. It is a good idea; I just don't think
so.
Council member Thurman
I just didn't know if we could condition it as far as planting on properties that are not part of the use
permit; whereas, the agreement could include that kind of buffer and screening.
City Attorney Jarrard
Even if you were to suggest a condition that said that the applicant shall use good faith efforts to
negotiate an agreement for screening off premise, it is difficult to know how to enforce that, when would
that condition receive compliance and if they don't work it out, what would our remedy be; that would
be my concern. That might be the sort of thing where, I don't want to go down this path at all as far as a
deferral, but that would be the kind of thing where you send the applicant off and say go work this out
and bring it to us when it is done and then we will take action. That might be a little cleaner but just to
do it tonight; if you are otherwise going to take final action, that is very challenging.
Councilmember Thurman
We couldn't hold it for thirty minutes until we get the rest of the agenda in and they work out bullet
points to what the agreements are?
City Attorney Jarrard
That is perfectly acceptable.
Councilmember Mohrig
I guess I had a question too, Chris, about what you alluded to is, the screen, I understand the concept, it
sounds kind of vague as to what we are going to do to actually, if this was approved, to stop the
headlights from going across for individual events, I guess this is kind of what Karen was talking about
too, not just as cars were leaving but on the event area itself, Mr. Runner, are you are talking about
collapsible or they would be; can you tell us a little bit more?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday , January 22 , 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 18 of 59
Jeff Runner
What we have agreed to do is have a couple of these, see where the problem issues really are and then
address them as they occur. One of the thoughts we talked about was putting up some sort of screening
or collapsible fence. But, we don't want to solve a problem that isn't a problem until we know what the
problem is . In talking to the particular neighbor and her husband that the issue is really with, we said,
let's just try a couple of these and see where it goes and then we will go from there. We are willing to
do what we need to do to block it , but you have to keep in mind , there is only a small section of that
eastern border that isn ' t already buffered . We have a large section that has 75-125 feet of trees. That is
more buffer than what is required in the buffering. The part between our house and the arena and Mr.
Cox ' s house, there is a large stand of trees in between there that is already buffering us from our arena.
We can't even see our arena from our front porch so we are trying to minimize the impact on the
property while at the same time addressing the neighbor's concerns. But, I can't as part of a use permit,
to do a wedding at my house, build a buffer to buffer my arena from a neighbor. They are two
completely separate issues.
Councilmember Mohrig
I guess my question was more , and I did visit out there and look at that section kind of directly in front
of the house and then extending over towards the garage, that is the open area from a parking standpoint
that lights could be going across the open field that you've got, the pasture.
Jeff Runner
Right, and those are the neighbors, I marked on the chart tonight who came up, and the green are the
ones in support and the ones that are directly across from that area are all in support and they are the
ones that we talked about doing a buffer if we see that we need one. They don't want a buffer down
here. They want to be able to see the pastures. I can build a buffer up here but I don't know yet what it
is going to require until we see what kind of problems we will have. Let's just see where it goes and
then address the issue as it comes up.
Councilmember Mohrig
Yea, I think the buffer is not so much of a concern on the other side of the pasture; it is more really by
the parking. By buffer, I mean some type of screening to stop the headlights.
Jeff Runner
This area here is totally covered in trees , this area by the barns is all covered by trees, there is already a
lot ; it is just this little area right here in front of the house that is the real issue .
Councilmember Mohrig
Is that where you are talking about doing some type of a screening process?
Jeff Runner
It drops off fairly quickly there so we can't.
Mayor Lockwood
We can certainly keep discussing this. I'm hearing the direction that I think council wants but also want
to make sure the conditions are as favorable as possible for all involved. Does anybody want to take a
stab at that or continue discussion?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 19 of 59
Council member Hewitt
I have a question for Mr. Runner. Now that you heard that we couldn't enforce it, would you be willing
to just say that you will do some kind of buffer for Mr. Cox?
Jeff Runner
We have offered numerous times , through our attorneys, to do buffers for him and his demands and
expectations are so unrealistic that we could never come to terms. We even offered to buy his house and
he wanted twice what it was worth. Between his property and our property there is a large valley, I feel
sorry for him, but when we built our arena you couldn't see his backyard. He tore it out to complain
about what he was seeing with our arena. I don't know what I can physically do to address his concerns.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve U13-04NC13-04 -13895 Hopewell
Road by Jeff Runner for a Use Permit to Use the Existing House and Approximately Five Acres for a
Special Event Facility (Sec. 64-1812). A Three-Part Concurrent Variance for the Following: 1) To
Delete the 8 Foot High Opaque Fence Along the South Property Line. 2) To Delete the 75 Foot
Undisturbed Buffer and 10 Foot Improvement Setback Along All Property Lines. 3) To Delete the
Three Year Period Requirement. 4) To Allow Access from a Local Street.
Accepting staffs recommended conditions except:
• Delete Variance No.1 "To Delete the 8 Foot High Opague Fence Along the South Property
Line [Sec. 64-1812(b)(2)]";
• Accept Planning Commission's recommendation of a 150 guests;
• Acceptance of the good faith discussion concerning the buffers with the adjoining property
owners .
• Delete 3) (b) from the Planning Commissions' Recommended Conditions of the original
motion which states:
b) provide a five foot high equestrian style fence along the east property line labeled
454.33 feet and a planted screen not to exceed five feet in height interior to the fence.
Plant material and planting plan shall be approved by the City Arborist.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion.
Chris Lagerbloom repeated the motion which was to approve as published with Staffs
Recommended Conditions modifying three of them:
1. Delete the opaque fence requirement;
2. Modify the number of guests from 100 to 150 maximum;
3. Rely upon a good faith effort to work with the neighbors on buffers with the adjoining property
owners.
Amendment to the Motion: Councilmember Karen Thurman moved to add a fourth revision for the
artificial sound to be on the west property.
Withdrawal of Second to Amendment of Motion: Councilmember Matt Kunz withdrew his second to
the original motion.
Second to Amended Motion: Councilmember Matt Kunz seconded Karen's Amendment to the Motion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 20 of 59
Withdrawal of Second to Amended Motion: Councilmember Matt Kunz withdrew his second to the
Amended Motion.
Second Amendment to the Motion: Councilmember Thunnan moved to delete 3) (b) from the
Planning Conunissions' Recommended Conditions of the original motion which states:
b) provide a five foot high equestrian style fence along the east property line labeled 454.33
feet and a planted screen not to exceed five feet in height interior to the fence. Plant material
and planting plan shall be approved by the City Arborist.
Second to Second Amended Motion: Councilmember Matt Kunz seconded Karen's Second
Amendment to the Motion.
Vote: The original motion as amended twice passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was
absent.
2. Consideration ofRZ13-17 -13980 Freemanville Road by Fuqua and Associates to Rezone from
AG-l (Agricultural) to CUP (Community Unit Plan) to Develop 9 Single Family Residences on
16.98 Acres.
(Agenda Item No . 14-005)
ORDlNANCE NO . 14-01 -195
(First Presentation at January 6, 2014 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Thank you Mr. Mayor and City Council. You have in front of you a plan that shows the site of the
proposed development. The current zoning is AG-1. Future land use calls for this to be Agricultural
Equestrian and Estate Residential. The site plan was submitted to us on October 3, 20l3. In tenns of
background on the site, the subject site contains 16.42 acres. The subdivision is currently under
development with nine lots zoned AG-1 (Agricultural). Nine lots of single family homes are proposed.
This site is a final phase of existing subdivision 'Triple Crown' which is zoned CUP (Conununity Unit
Plan) at a density of .60 units per acre. The site is located, as I mentioned, in the Agricultural Equestrian
and Estate Residential designation of the 2030 City of Milton Comprehensive Plan. The original design
of this final phase contained a total of 22.10 acres to develop l3 lots, of which 4.12 acres have been
since sold to an adjacent property owner leaving this petition a total of 16.98 acres. The applicant is
requesting a rezoning to CUP (Conununity Unit Plan) to build 9 single family residences at an overall
density of 0.53 units per acre. Therefore, no change in the number of lots is requested as part of the
request to rezone from AG-1 (Agricultural) to CUP (Community Unit Plan). The following are
proposed building setbacks and development standards for individual lots (CUP allows for applicant to
specify building setbacks):
Front yard setback -30 feet
Side yard setback -10 feet
Side yard setback adjacent to a street -20 feet
Rear yard-40 feet
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 21 of 59
Adjacent to Freemanville Road -50 feet
Adjacent to AG-l-50 feet
No lot would have direct access to Freemanville Road
Minimum heated floor area -2,800 square feet
In order to maintain the rural view shed, however, the staff recommends a provision of a 40 foot
undisturbed buffer and an additional 20 foot no improvement setback for lots along Freemanville Road
identified as lots 3, 4, and 5 and where sparsely vegetated, to replant in a natural fashion . Also, staff
recommends that the architectural elevations for lots 3, 4, 5 (adjacent to Freemanville Road) shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department with assistance of the City
Architect prior to the issuance of a building permit. These two requirements are included in the
Recommended Conditions. In terms of the impact on the schools, it is projected that there will be a total
of additional students generated from this development of anywhere from 6 to 10. The Birmingham
Elementary School would be able to handle the additional amount of students but currently,
Northwestern and Milton high schools are both over capacity. In terms of a fiscal analysis in regard to
the revenue versus the cost of services, over 20 years it is projected a positive of $155,527. The
applicant has submitted a landscape plan approved by the City Arborist to reflect the recommended
conditions. In terms of standards of review, whether or not the proposal will permit a use that is suitable
in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property. The proposed 9 lot single family
residential subdivision developed at a density of 0.53 units per acre is consistent with adjacent and
nearby properties zoned CUP (Community Units Plan) to the north and west and AG-1 (Agricultural) to
the south and east which are also developed at less than one unit per acre. It is staffs opinion that the
proposed use is suitable with adjacent and nearby developments and zonings if approved with staffs
recommended conditions. Whether there are other e",isting or changed conditions affecting the use and
development of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the
proposal. The site contains slopes and a stream with the required buffered. In addition the remainder of
Triple Crown is also zoned CUP to the west. The request for the proposed CUP allows for additional
flexibility to better site the homes within the subdivision based on the Fulton County Health Department
requirement of two drain fields, protect specimen trees, and better landscape design for the subdivision.
These facts are grounds to recommend approval of the proposed CUP (Community Unit Pan) if
developed with the recommended conditions. Therefore, in conclusion, if developed as a CUP
(Community Unit Plan) with the recommended conditions, the nine lot single family subdivision would
be consistent with the 2030 City of Milton Comprehensive Plan and will provide for a better
development with the proposed CUP (Community Unit Plan) development standards. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of RZ13-17 to rezone from AG-1 (Agricultural) to CUP (Community Unit Plan).
Recommended conditions : to the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as
follows:
• It should be single family detached dwellings and accessory uses and structures
• No more than 9 total dwelling units at a maximum density of 0.53 units per acre, whichever is
less, based on the total acreage zoned.
• To the site plan received by the Community Development Director the owner agrees to abide by
all the conditions as stated on that plan.
• All areas which are not part of an individual lot and held in common shall be maintained by a
mandatory homeowner's association.
The owner agrees to the following site development considerations:
• Minimum lot size -43 ,560 square feet (1 acre)
• Minimum lot width (at building line) -90 feet
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 22 of 59
• Minimum lot frontage -35 feet
• Minimum heated floor area per units -2,800 square feet
• Minimum front yard setback -30 feet
• Minimum side yard setback -10 feet
• Minimum rear yard-40 feet
• Adjacent to AG-l -50 feet
• No lot would have direct access to Freemanville Road
Provide a 40 foot undisturbed buffer and an additional 20 foot no improvement setback for lots along
Freemanville Road identified as lots 3, 4, and 5.
Architectural elevations for lots 3, 4, 5 (adjacent to Freemanville Road) shall be reviewed and approved
by the Community Development Department.
In terms of public involvement, the CZIM was held on October 29,2013. No one expressed opposition
to the rezoning at that meeting. The applicant held a public participation meeting on November 4, 2013
and there were no objections at that meeting. The Milton Design Review Board held a courtesy review
and they recommended that a 60 foot undisturbed area should be established along Freemanville Road
and where sparsely vegetated to replant in a natural fashion . Architectural elevations for lots 3, 4, 5
(fronting Freemanville Road) shall be reviewed and approved by staff and the Milton trail should be
incorporated into the development. The Planning Commission meeting was held on December 18,2013
and they approved the application with staff's recommendations 6 to 1. That is my presentation.
Mayor Lockwood
First of all, Kathy, I would like not so much to ask a question but to make a comment. This particular
rezoning or application to go from AG-l to CUP, obviously, as you know we have a moratorium but this
was in the works before that was issued ...
Kathy Field
That is correct , so it is grandfathered in .
Mayor Lockwood
My understanding by looking at it and looking at it with staff, this is not necessarily a reason to try to get
anymore density than it would with AG-l. That is not the case at all but more so that lots match with
the existing neighborhood it is attached to but also to have the homes sit better and possibly get some
more view sheds and buffers. My comment just to clarify and confirm is that this is not a zoning to
increase density but will actually be a benefit to the development as well as the surrounding community.
Kathy Field
That is correct, Mr. Mayor.
Councilmember Thurman
I have a question. All of the minImums that are listed, are all those consistent with the CUP
development for the subdivision that is existing that this will become part of?
Kathy Field
Let's see. Robyn, you can help me on this but I believe the rear yard is different, the setback on the
existing one they have 50 feet. The applicant is requesting a rear yard setback of 40 feet and I believe
that is only on one lot. ..
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of 59
Councilmember Thurman
But, all of the others are consistent with what is already there that the subdivision is already a part of.
Kathy Field
And, the other is the minimum heated floor area on the existing, it is only required to be 2500 square
feet per structure and the applicant is proposing 2800 square feet so that is really the only change.
CouDcilmember Lusk
In the package here, the minimum front yard setback is 30 feet and I noticed on the screen it states 35
feet.
Kathy Field
Then, I stand corrected. You are right. The existing one is 35 and then they are requesting a 30 . Thank
you for that correction.
Councilmember Hewitt
Just to clarify the Mayor's comments from earlier, they can put nine houses on that property right now
as it is permitted .
Kathy Field
Absolutely.
Councilmember Hewitt
They are just asking for a change in how they lay on the lot.
Kathy Field
That is correct. What the community would get is the condition of zoning that we are recommending
where we create a rural view shed for the three lots that front on Freemanville.
Councilmember Mohrig
Just to clarify, this is the final build out of Triple Crown . Is that correct?
Kathy Field
Robyn, correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that it is, yes.
Councilmember Lusk
There is a point here related to filing these agreements with the HOA. Is this development going to be
part of the original H 0 A ?
Kathy Field
Yes , and the applicant can also speak to that but that is our understanding.
Mayor Lockwood
Are there any more questions of staff. Obviously, we will have comments and if you have other
questions you can ask them. I will open it up for speakers in support of this application.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 59
Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlet Oak Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004
I would like to make my presentation. This is Triple Crown unit five. We are basically looking to
develop nine lots and it is on 16 acres. If you go out there today, you will see that the streets are built.
So, there are no additional lots. We are not asking for additional density. As the staff said, it is 0.53
units per acre of land; total density. This is consistent with the Triple Crown subdivision. We are going
to become part of the HOA on this project. The main reason we are looking for this is to keep the
houses closer towards the street making it similar to what is at Triple Crown. We are trying to protect
the rural view shed along Freemanville. You can see on the plan that we have here that shows the
houses, each one of the lots as it backs up to Freemanville you will see that there is a berm only for a
short portion along Freemanville Road. The rest of it is existing topography. We are planting trees and
shrubs and such out there. In fact, on this site we plan to plant over 265 trees as required because of tree
recompense as well as landscaping around the detention ponds. We are agreeing with the staff. The
only thing that I have a question about is that one of the conditions asks for an undisturbed buffer
adjoining Freemanville but again, we have been asked to plant trees and we have a plan showing that we
are going to plant trees along this entrance along Freemanville Road and I want to make sure there is not
a problem with us planting trees because I think it contradicts itself when it says undisturbed buffer but
also have a landscape planting along that area. So, I just want to make sure that it is allowed to be
landscaped. I reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.
Laura Rencher, 1060 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I support this and Preserve Rural Milton supports this rezoning because it is a good use of the CUP and
it does not increase the density from AG-1. In addition, there is a lot of things the city was able to do to
preserve the rural view shed. They were also able to do architectural review in addition to making sure
the rear view of the homes was consistent with our city. All these things would not have been possible
if there was no rezoning so this is a positive use of it.
Mayor Lockwood
I will now close the public hearing and open it back up to council if they have any questions for staff or
the applicant.
Councilmember Lusk
Just one question. Mr. Rekuc may be able to answer it. The ORB commented and suggested,
recommended, that the setback off of Freemanville Road be increased from 50 feet to 60 feet. What
impact would that have on your site?
Walter Rekuc
Well, the biggest problem we have, in particular, is that there are some trees that we are having to save
and with sewer, as you know, you are trying to place a septic field plus reserve line in those areas. The
reason we are moving the houses up is to maintain that area where we can put septic. By limiting that
60 feet, it reduces the amount of area available. There is a beautiful tree on, I believe that is lot number
3, it is a huge tree, and the only thing is that we may perhaps have problems saving that if we have to
stay out of that buffer. The problem we have with any number is you just arbitrarily pick a number, you
don't always notice the impact that it may have on that lot. So, that is the only thing I am concerned
with is how we would be impacting that one large tree by doing that. If we put it back towards the back,
it may have no impact. And, again, I think if you put septic in an area, I don't see how anybody is going
to notice septic. So, I would think that if you said that the area could be disturbed for septic and get
replanted, they can't put trees there but they could plant grass and I don't think anybody is going to
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 25 of 59
notice anything. But, I think that is the problem with an undisturbed buffer. I think that if you said that
they could put septic if need be, but they can't put a fire pit or an accessory building or swimming pool.
I think that is understandable. And, I think that goes back to what the definition of what a rear building
setback is. So, if you said that the rear building setback is 60 feet, I think that does restrict those
buildings from being very close. And, the undisturbed buffer, again, I think where we would be planting
it; we have an approved plan from the city arborist, we have a contract we are about ready to sign with a
landscaper to plant that whole buffer. The plan that you see there is the landscaping that we are going to
place along that frontage on Freemanville as well as along the emergency access road and around the
detention pond and, for that matter, our adjoining neighbor who were are trying to shield from potential
homes. No one asked us to do that. That is something that we are doing to take care of our neighbor.
So, again these are things that I think will work best for the community.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 14-005 with Staffs
Recommended Conditions changing 3(c) to:
• (c) minimum lot frontage to 35 feet.
Council member Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember
Longoria was absent.
Mayor Lockwood
I am going to put our City Attorney on the spot for a second; before we call the next item. This actual
piece of property, Ken, I just want to get your opinion on whether I should recuse myself or not. This
particular parcel of land at one point, I was a very small minority in a LLC that owned part of this
property. It is still way out there in some sort of negotiation and lawsuit and whatnot. It has since been
sold and whatnot. Again, I want to make sure to be transparent if I should recuse myself from being a
part of this discussion and vote on this property.
City Attorney Jarrard
Mr. Mayor, are you talking about RZ13-19? And,just to confirm you were at one point...
Mayor Lockwood
I was at one point a member of an LLC that owned the property. It has since gone back to the bank and
is in ongoing negotiations at some point. I believe it has been sold but, again, just to make sure that this
will not come back that it had any impact to me one way or another.
City Attorney Jarrard
Forgive me for doing it this way, but do you believe there is any realistic expectation of it coming back
to the LLC? If it has been sold, I would assume no.
Mayor Lockwood
Probably not, but just to be safe I would rather ...
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 26 of 59
City Attorney Jarrard
Mr. Mayor, I would recommend that you recuse if there is any question on that issue.
Mayor Lockwood
And, I will leave it up to you whether I sit here and be quiet or if you want me to leave the room.
City Attorney Jarrard
You can remain at your station. It is an open meeting. The reason for your recusal is on the record so
the Mayor Pro Tern would need to pick up.
Mayor Lockwood
Our Mayor Pro Tern is not here so I'll nominate Councilmember Thunnan. Can I appoint someone on
the councilor how does that work?
City Attorney Jarrard
Yes, I think the fonner Mayor Pro Tern. Who was the fonner Mayor Pro Tern?
Mayor Lockwood
Councilmember Lusk.
City Attorney Jarrard
I think that would be appropriate.
Mayor Pro Tern Lusk
Will the City Clerk please read the next item?
3. Consideration ofRZ13-19 -13941 and 13943 Highway 9 North by Ashton Atlanta Residential,
LLC to Rezone from 0-1 (Office-Institutional) to TR (Townhouse Residential) to Develop 24
Single Family Residences.
(Agenda Item No . 14-006)
(First Presentation at January 6, 2014 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor and members of the council, you see in front of you the site outlined
in red. The current zoning is shown and I would like to point out to you that the current zoning is really
four parcels. The two northern most parcels are zoned 0-1; and the two southern ones are N-R (New
Deerfield Fonn Based Code). You can see that here. So, we have sort of a split in zoning. The future
land use plan shows this whole area to be proposed for mixed use and when we amended the land use
plan when we put the Deerfield plan in place, the two parcels to the south became a part of this overlay
area and this master plan shows it to be in a transitional area. The revised site plan was submitted to us
on December 3, 2013. The subject site contains 5.3 acres and is undeveloped. The total subject site was
rezoned 0-1 (Office Institutional) at a total density of 5,332 square feet per acre of general office for the
four parcels totaling 5.3 acres. However, the two parcels to the south (1.64 acres) are within the T-5
Urban Center Zone Fonn-Based Code, while the two north parcels (3.84 acres) remain 0-1.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 27 of 59
Therefore, the two north parcels (3.84 acres) remaining 0-1 at 5,332 square feet per acre gives the two
north parcels a total of 20,489.76 square feet of general office on 3.84 acres. The two south parcels
under T-5, Urban Center Zone Form-Based Code, are allowed a total of 33,210 square feet of
commercial, office or retail on 1.64 acres or 9 units per acre of residential. Based on the applicant's
revised site plan, staff offers the following considerations:
• The site plan indicates compliance with the development standards for TR (Townhouse
Residential).
• Staff will require that a minimum 20 foot setback from the garage door to the back of the curb be
provided in order to ensure that the sidewalk is not blocked by a vehicle parked in the driveway.
• Secondly, a minimum of 4 spaces shall be provided for each residence based on the fact that the
widths of the private streets are not sufficient to provide on street parking.
Other site plan considerations: It has been the City Council's policy in the past where there has been
development along Hwy 9 to provide a black four board black equestrian fence, not exceeding 55 inches
in height.
In terms of the Arborist comments, the recompense will be 164 (4") trees if all specimen trees are
removed. Staff notes that in the previous rezoning pursuant to RZ07-10, a condition of zoning was
included to preserve three trees on the site identified as 1, 5 and 6. The exhibit will be included at the
end of the Staff Report.
The City of Milton Fire Marshal found no outstanding fire code issues. In terms of the impact from
Fulton County Board of Education, it is estimated that the application would generate anywhere from
17-27 students. It indicates that the Cogburn Elementary School and the Hopewell Middle School are
overcapacity and could not meet the demand but Cambridge High School could. The fiscal impact
looking at the cost of services grosses the revenue generated from this development over 20 years, we
are looking at a negative impact of$122,174.
Standards of Review:
• Whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan?
Based on the recent designation of the two south parcels of subject site to Form-Based Code T5 Overlay
District, and the pending master plan for the two north parcels, the request to rezone to TR (Townhome
Residential) is not consistent with the future vision for subject site.
• Whether there are other existing or changed conditions affecting the use and development of the
property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the proposal?
Although the proposed development is consistent with adjacent and nearby zonings and developments,
the vision for the future of Hwy 9 is not to replicate what already exists along the corridor, but to
enhance it. The intent is to implement a Form-Based Code to specify the desired architectural and site
design. The two south parcels have been designated T5 Form-Based Code zoning recently, and the two
north parcels are currently being considered in the North Hwy 9 Visioning Study which is not yet
adopted. Given these considerations it is grounds to recommend denial for the proposed TR (Townhouse
Residential) zoning developed as single family residential.
Conclusion: Although the proposed development is consistent with adjacent and nearby developments
in the area and appears to meet the required development requirements, it is inconsistent with the intent
of the Form-Based Code Overlay District and the vision for the corridor. Therefore, Staff recommends
denial ofRZ13-19 to rezone from 0-1 (Office Institutional) to TR (Townhouse Residential) to develop a
24 lot single family residential subdivision. If the Mayor and City Council recommends approval, staff
provides the following Recommended Conditions: If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City
Council, it should be TR (Townhouse Residential) conditional subject to the owner's agreement to the
following enumerated conditions:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 28 of 59
• Single family detached dwellings and accessory uses and structures.
• No more than 24 total single family dwelling units at a maximum density of 4.53 units per acre,
whichever is less, based on the total acreage zoned.
To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
• To the revised site plan received by the Community Development Department on December 3,
2013 .
Also , to the owner 's agreement to the following site development considerations:
• Minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet.
• Minimum heated floor area shall be 2,000 square feet.
• Each lot shall provide a total of four (4) parking spaces.
• Minimum setback from the garage door to the back of the sidewalk shall be 20 feet.
• Provide a black four-board-equestrian-styled fence along Hwy 9 interior to the landscape strip or
as approved by the Director of Community Development.
• Provide landscaped open space with plantings approved by the City Arborist along Hwy 9
interior to the new right-of-way as shown on the Revised Site Plan submitted on December 3,
2013.
• Preserve trees identified as 1, 5, and 6 on the exhibit attached. (RZ07-1O)
Also , to the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication, and improvements:
• Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton or Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) prior
to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit, sufficient land as necessary to provide
transportation improvements as required by the Director of Public Works. These include:
I just want to review the public involvement with you. On December 4, 2013 the applicant was present
at the CZIM meeting. There were six members of the community in attendance. In terms of public
comment , staff has spoken to the owner of Superior Indoor Comfort which abuts to the north and is
currently zoned M-l (Manufacturing). He was concerned that the new homes would be protected from
his business.
Also , a resident of Bellemeade Subdivision to the east was concerned about the connection of sewer via
an existing sewer easement in the subdivision.
The applicant hosted a Public Participation Meeting on Thursday, December 12, 2013 at the Windward
Kroger Community Room. There was no one in attendance.
There was a courtesy review by the DRB and they recommended the following:
• The area was envisioned to have more of a walkable retail use.
• Development should comply with the Highway 9IDeerfieid Form Based Code.
• Dwellings are to be subject to staff review.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of RZ 13-19 based on the fact that it was
inconsistent with the newly adopted Deerfield / Hwy 9 Form Based Code. That is my presentation.
Mayor Pro Tern Lusk
In the DRB comments, under the second article; first bullet point, the area was envisioned to have more
of a walkable retail use. Whose vision was that?
Kathy Field
The plan , both plans, the one that is in effect the Form Based Code Overlay for the Deerfield Route 9
area which includes the bottom two southern most parcels; that plan calls for that area to be a mixed use
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 29 of 59
to transitional type with the Form Based Code in there, but more of a retail office type of use. The two
northern parcels are still zoned 0-1 but they are in what will be a new master plan which is the Route 9
North Visioning Study that is underway. It hasn't been adopted yet but I will tell you from all
indications from the public input that the community envisions that same idea for this area; that it would
be more of a walkable commercial office type of use. Residential is really not contemplated for this
area.
Mike Busher, 3820 Mansell Road, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004
Good evening everyone. I am the Vice President of land acquisition development for Ashton Woods
Homes. As your staff recounted, the recommendation is to deny our proposal. So, I wanted to come up
tonight to give you some rational of what we think the merits are for our case and to hopefully invite a
little bit of a dialogue so I will try to reserve some time for that. As you know, opportunities for new
housing in Milton remain scarce but demand remains high and so as a builder and developer who wants
to partner with Milton, it is my job to go out and identify new opportunities. Three years ago, I came
before the board for an opportunity that was just north of this proposed site on Highway 9 to rezone it.
It shared some similar characteristics of this site. It was zoned for commercial and it also had an
economic hardship. It was the property that you may recall was across from Crooked Creek. It was
ultimately rezoned to the same designation of TR even though we ultimately constructed it with single
family detached homes. I am happy to report that we sold all 39 homes in about 16 months so it was
famously successful so anytime that happens, the company pats me on the back and says, now, go do it
again. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to find opportunities that fit within the perfect fold. When we
first came across this property, we asked the seller about its history and more specifically what attempts
had been made to market it for its current use. The seller who is represented here tonight can speak
more about that if time permits but in essence what he said is that, of course, they sought out retail
developers, but to a person, the rejection and the tone of the rejection was that the site had too many
hardships and particularly they didn't like the fact that it fell pretty steeply off the road, it didn't have
what they considered a good street presence. I certainly can't speak to the commercial viability of it. I
can only look at what might be a next alternative and having had the recent history in a similar
designation that was the logic of how we decided to approach it for a rezoning. Along the way, your
staff has mentioned that we had our follow-up participation meetings. I'm not sure if there are more
people tonight that are here in opposition, I can only tell you that along the way we have basically heard
from three people . One of which is a person who I do recognize tonight who lives adjacent to the
subdivision. His principle concern is about a sewer easement but that sewer easement was part of the
land records not contemplated as a result of this rezoning. It was something that was already being
titled so I think his concerns are really limited to the potential construction of that easement. I suspect
you may hear from him tonight and what we have said to him is that if granted the approval, we would
obviously stay within the confines of that approval of that easement. We would not be seeking a new
easement out. Another woman identified herself as a resident, I believe, of Crooked Creek and she had
concerns about wanting to protect the overall integrity of the Comprehensive Plan. On that point, what I
would say is that we certainly looked to conform to the Comprehensive Plan, the fact that we came
before Milton once for a rezoning is one example but I will also give you another more recent example
of where we purchased the lead property in downtown Crabapple. That property was subject to the
Crabapple Overlay. To my knowledge, I think we are the first residential developer who has gone
through that process with the city and although I can't speak for their side, I would tell you it has been a
good process. We have worked and scraped every architectural plan we had and worked with Kathy and
Robyn to try to create what is the vision for that area and we hope to open our new sales model in a few
months. So, I just want you to know that we are a partner that takes that seriously. Having said all that,
why are we here? What I hoped that you would look at in view of this application is that if you have
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6 :00 pm
Page 30 of 59
been by this site it is sort of sandwiched between the CVS and the bordering northern commercial use
but I do think there is a way to create a meaningful and sustainable and successful subdivision that still
fits within the fold of the overall intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Kathy talks about the fact
that there is the Highway 9 Overlay and that there are effectively three parcels within this one. But, we
are only talking about five acres of land, even though it is subdivided; it is effectively one parcel that we
are looking at. It just so happens that the southernmost parcel fits within a different comprehensive plan
structure. So, it is sort of sandwiched within five acres and it is trying to meet the intent of all of these
mixing of uses. It is tough to do on five acres even in a perfect world. In the middle of downtown, you
would maybe have a hard time coming up with an appropriate mix of uses on five acres. It can be done.
What I was hoping to argue was that by going after what I think is a quality detached subdivision with
houses ranging from 2800 to 3200 square feet with a transaction price between $400,000 and $500,000,
we were going to fit within the overall fold of the intent of mixing of uses. Regrettably, that is not the
case that staff took and I respect their opinion on it. But, I would share is that we are being held to a
standard of an overlay that doesn't exist yet completely so I almost feel like in the case of the Highway 9
Overlay District, it hasn't been fully realized and hasn't been adopted yet and we are being denied based
on the fact that it will soon be. That is a little bit tricky as an applicant because you want to say, why
don't we make a decision on the here and now and if the merits don't support it then so be it. I did look
through the Comprehensive Plan and looked at the character areas and under the Bethany Character
Area it does say that the prominent land use should remain residential. Then it goes on to say what is
appropriate for this. The residential high is 3 to 5 acres. Well, we certainly begin to fit with that overall
intent but, to Kathy's point, I don't think that is the vision overall long term. I don't know how to
specifically address the fact that the longer term may involve a mixing of uses that ultimately I couldn't
accomplish just on this one piece. A quick note about our product and there is the proposed site plan.
What we would look to build is something similar in character to what we built at Parks ide at Manor
which I think is, again, maybe not everybody's particular cup of tea but, I think, well-appointed and
appropriate for the area and offering, most importantly, a housing option that as it relates to sewer in
Milton is hard to come by. I am aware of the moratorium, I am aware of what you are facing in terms of
recent applications but sewered lots that are also in a place that isn't highly objectionable, and again,
there may be 30 people here tonight that will tell you otherwise. I haven't had the chance to engage
with them yet. But, if they are, I would love for you to give me more time to do so. Along the way I
have not heard a universal rejection to the type of housing style that we are proposing. So, that begins to
tell me that maybe there is more appropriateness here than would maybe meet the eye at first glance. I'll
reserve the last two minutes for rebuttal.
Mayor Pro Tern Lusk
Is there anyone else speaking in support?
Heath Milligan, 430 Pine Forest Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30342
Good evening. I represent ARG Quality Properties which owns the property. Alistair Bank foreclosed
on the previous owner. The previous development, which was proposed was for a bank and a mix of
uses, was similar for what was called for in the current plan but was not able to come to fruition. A lot
of the reasoning behind that is similar to what I met with when I was first asked to market this property
18 months ago. I'm a real estate broker. I specialize in land brokerage all across metro Atlanta. I have
worked on dozens of properties like this similar in the fact that they are intended for office institutional
uses and this is one that upon meeting with a lot of the initial interested parties, which I thought would
have taken an interest in this property, the topography and the visibility as well as the access was such
that it did not at all from the beginning meet their criteria for a development. The city proposes that it is
a walkable type retail office use but when it sits 10 or 15 feet below road grade, it is very difficult to
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 31 of 59
match up with what the city has proposed. We fully support this. We believe in Ashton Woods. They
have come up with a great project that we stand behind. We see it as a hardship to try and, to use an
example from earlier, force a square peg in a round hole, and it is something we hope the city will
consider.
Mayor Pro Tern Lusk
Is that all we have in support? Do we have any in opposition?
Laura Wysong, 14305 Creek Club Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
Good evening Mayor and City Council. Literally, I live about a half a mile from this proposed
development. Speaking as a concerned homeowner, and I have been participating in petitioning sessions
for this particular area, so I do understand what the community wants in this area and what the
community wants is a walkable area. We are in the process of developing the Form Based Code. So, I
will say kudos to staff, they definitely took into consideration what the community wanted for that
particular area. The vision is that folks want to see retail walkable Crabapple looking type environment.
We are trying to change the landscape of this area to connect the dots. Right now, it is very
unconnected. We got stuck with what Fulton County left which is really kind of a mess so we are trying
to clean up the mess in this particular area. In order to do that, this is what the community wanted.
Additionally, you've got to think of the financials on this. It is negative. It is not good for our area. We
want positive. We want positive revenue for the city. A nice retail component, a nice shop component,
I think, could be a good thing for the city. It would be a good thing for the community in that corridor.
That is what people want. They really want to be able to have sidewalks coming down to the Bethany
Bend area. On the flip side, concern around this proposal is density, traffic, this is a very bad traffic
area, I'm sure Carter Lucas could speak to this area. We can't even get out of Crooked Creek right now
and hopefully, we can look at getting a stop light. So, us, Lake Laurel, it is just stacking up. Another
community with this density, it is just not going to work for this area. This is a transitional area. Also,
we just approved some development right across from Cambridge High School adding more to the
traffic situation, so you really have to think through this. I think with the right things we can make a
nice retail development work there. I am willing to go out and make that happen so I am looking for
your support.
Yuriy Komikov, 3345 Cedar Farms Court, Milton, Georgia 30004
The part of construction plan includes creating a sewer line that will go on the easement land through
our subdivision, Bellemeade Subdivision. That easement goes through four lots including mine. I have
made a concern related to this construction activity inside the existing subdivision. My first concern is
that our subdivision is pretty old and we have a lot of big trees on those easement lands and moving
those trees can damage our houses. I made a picture to show the councilmembers how big these trees
are and how close they are to the houses. So, when they remove those trees, they will have to remove
them like a surgeon, tree by tree, so they cannot remove them by the standard method, a bulldozer. So,
if they remove those trees by a bulldozer, it is possible that a tree will fall on the houses and damage
them, or lawns, etc. So, another concern is that some of our water lines and water meters in the
framework of those easement lands. I can show you another picture that shows my neighbor'S water
meter which is in the framework of the easement land. This is the easement stake and this is the water
meter. So, during the construction of the sewer lines through our subdivision, it is possible to make a
damage to water lines and cause an interruption to water service. Another concern is that moving big
trees on those easement lands will change the landscape for our subdivision and in the future there could
be erosion damage. So, I oppose to this rezoning for construction of these 24 homes. If the council
allows this, I would ask the council to recommend the construction company to use another way to put
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6 :00 pm
Page 32 of 59
in sewer lines, for example, COlmect the subdivision sewer line to an existing sewer line which is used by
CVS pharmacy. Thank you.
Mayor Pro Tern Lusk
Do we have any more in opposition? I declare the public hearing closed and open it up to council
discussion.
Councilmember Mohrig
I share a little bit of what Mrs. Wysong talked about living in the area. The concern is from a traffic but
also from a density, because we do have a lot of higher density housing in that area already which causes
some of the traffic problems. As we look along Highway 9, I see this as still viable commercial property
and I would like to see us use what we have designated already for that going forward instead of adding
additional residential , especially higher density residential.
Councilmernber Kunz
Ashton Woods is a great builder. They make a great product. Unfortunately, in our situation here in
Milton as a whole, we only have so much commercial property as it is. And, we have had to deny other
good developers before but to give that away without being able to put it up somewhere else is not in my
mind what we want to do. What Laura said and what the community said too, we are trying to fix what
we had done from that perspective and make sure that we can increase our commercial tax base. To
give it up like that, I just can't support, like Rick said as well, I would like to see it stay commercial.
Councilmernber Thurman
I believe in order for a community to really be viable, we have to make sure we have all aspects of the
community, not just the live aspect but also the shopping, commercial, office, parks, etc. To me, we are
overloaded right now on the residential aspect and what we really need are the others. I hate to see one
of the few properties that could be developed as office or commercial go as a high density residential.
Councilmember Hewitt
I agree with my fellow councilmembers. To the gentleman that just spoke, whether this goes residential
or something else like office or retail, that route for that sewer line is probably going to go on that
easement so those two concerns are still going to be there but I prefer to give it a shot at office or retail.
Councilmernber Thurman
I think things now are just turning around and there may not have been a market for this three or four
years ago, but I really think maybe in the future there will be and we need to hold out to do what is best
for the city.
Mayor Pro Tern Lusk
Last year, we developed a visioning study for the Highway 9 corridor from Bethany north to the Forsyth
County line. We had quite a bit of community involvement. We are pretty close to probably approving
that study. What we have been trying to accomplish here in the last seven years is to gain more
community involvement in everything we do and I think this visioning study is a clear example of how
we can get together and come up with a good plan. Having said that, are there any questions of the
applicant?
Mike Busher
Would it be appropriate for me to make a couple of requests and one rebuttal?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 33 of 59
City Manager Lagerbloorn
You have closed the public hearing and the time has been exhausted. I guess if you want to allow
additional comment as a board you can do that but you are not under any obligation to.
Mayor Pro Tern Lusk
We will give you two minutes.
Mike Busher
Thank you for that. I appreciate it. The biggest thing I would like for you to request that if it is within
your purview to, it sounds like it is going to be up for denial, the owner would prefer that we simply
withdraw without prejudice. If that is not acceptable, we would then ask for a deferral if for no other
reason we would retract the application. I'm not sure if that is appropriate but that is what we would
ask. For somebody that wants to partner with the city, I would just share some perspective. I certainly
understand it and I don't want to make this into a fight because when you see us I want you to think of
us as a partner if that is how it has to be. So, if we don't get this one, we will go on. I would just tell
you as someone who seeks out sites, I think there will be a very real hardship that will exist on this site
throughout economic turns but it is self-serving for me to say that. I can just tell you from my
perspective that I think that everything he shared with you is real. And, just for some color, we looked
at what the economic viability of what is going on around here and right now you have about 439,000
square feet of retail within a one mile radius vacant of the site. 439,000 so, there is an awful lot of
vacancy that exists within one mile of the site as it is. One would think that would have to be absorbed
before new development would occur. Similar with office, one mile radius, there is 56,000 square feet
of existing rentable building space within one mile of the site. As you go out to three miles, the numbers
become pretty impressive. There is 4,061,684 existing rentable building area within three miles of the
site. That is an awful lot of space to absorb. That doesn't diminish your intent, I would just ask you to
consider that as you start looking at these visioning studies and asking yourself, I don't think we can
have it both ways in the sense that... thank you, I appreciate your time.
Mayor Pro Tern Lusk
As is our policy, I want to open it up for those in opposition.
Laura Wysong
Just quickly in comment, and I do think Ashton Woods is a great builder we have worked with you guys
before so nothing against you guys. And, I do take into consideration your comments regarding office
space but I think some of that is due to marketability. I am a business person. I live and work in this
area so I just think there are some marketing things that can be done to better attract the right sort of
retail, restaurant and I'm not sure some of that is being done. So, those are things that people in our
corridor are starting to talk about. I think the opportunity is there it just has to be done correctly.
Councilrnember Kunz
First of all, I have no problem accepting withdrawal of the application. In regards to the other
comments, we are aware of the space that is available. We have two directions that we can go. We can
accept defeat or we can try to do something about it. Ultimately, for my reason for being on this
council, is to try to make sure we do something about it. It is a hard fight. You are absolutely right.
But, that doesn't mean that it is not a fight worth fighting.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 34 of 59
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve the applicant's withdrawal without
prejudice for Agenda Item No. 14-006. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion . The motion
passed unanimously (5-0). Mayor Lockwood recused himself from the vote. Councilmember Longoria
was absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consideration ofT13-03NC-08 -330 Batesville Road by STC Two LLC (d/b/a Crown Castle
USA) to Replace the Existing 150 Foot High, Stealth Designed "Light Pole"
Telecommunications Tower with an 195 Foot High "Mono-Pine" Telecommunications Tower
and a Two Part Concurrent Variance: 1) To Reduce the Tower Setbacks from Adjacent Property
Lines from 293 Feet on all Sides to (a) 165 Foot and 181 Feet on the Northwestern Property
Lines, (b) 175 Feet on the Northeastern Property Line, and (c) 49 Feet on the Eastern Property
Line, all as More Particularly Shown on the Site Plan Filed Herewith. (Sec. 54-6(d)(2)). 2) To
Waive the 20 Foot Landscaping Buffer Requirement as the Ground Equipment on the Site will
be Shielded by a Wooded Slatted Fence and Existing Vegetation . (Sec. 54-6(e)).
(Agenda Item No. 13-297)
ORDINANCE NO . 14-01 -196
(First Presentation on December 16, 2013 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Deferred at January 6,2014 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Chris Lagerbloom. City Manager)
Mayor Lockwood
I would like to step in one second. Councilmember Thurman would like to recuse herself.
Councilmember Thurman
Yes, City Manager Lagerbloom, my husband and I are managing members of an LLC that owns
property that is in a very close vicinity to this in which I know some of the opposition is coming from. I
have spoken with our City Attorney and I feel like it is probably best if I recuse myself from this item
since we still have lots available for sale in that subdivision .
City Attorney Jarrard
I concur. We have discussed it and I agree that is the ethically cautious thing to do.
City Manager Lagerbloom
Mayor and Council, I am going to make a brief staff report tonight. It is going to be brief because it is a
continuation ofa report that I gave you a couple of weeks ago and I don't need to repeat that effort. You
know how this application has progressed through this process. It has been before you once before for
your decision, you deferred it so the applicant could meet with the community to see if there were
opportunities to enhance or better the request. In the last two weeks that meeting occurred. The results
of the meeting and the success of it, or lack thereof, is in the eye of the beholder. Feedback was heard in
the community. The feedback that was consistently heard was if there was a way to get it further away
from the property, that would be good, 49 feet is just simply too close. If there is a way to reduce the
height, then do that. Also, if there is stealth technology that is consistent in looking with the stealth
technology that is out there today was brought forward. Then, also there was the request to consider
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 35 of 59
other forms of teclmology in lieu of tower teclmology. The applicant left the meeting willing to try to
put something together to see if they could come up with anything that met the community's criteria.
Before you tonight is the result of that work for your consideration. In front of you tonight is a multi
page document that shows some of the progress that has been made since that meeting. If you
remember, there is an existing tower of 150 feet, a stealth tower that sits on Mr. Bowen's property in a
compound that is roughly 49 feet from the property line. This is a request to locate the new tower to the
west towards Batesville Road 22 feet on the same elevation which would still be within 49 feet of the
adjoining property. One of the things in this new proposal that is being suggested is that tower be
moved an additional 30 feet away from the property line taking it from 49 feet to 79 feet. So, that was a
move in the right direction based upon the community meeting. The other thing that we propose on this
is a reduction in height of 10 feet. Two weeks ago we proposed 195 feet, this is 185 feet. So, those are
the two major things that came in this proposal; a reduction in height and more of a separation from the
property line. The applicant, and they can speak for themselves, point out that the 49 feet and 150 foot
pole versus 79 feet and 185 foot pole, when you start to talk percentages, the percentage of the variance
requested is less than the percentage in variance that exists today. In its current state, they feel as though
that is a better and lesser variance than the one that exists today. Again, I will keep my staff report short
today. You are going to hear opinions of people who think we made progress the other day and those
that think we didn't make any progress. I think this is at the point where there is information on the
table that the council tonight is going to be in that unenviable position of having to make a policy
decision. I think this proposal tonight represents the best effort from the applicant. I am thankful that
we were able to come back with a better plan. We could have come back with no enhancements. If you
chose to approve this tonight or not is a policy decision. If you wonder if the deferral was for value, it
was. I will be happy to answer any questions. I'll let the applicant and those from the community speak
their point of view. For the purposes of tonight, the proposal in front of you is the current proposal that
is seeking your approval.
Mayor Lockwood
I will now open this up for public comment.
Ellen Smith, Esq. Holt Ney Zatcoff & Wasserman, LLP, 100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1800,
Atlanta, Georgia 30004
Good evening Mayor and City Council. I appreciate the time that staff and all of you have spent on this
application. Not just since it has been pending since November but, in almost the year before on
AT &T's behalf, you certainly have incurred over the past year with prior applications of the need for
AT &T. I won't go back through that as part of this public comment because I know the public hearing
is closed. But, r do want to at least give you a little more background especially for the couple of you
who were not for the January 6th meeting. Just briefly, almost a year ago a different applicant, American
Tower Corporation, made an application for a 140 foot mono-pine tower at the Stars Soccer Field, just
down the road from this particular site. And, your independent radio frequency consultant reviewed that
application. One of his comments was, hey guys, why don't you look at this site that is here before you
tonight. Our response on behalf of AT&T was, we've done that. In fact, three or four years ago, AT&T
contacted Crown Castle, who is the applicant tonight, to say, can we go on this existing tower, the
existing 150 foot tower. The answer was no, for a couple of reasons. Number one, it wasn't structurally
sound to carry the additional weight of additional antennas. Two, the design of that tower which is a
slick stick or light pole, as it was approved in Fulton County, didn't allow any space within that pole to
accommodate AT&T or any carrier's additional equipment inside that pole. Teclmology has changed
since that particular stealth application was built ten years ago and currently AT&T's radio equipment,
like another number of other carriers, has to be at the top where its antennas are and not as part of its
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 36 of 59
ground equipment at the bottom location of the tower. That means that the height and the width of the
tower have to change to accommodate the technology that AT&T currently employs. I give you that
background because it does bring us here today. AT &T's needs and its radio frequency needs are
outlined in the original application. They go through and detail. Their radio frequency engineer detailed
the needs that they had with respect to the Stars Soccer location and also the needs that it would have if
it relocated to this particular site. As Chris indicated, the application has been amended with a new plan
and before you tonight is an application for 185 foot tall mono-pine. At our meeting a week ago, with a
number of community members and a number of representatives of the applicant, and I would be remiss
if I didn't at least tell you tonight, in the audience, Mr. Bowen who is the property owner is here along
with a number of representatives of Crown Castle including Mary Guy who is a real estate zoning
manager for the south area, Paul Brown, who is the district manager for Georgia, Rob Williams who is
the project manager and Cheryl Jones with AT&T. I say that just to say that this is an important site for
them. They have been at all of these meetings and are extremely concerned with achieving and meeting
their needs to serve your constituents and their customers in the City of Milton. At the meeting, the
concerns that were raised were three-fold really when you look at it. Location, particularly with respect
to the distance between the replacement tower and the homes to the southeast, which is the Brightwater
Homes Subdivision which the current tower is 49 feet away from the property line, as well as height and
design. In response, AT&T and Crown are proposing a plan that reduces the proposed new tower height
to 185 feet. So, AT&T would be at 180 feet, Sprint would be at 170 feet, Verizon would be at 160 feet,
T-Mobile would be at 150 feet and there is space structurally should another carrier come along and
decide it has a need. We have also moved the tower, as Chris indicated, an additional 30 feet away from
the nearest property line for a 79 foot setback from the Brightwater Homes property. In doing so, I also
want to note that we lose four feet of elevation. That doesn't sound like a lot but, that absolutely does
impact AT&T's coverage and capacity objective. So, just visually, it is reduced 10 feet from the actual
tower steel structure. But, because we are moving it that other 30 feet, we go down in topo so the effect
is 181 foot tall tower. Sorry, it is a lot of math. My dad was a math professor so he would be proud that
I can at least add, subtract, multiply and divide. And, note too that the definition of modification under
your ordinance requires replacement in the same location. That is the language of the ordinance. One of
the things we were asked was could you move the tower site from its current proposed location within
our equipment compound leased area to a place elsewhere on Mr. Bowen's property, further away from
that southeastern property line. The answer was no, we can't, for any number of reasons. There is an
elevation change. Because your ordinance would allow us to go up in a percentage of height, we still
would not achieve the height to meet the coverage objectives because we would be limited by the
ordinance as far as height. Right now, the height that we are proposing is absolutely within the
parameters of your ordinance. We are at 23% height increase and the ordinance allows us to go up to a
30% height increase for a drop and swap or replacement tower. With respect to distance from the
southeastern property line, that over 30 feet addresses two concerns that we heard raised . One was that
the variance we requested against that line, by percent, is no more of a variance relative to the tower
height than what exists now. As Chris indicated, it is actually better. It is lesser of a variance from the
setback requirement for the new tower than what is currently existing, if you only count height. The
second thing is that it helps mitigate those adjacent property owner's concerns with respect to the risk of
the tower falling on their property. To that concern, I note that we followed our application materials
that included a structural engineer certification; it is Vector Engineers that confirms that the proposed
new tower, number one is unlikely to fail, period. But, number two, if it does fail, it would fall within a
50 foot radius of itself. By moving the tower, not just 49 feet, but now 79 feet away, we have attempted
to address that concern. The only thing I just received about thirty minutes ago, some paperwork that
community members have filed, I'm not sure if it is appropriate for you all to consider that as part of
your records since the public hearing is closed, but I do want to at least point out that in that material,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22 , 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 37 of 59
there is a paper from a guy in Canada that discusses power failures due to ice related weather incidents.
Just to give you an idea, as I briefly glance through that, specifically this paper says that there have been
140 tower collapses since 1959 . The study is from 1996, so it is almost 18 years old at this point. Not a
single one o f those tower failures is in the state of Georgia. Not a single one of those tower failures are
related to a wireless tower. They are all related to radio or TV towers. I say that just to say with all due
respect to those concerned, we have looked at the design that is actually being proposed at the location
and you have as part of the application a structural engineer ' s certification that the tower will meet all
the current design standards and that it will not fail and if it does fail, it is going to fail on our property
and not damage adjacent property owner's property . The other thing I just generally want to say is that
if you look at Vector Engineer's report that we submitted from November 13, 2013, it expressly deals
with icing . This report that the community has included is related purely to icing incidents . The Vector
Engineer ' s report expressly confirms that the tower will be designed to withstand ~ inch ice with a
current 30 mile an hour wind speed. So, number one, we don 't think it is going to fail. Number two, it
is already addressed as part of the design element. And, number three with all due respect to that study, I
don't think it has any relevance because it is not even the same type of tower. Those towers are
predominantly are guide wire towers so they are the old kind of really tall towers that have guide towers
coming off the edge . This proposed design doesn't have any of that. It doesn't have the same structural
issues that those towers have. I digressed a little bit on that but I wanted to at least address it. I wanted
you to know too that all the other variances that we have requested with respect to the other property
lines , those are all internal to Mr. Bowen's property . He has a sub-parcel that is about 2 Y4 acres then he
owns another additional almost seven acres. So, all of those other property lines , north and northwest
are all with respect to our own property owner although it is a different parcel so I just wanted to point
that out. The plans today reflect those variances as , again , 79 feet to the southeast, 141 and 145 feet as
they relate to the north and northwest, and 165 feet as they relate to the northeast. We did address in our
materials the requirements to obtain a variance and they are not the same as a rezoning variance or a
variance that your zoning Board of Appeals might hear . There is not a hardship factor necessarily, what
we have to show is that we are furthering the intent and purpose of your ordinance and we do in fact do
that. This application minimizes the number of towers. It encourages co-location and it enables
wireless communication services to deliver services to the community effectively and efficiently. The
last thing that I haven't touched on is design. That was the third concern. There is a technology reason
that the design cannot be a slick stick. That reason is pure and simple. Technology has changed. All of
those carriers, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint , and T -Mobile, the three that are currently there have negatively
impacted coverage because all of their equipment is interior to the design that is there . They will
achieve significantly improved coverage but for AT&T, AT&T will get the coverage that they have
sought all along by having the design be a mono-pine. When I was last here, I had a picture of it. I
certainly appreciate that mono-pines have changed drastically. We 've all seen the bad examples of
them . The designs have improved significantly. They have better branches. The plans that we have
proposed include branching going way down to at least try to blend in with the existing tree foliage
understanding that it is still going to be a tall structure it would be the same height whatever design we
were talking about but from a technology standpoint, to get the height down to 185 feet and to
accommodate all of the new equipment that AT&T has and the designs that it has , it has to be not
interior antennas and not a slick stick but instead a mono-pine. I respectively request your approval and
I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time.
Brian Daughdrill, 945 E. Paces Ferry Road, Suite 2750, Atlanta, Georgia 30326
Good evening Mayor and Council. I am with the law firm of Roberts and Daughdrill. We are here
tonight on behalf of Brightwater Homes and as Chris has indicated and Ellen has spoken to, progress has
been made, no question , what is before you tonight is better than what was originally brought to you.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22 , 2014 at 6 :00 pm
Page 38 of 59
Instead of talking about that, I want to give you visual references. Presently , or the relocation that has
been proposed, is 30 feet. The distance from where I am standing to the wall behind you is
approximately 30 feet. You are going to have an 18 story structure that has been moved that short
distance away. That is not that much . Eighteen stories; 180 feet up. But, you need to pay attention to
one other factor too and that is that what you have existing now, if you set it beside this pole right here,
it would come to just to the edge of the sprinkler head. What is being put in as replacement will go from
that pole to this screen over there , visually 18 stories up. So , yes , progress has been made. Has a
solution been reached ? We don 't believe so . We would withdraw our opposition if they brought the
tower down to 170 feet. We would withdraw our opposition if they reduced this broad profile plan that
they 've got to a slick stick. Now, Ellen just spoke and said that technology has changed and that they
can 't do it but at the meeting the Mayor was there and he heard them. The discussion was that the
existing tower is approximately 36 inches, give or take, because of the cable and the radio equipment
would have to go there; it would have to be larger. But, what they described at that meeting was
approximately a 50 inch profile. Fifty inches is right here. It is still not the profile of going all the way
over to the screen. If you are going to have something 18 stories beside you this close, then I submit to
you that you would rather have a profile that is only 50 inches wide. Now, I understand that there is
some discussion about the whole modification issue. The cit y 's ordinance gives you the right where
concurrent variances are sought , to look at these issues , to look at the fact that in 2000 or 2001 when the
original tower was built, there was vacant land there , now there is not. Now, there is a subdi v ision that
has been approved and is going in . Your ordinance says that they have to demonstrate wh y they have to
be so close to residential structures and the reasons for those are three-fold; you 've heard them already
addressed . One is the visual impact of having a structure that close; one is a safety impact, yes, in the
two weeks that we had, we have submitted an article from a U .S. Army Engineer studying icing on
towers , and I agree, it is not exactly the same tower, but that study found that when towers fail , and they
had a wide variety of towers in the stud y, that they typically fail and leave debris over at least 50% of
their height area . That puts this right beside the existing home. So , we are concerned that the existing
structure, even if you mov e it to 120 feet , you are having to assume that the report from the engineer,
remember that is an opinion, it is one opinion , the article is another opinion . That opinion is not
guaranteed and it is not insured. They are not guaranteeing that if that tower falls , it won 't fall on that
house. And , in the package that has been submitted to the city and I would incorporate that has our legal
and constitutional objections , I would point out that there is a map of what is called the Dixie Tornado
Alley and Milton and this area is at the outer edges of it. Those winds move west to east and would
then, if you had that sort of impact, would push it directly toward our property . You are assuming and
hoping that that tower, if it fails , does indeed fold up in the compound, but if it doesn 't there is a house
there. And , they are asking our clients to carry that risk . All we are saying is, move it further away.
Under SEC regulations , that they could move it up 75 feet without having to relicense. So , there is room
to move it. Do they have to move it 200 feet and trigger re-licensing? No . If you move it 75 feet away
plus the 49 feet , you would give us the protection. You would still be inside the existing property and
you would protect us. We are asking the city contemplate , you've got the power under your ordinance
54-5, to look at all of these things and we are asking that you look at them. We will withdraw our
opposition if it is dropped to 170 in height, moved away , and you go with the slick stick technology.
They can still do it. It would take a bigger tower, no question, because you have more antennas in it.
But it still can be done. And, that is more stealth than something with the profile of the width of this
room. Thank you.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 39 of 59
Shane Roach, Brightwater Homes, 230 Hammond Drive, Suite 110, Sandy Springs, Georgia
30328
We have all talked a lot about the numbers. We've shared some emails among applicants,
councilmembers, etc. about the variety of things that are being proposed here. I want to point out just a
general consensus of how we are looking at the request that is being made today. I am a cell phone user.
I have a family of four and I have spent hundreds of dollars to AT&T each month. I am in full support
of cellular coverage and I understand the intent that is being approached here. Minimizing towers in the
City of Milton, we understand and appreciate that fully. What we don't understand or appreciate in this
proposal is how this particular tower should be rebuilt in what we would call gross non-conformance to
all the other restrictions that we would put on any other new tower in the City of Milton today. A tower
of this nature couldn't be built on any other new site in the city. Just a few of the things that are in your
ordinances today; you have to show proof that a tower would need to be over 100 feet tall that is going
to be adjacent to residential property, 150 feet is the maximum tower height that would be available
today on any new tower sight, I ~ times the height of the tower in setback would be the requirement of
any new cell tower today, photo simulations would have been required, balloon floats with two weeks
advance notice for everyone to understand what the visual impact of a tower like this, all of these things
would have occurred if this tower had been proposed on a new sight. We have a hard time
understanding that because of the intent of minimizing new towers being put in the City of Milton, how
do all of those things not apply to this site? It is very contrary as what we see as the intent of the
ordinance as they are written. This tower is anywhere from 35 to 45 feet taller depending on which
proposal we are looking at, up to nine times wider, as we have addressed, it is anywhere between 200
and 244 feet closer than its required setback would be, it is built within the physical shadow of a house
that could be built adjacent to this tower. We have worked a few numbers and lessoned the variance by
moving the tower thirty feet away from its current location while the percentage of variance goes down,
the physical variance is still greater. That tower would be 198 feet reduction in setback. The tower that
exists today is 176 feet reduction in the setback if it were required. We've talked about the tower's 50
foot fall radius. To be clear, the fall radius, the design of the tower says that the top 50 feet will break
off first. That is the engineering behind it. We put a weak spot in the top of the tower, 50 feet down,
with the idea that when the wind blows, it breaks off at that point and hopefully it falls within a 50 foot
radius. Expedited process is a real challenge for us here. All the things that we have just laid out, that
would not be allowed in any other context for a new tower in the City of Milton, how does that make it
appropriate for this site closer to a residential property, taller than any other tower, where does this meet
the sensibility of creating a new tower that exceeds all the other requirements that you have in your
ordinance. Going back to the previous proposal that was put on the table for AT&T, the Stars Soccer
site, as we know it, met all of the ordinances of the city today. Save one very minor variance of its 3500
feet separation from the nearest tower. This tower is actually the one that would be separate from. I say
all these things to point out that common sensibility is what we are appealing to here. Why would we
have these restrictions on all new towers in the city, why would we throw all of those out the window,
just to save one tower, built in a location that has severe variances and adjustments required to allow this
to happen. If all else fails, if there is no way to find an alternate site, an alternate technology, something
that can replace the large tower that is being proposed here today, come to us with something that is
very similar in nature to the tower that exists. All of our technology is getting smaller. Somehow, I am
sure, there is a way that tower could be added 10 to 15 feet or rebuilt within 10 to 15 feet of its current
height, any technology, in a stealth technology. The word stealth is used loosely. The light pole that is
there today is 3 feet in diameter, the tree that is being proposed is 28 feet in diameter. It is hard to call
that stealth technology. Give us something that looks much like the pole today and you are going to find
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 40 of 59
the opposition much less. All of these other conditions far outweigh anything else that we would expect
to see in the city. We hope you will consider that.
John Gorman, 386 Gables Walk, Milton, Georgia 30004
Thank you for the opportunity to speak Mr. Mayor and City Council. I am in the process of building a
house in Milton. I just have a couple of comments. I spoke at the last public hearing and then attended
the meeting last week and just have a couple of thoughts. I really as a future neighbor and resident of
Milton, I want to appeal to your sensibility more than anything else. If you think about the tower that is
there now and when it was built, when it was originally zoned, there was not a neighborhood next door.
Times have changed, things have changed in the city and I would just ask you to consider that in this
variance request. The proposed tower is definitely materially different than the current tower so you
have to also consider that in your decision. The new structure and variance approval is a step, as the
council member pointed out earlier in the evening; it is a step toward losing the rural view of Milton.
The landscape will be materially changed forever. So, I would just ask you to consider that. And,
fortunately, I don't live in a world of percentages, I live in a world of feet and inches, and as a resident
in the adjacent property, I would just ask you to consider that in the safety and well-being of the
residents of Milton as well as towers can be designed and I'm sure that Crown Castle has the best
engineers, things happen, they don't always go as planned. That is something that we in the real world
that live in feet and inches have to consider. Thank you.
Frank Mauro, 290 Batesville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
Good evening Mr. Mayor and councilmembers. Thank you very much. I have lived at my address for
24 years. We take pride in our property and I just want to read something from the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. It gives local community zoning boards the right to use zoning regulations to protect the
welfare of citizens threatened by towers. We are threatened by this tower. Now, the new proposal is to
move it 30 feet closer to me, to my property, in all due respect, I think that is even too much. The initial
tower, we went and the Fulton County Commissioners, as you know, turned this down at a time when
there was no housing on Batesville Road other than my house and Mr. Bowen's. They vehemently
turned this down on a 6-1 vote because of the height of this tower and the inappropriate location in a
residential area. They tried to get a 200 foot tower put in there and it wasn't a stealth tower. Even the
judge in Fulton County turned this down. He said it had to be of stealth design in nature when there was
no housing there. I have fought with all you people and all the citizens of North Fulton to get away from
Fulton County and to have our own community up here in the City of Milton, a green community, this is
not green when we are going to put a 185 foot cell tower right in the middle of a residential area. You
remember the Titanic, even God couldn't sink it. Well, we had a tornado come through Crabapple that
destroyed the car wash. We don't know what a tornado of a great magnitude can do. There are young
families that are moving in. I don't have a young family but I love my property. I take pride in my
property, we care for our property. I plead with you to vote no on this; to turn this down. When I look
at the AT&T sites that exist, it looks like their only dead zone is along Birmingham Highway and I
know there is a solution to that and it is called microcells. We have utility poles going up right now,
brand new utility poles, from Providence Road extending down, and you can put microcells on these.
Now, during our meeting, the AT&T engineer said it was possible to do that, more expensive but
possible. My contention is that AT&T is a large corporation. They filed bankruptcy once at
bondholder's expense, at shareholders expense, they are a large corporation, we are residents. Our main
assets are our houses and to put a cell tower up and decrease the value of our houses in the City of
Milton is just unimaginable to me, especially in light of how we got to where we are now, the City of
Milton, away from Fulton County. Yet, Fulton County saw this as a detriment to the area and they
turned it down back in 2002. I ask you as a longtime resident, and I know none of you would want a
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 41 of 59
cell tower of this magnitude next to your property with your children being raised near it, including the
AT &T representative behind me doesn't want it in his area, the Kimball Bridge area. So, with that, I
just ask you all to vote no on this. This should not happen. This is not a modification. This is a new
cell tower. Modifications are very minor adjustments. This is not a minor adjustment. You want to go
from 150 feet to 185 feet and you are extending the width from ... it is a monster; it is deplorable. I just
can't believe that this has even been proposed. So, Birmingham Highway needs a little coverage from
AT&T, it's got coverage from the others that should be considered. There has to be an alternative.
There are other sites closer to Birmingham Highway. Microcells are green, safer, and they do the job.
Thank you very much.
Charlie Bostwick, Brightwater Homes, 230 Hammond Drive, Suite 110, Sandy Springs, Georgia
30328
Mayor and City Council, thank you for giving us all the time to speak this evening and really listening to
us. You have an opportunity here tonight to meet everybody's real needs. I have to urge you to say no
to this but if you do approve something here, there is an opportunity to meet the minimum needs of
AT&T by sticking to a stealth tower. It is just tall enough to add their equipment to it. 160 feet is
enough to do that with the same configuration that it is. They will of course tell you that is not the way
they like to do it; it doesn't meet their needs. The truth is the other users on that tower aren't coming to
you to add to it because it is enough. They haven't shown us a map that says, here is what a 160 foot
slick stick tower would be and this is our coverage at that. They haven't demonstrated that they need to
go wider and taller to meet their needs. You can speculate as to why they haven't shown that but at very
least if they are going to ask for taller and wider, they should demonstrate that the 160 feet doesn't meet
their needs. I would speculate that it would probably meet their needs enough. So, you have an
opportunity tonight to do something that can meet everybody's needs, nobody gets exactly what they
want, but then again you probably won't hear from any of us again on this topic if you do that. Mr.
Bowen, the property owner, who stands to benefit from this, stood out on his street with me before I
purchased this property, before I invested millions of dollars in the future of the City of Milton, and said,
that tower will never be any taller than it is and it will never be any wider, they will never bolt anything
on to it, those lights will never be turned on, they aren't allowed to be turned on, and here it is less than a
year from when he said that and we are standing here with very much the opposite going on. I think the
intent of your ordinance which is clearly a smart one is to keep from impacting more properties than
necessary. The ordinance of course is to extent existing towers. I don't think the intent of that was to
take a very modest tower that doesn't get much notice and tum it in to one that greatly detracts from
people's properties in a way that is significantly different than the existing tower. Please don't do this to
the families that live there. Please don't do this to our business. Thank you very much.
Kendall Bowen, 300 Batesville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am the property owner of the property in question. The cell tower has been on my property for
approximately 10 years. I have not had one single personal complaint about the tower in 10 years. I
don't know of any public complaints that have been made about the cell tower in 10 years. The courts
decided years ago that our property was appropriate for the location of a cell tower; that is why it has
been there for 10 years. I've owned the property since 1980 and I don't live here now. I own the
adjacent property that was mentioned earlier, except on the eastern side of where the tower is located.
For some reason, nobody has mentioned the fact that just to the east of where the tower is now, there is a
detention pond. There is no house on that lot. In my opinion, the change to a mono-pine will be a big
improvement over the stealth tower. I would have preferred to have had the pine, since pines are
adjacent to it, rather than a lamppost. I think it is more in keeping with what the area looks like. The
other thing I would like to say is this; this tower was here long before the adjacent subdivision was
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 42 of 59
developed. Everyone who purchased here, the developers and those people who have bought property
here since that time, knew there was a tower on the property. It is a stealth tower; it is not invisible. So,
there is going to be a tower here one way or the other. I've got a contract and so when I talked to my
neighbor, I was misquoted earlier, I didn't say that the tower would not change. I thought there might be
an additional tower there. I did tell him that there would never be any lights on it because it was below
200 feet. But, I learned later that the City of Milton didn't want to put two towers on the property; they
just wanted to go with one. I know you guys modified the ordinance accordingly. So, based on these
factors and the fact that I am a life-long resident of North Fulton and I love this area. I think this is
something that will help a lot of people. I don't know anybody that doesn't use a cell phone. One thing
I learned a long time ago, if you are going to have cell phones, you have to have cell towers. Thank you
very much for your consideration and I would appreciate it if you would approve this. Thank you.
Amy Marsden, 527 Gables Run, Milton, Georgia 30004
(The City Clerk read the following comment)
I have four small children, ages 9, 9, 7, and 3. We just bought this home and I am very concerned about
the property value of our home as well as the well-being of my children. We are in opposition of this.
Mayor Lockwood
Are there any questions for staff or the applicant or any comments?
Councilmember Lusk
This is either for staff or the applicant. We know the ground elevation that is proposed on Batesville is
1,008 and with 185 foot pole, the top elevation would be 1,193. I don't know what the ground elevation
was proposed at Stars. Can you answer that?
Ellen Smith
The ground elevation at Stars was 978 and the tower in the middle of the equipment that AT&T was
proposing at that location was 140 feet. The delta between those is 70 feet higher on the Batesville Road
site. The reason for that is numerous . One is that there is a ridge in between those two. The height that
we are proposing at Batesville has to get over that ridge to get to the Triple Crown Estates subdivision.
Two is that there are any number of trees, even at the lower elevation, with all due respect to the
proposal that we could go at 160 feet, that does not work. It does not get over that ridge. It does not get
over tree and other impacts in the way and it doesn't allow AT&T to get the coverage that is needs. The
other thing in keeping with that you didn't receive any radio frequency coverage maps for those existing
carriers and there is a very simple reason for that. The ordinance which deals with modification of
tower requires that the applicant show that an additional carrier has need so that even if we submitted
need based information for Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile, it wouldn't be properly before you because
your ordinance requires us to have another carrier to have need. With all due respect to that, all of those
existing carriers also have greater needs. They are currently living with the tower in its current
configuration and where they are because, frankly, there is nothing else in the area that would meet all of
your current ordinance requirements, where there is a landowner that is willing to lease property and
outside of the 3500 foot tower separation requirement. I digressed. You asked about elevation at Stars
Soccer and I gave you more information than you wanted, I think.
Councilmember Lusk
So, is Birmingham Road within the propagation area for Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 43 of 59
Ellen Smith
Yes.
Councilmember Lusk
At its current elevation on the existing pole?
Ellen Smith
It is being served. I know that Sprint and representatives from Crown can speak to this better than I can.
I know Sprint for one in particular would like to add additional equipment to beef up its coverage, but
because of the tower structure that is there, nobody, not just AT&T, no one else can add any additional
equipment because it is not structurally capable of accepting it.
Councilmember Lusk
But, would it be capable if you used a pole with the exterior mounted to the equipment on it at its current
height?
Ellen Smith
Not for AT&T, no. I don't have the exact infonnation for all of the other carriers. Their coverage
would certainly be increased because they would have external antennas. If you wanted to look at the
propagation maps that we did submit, you can see that AT&T's coverage objective between the
Batesville Road site and the Stars Soccer site, all things being equal and trying to reach the same
customers for data capacity, coverage capacity, that doesn't just mean, by the way, the bar on your
phone, that indicates availability to make a call outside of a building, right, so four bars does not
necessarily indicate that you can send an email. I say that to say that the coverage maps that we
submitted, AT&T has to have a minimum of a RAD center of 180 feet at the new location, at the 1,008
elevation the additional 30 feet away from the property line. I don't know if I have ..... you look
confused still.
Councilmember Lusk
Well, I think I am a little bit confused. Previously, you proposed 140 foot tower at Stars and that was
going to give you a propagation area that would have gone over and beyond Batesville. Is that correct to
say?
Ellen Smith
It would have gone to Batesville, yes.
Councilmember Lusk
At a lower elevation starting out at 30 feet lower in elevation?
Ellen Smith
It would have.
Council member Lusk
You are going over the same ridge you are talking about.
Ellen Smith
The same ridge but also look beyond to the other side, to the Triple Crown side. To get that same
coverage you've moved 3500 feet roughly away, so you have to be higher, not to just get over that ridge,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday , January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 44 of 59
but to reach distance, that additional distance, between the Batesville Road site and, for example, the
Triple Crown subdivision. So, it is not just an elevation, the signal has to travel a given distance. So,
we have moved roughly 3500 feet away from that site so you have to make up for that with additional
height to have the signal go back to Triple Crown. Does that make sense?
Councilmember Lusk
What is your effective transmitting horizontal distance?
Ellen Smith
It depends on any number of factors including topography.
Rob Williams, Crown Castle, 6935 Treeline Drive, Cumming, Georgia 30004
As far as the effect of radiated distance of an antenna, with the technology that is out there, you could
stick one antenna up there that could shoot 20 miles but with the capacity needs of communities now,
they have so many different towers, they have to bring it in closer to handle the number of phones that
are hitting each tower. So, going off of what Ellen said a few minutes ago, it is not just the ridge, it has
to do with the coverage projective of the popUlation, the amount of calls going through, the data, and the
proximity to existing towers is another factor as well. There are so many factors which is exactly why
the height had to be increased. And going back to the Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile service that is there
currently, they are probably three or four years behind in technology on that site because they cannot do
anymore so that affects the customers. They can't satisfy their customer's needs based on what they
currently have because there is no more room on the tower to do anything with. They can't upgrade
their networks so that is where that sits at this point.
Councilmember Kunz
Tell me about microcells.
Rob Williams
I wish I could. I'm not very familiar with microcells. They is more of an AT&T question.
Councilmember Kunz
Okay, could someone talk to me about that?
Ellen Smitb
I can . Just to give you a concept. Microcells; micro problem. Not a macro solution. We are looking to
cover a coverage objective that includes Triple Crown that includes a radius around this location. With
microcells, you would have the ability to shoot from say a light pole along Batesville or Birmingham,
but those have to communicate with number one, a tower ultimately and they have to communicate with
themselves . So, you are talking about a number, not just one or two, of additional facilities but a
significant number. They also have to communicate in a line and the topo around this particular
property doesn 't lend itself to that. If you think about the city's 911 services, you guys are about to
build, I think, several, or co-locate upon several super large towers, 300 feet plus towers, you are going
to go on fewer of those towers because you are taller in the air and you're goal is to transmit your signal
so that your radio, fire, and emergency personnel can communicate to get to an emergency situation
better than they can currently. You are not going to propose as a city to solve that macro-solution
covering the city for 911 calls, by placing a bunch of antennas along the rights of way throughout your
city. The other issue is that those microcells also have to communicate, and a number of folks in this
area, both in Triple Crown and the surrounding already built out neighborhoods have something called a
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 45 of 59
femto cell, it is basically a wireless router, essentially, inside their house. It is to boost cell service. Our
goal, AT&T's goal, is to try and eliminate that from a customer's home to better serve them to get their
data and capacity needs met without having to have all of those different technologies because,
ultimately, in any event, they have to be supported by a tower. If you look at the tower rings around the
city, and that was part of the AT&T RF engineer's application, there is on that coverage plot you can see
all of the existing towers around this area. They all have to communicate with each other. You have to
have a tower to communicate with a microcell just like you have to have towers communicate with each
other to appropriately hand off as people either travel along the right of ways or walking into their house
from the street. You can't solve that solution and that current demand by microcells. They are being
tested in other markets, two other markets in the nation, by AT&T. It is a solution for Hartsfield Airport
and a sports stadiwn. It is a solution for a very limited in-building coverage objective but it is not a
solution that serves the technology needs for this particular area.
Councilmember Mohrig
Can you talk to me about the actual profile of the tower that you are proposing; 185 feet, what is it going
to look like?
Ellen Smith
Just to clarify this whole width question, so that we all understand, the width of the tower pole, the steel
itself, is not much bigger, somebody jwnp in and correct me if I am wrong, than what is currently there
as far as a diameter of the pole. The difference in diameter is due to tree branches. So, to make it look
like a pine tree, you do have to have bigger limbs hanging off near the bottom and there is a tower
elevation that is in your package, and if you give me a second I can tell you what page it is on; c(3). So,
those branches at the bottom, roughly, to give you an idea distance wise, is about the length of the wall
that is right behind the city staff, the little half wall here.
Councilmember Mohrig
How many feet is that?
Rob Williams
The large branches are 12 feet, so you are looking at from the base of the center of the tower at the very
bottom you will have a 24 foot span. Like a normal tree. As you go up, the branches get shorter to
make it look more realistic.
Council member Mohrig
So, 12 feet going out from the edge of the pole, so 12 on each side of the pole. What is the width of the
pole?
Rob Williams
At the very base the pole is 96 inches and tapers as you go up. 96 inches at the base which is 60 feet
below the bottom limb. You are probably looking at about a 50 inch diameter at the 60 foot level.
Councilmember Kunz
Just for clarification, on these coverage maps that we have here, are these strictly for AT&T's purposes;
not for other cell carriers?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 46 of 59
Ellen Smith
Correct, and again, because we were going off the requirement of the ordinance to show a need for an
additional carrier.
Councilmember Mohrig
What is the width at the very top; at that 185 feet?
Rob Williams
Including the branches?
Councilmember Mohrig
Yes, the width of the tower and the branches so we know what the total profile is.
Ellen Smith
If you look on the Vector Engineering report that is part of the application, I don't know if you have it in
front of you, there is also a tower design.
Rob Williams
The tower design is on the second page at the top right. It will tell you that the 12 foot branches are
closer to the bottom and the 6 foot branches are closer to the top. The tower at the top is 35 inches so
you are looking at roughly 15 feet wide.
Council member Kunz
What is the diameter of the current tower?
Rob Williams
At the base, I believe it is 36 inches.
Mayor Lockwood
I have a question and Ellen, maybe you can answer this. We all hear about new technology coming out
and just like everything at some point, maybe a cell tower will be obsolete, or the cars we drive, etc.
What happens in that case?
Ellen Smith
That is a good question and I have been doing this job for 14 years and I have been asked that question
consistently for 14 years and to date, that hasn't changed. Just to give you an idea, the CDC reports,
they look at household usage of cell phones and for the first time ever in 2009, the number of cell phone
only households exceeded land line households. More people, especially in the economic downturn,
turning to cutting costs, their land line is easy to cut because if they can get a call on their cell phone,
they can get that call anywhere there is coverage, they are going to choose that expense. That is a
question that is asked consistently, to date; all towers are still the technology for today. What has
happened in the past decade is that tower height has decreased. Applications a decade ago, when the
Telecommunications Act first came out in 1996, applications ranged from 250 to 300 feet. That was
relatively standard. That was irrespective of the fact that the FAA has lighting requirements that kick in
over 200 feet or lower if you are near an airport. There is a driving technology that more people are
using these, that just means that there are more towers, unfortunately or fortunately depending on if you
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 47 of 59
make your livelihood from tower applications. I am not seeing any trend that we will do away with
towers anytime soon, certainly not in the next 20, 40, 50 years.
Mayor Lockwood
What if 10 years from now either the existing tower or if we approve the tower tonight becomes
obsolete, what do the property owners get left with? Is it abandoned or do they dismantle it?
Ellen Smith
I think there is a requirement, probably in your ordinance, I don't have it in front of me that requires that
if a tower is abandoned or not used for a period of time, it is usually 6 months, and then the tower owner
has to take it down. So, if it became obsolete and it wasn't being used for the transmittal of wireless
service, it would have to come down. To answer your question on lease term, they are done in 5 year
increments so, my guess is that if the tower became obsolete there would just not be a renewal of those
various lease agreements because each carrier would have a determination that it doesn't work for them
anymore then the tower would come down.
Council member Mohrig
With the current location in your new proposal, could you go down to 170 feet?
Ellen Smith
No.
Council member Mohrig
Is that because you are saying the ridge and the trees?
Ellen Smith
It is because of any number of reasons, not just the ridge and the trees, it is to meet the distance between
the Batesville Road site and the Birmingham Highway site to shoot over to connect to the towers that are
on the other side of Triple Crown, to connect to all of the distances around, it has to be, and believe me
we fought a little bit internally long and hard over the 180 foot RAD center for AT&T. I do want to
note, it is an effective 14 foot height decrease because we are going not only 10 feet down in height but
the topo is changing. Another thing I want to note is the ordinance expressly allows us to go up to 30%
height increase, no variance, no burden, except to show need, and the RF affidavit that we have
submitted and the RF Engineer with AT&T was at our meeting last week but 180 feet, they have looked
at it and that is what they have to have to meet customer demand.
Councilmember Lusk
I don't mean to flog the deceased equine here, but I am dealing with the trigonometry , with Stars Soccer
your top elevation would have been 1,018 feet.
Ellen Smith
Correct.
Councilmember Lusk
And, that would have served beyond east of Triple Crown or Stars Soccer; that was sufficient height to
go east and create that propagation area.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday , January 22 , 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 48 of 59
Ellen Smith
Yes.
Councilmember Lusk
Now, this one that you have proposed, to Rick's point here, the top elevation is going to be 75 feet
higher. ..
Ellen Smith
No, 70 feet and the difference is that the top of that tower is 185; just to compare apples to apples,
AT&T's RAD center is 180 .
Councilmember Lusk
Okay , but the top of the tower is 185.
Ellen Smith
But, the top of the Stars Soccer tower was going to be 4 feet taller than the 140; it would have been 144 .
Councilmember Lusk
Relatively , it is about the same differential.
Ellen Smith
It is a 70 feet delta. The difference comes in, you are also moving roughly 3500 feet further west so to
meet those same coverage objectives ...
Councilmember Lusk
I follow you.
Council member Kunz
Regarding the Stars Soccer question , when you did that application , most of that is in a flood plain. I am
just curious why that didn't work.
Ellen Smith
The Stars Soccer location tower was at the highest elevation on that property , it was not in the flood
plain.
Councilmember Kunz
Why was the flood plain not an option?
Ellen Smith
Because you have a 150 foot height limitation. So, there was no , it was the tallest tower at the highest
elevation on that site that AT&T could come in with without seeking a variance as to height.
Mayor Lockwood
Not to be the bad guy or the pink elephant in the room , and maybe our City Attorney can help us , it
looks like to me that we are going to deal with a cell tower, whether it was at the previous proposed
location or whether it is this cell tower, and I certainly see everyone 's case here but Ken, can you
explain what will happen , obviously we have to make some kind of decision.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday , January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 49 of 59
City Attorney Jarrard
Well, I think, Mr. Mayor you are asking what we need to at least be contemplating, I think that AT&T
has made it clear, at least to the city in some of the meetings that we participated with them , is that they
are either going to get relief here or they are going to renew their application immediately at the
alternative site, so you are going to be dealing with a tower at one of these two locations. I don't mean
to be too matter of fact on it but that is the case, period. It is going to be one of the two locations. The
City of Milton is certainly no stranger to cell towers, I think I have made this clear and the City Manager
has made it clear in our meetings, we are in litigation right now over three cell towers. We know a lot
about these devices and know that they are necessary and know that a lot of folks don't want them near
them and we understand that so I don't mean to bookend it so cavalierly but I think that you can
understand that you are either going to address this issue before us in a way that satisfies AT&T or you
are going to address it in a way that may make sense for them in another location that you have had in
front of you already.
Councilmember Mohrig
Ken, maybe you can answer this and maybe Robyn can. I wasn't here when you did the prior
application. Was that an AT&T only tower at 140 feet on the Stars Soccer location or is that combining
other carriers?
City Attorney Jarrard
I think that was a single AT&T tower which, therefore, because this proposal dispensed with the need
for that tower, that is in fact one of the requirements for them to get out of the modification rule of our
expedited process . They had to show to the director that a tower, a swap and drop is what we are calling
it, took away the need for another tower in Milton.
Councilmember Mohrig
And, that tower at Stars Soccer did meet all of our current city ordinance requirements?
City Attorney Jarrard
Other than the distance between a nearby tower, other than that, I believe the answer is yes.
Councilmember Mohrig
But, as far as the setbacks, distance from property lines?
City Manager Lagerbloom
It met the requirements. I would be careful not to go so far as to consent tonight that it would have met
all of our requirements because it was withdrawn before we could actually make that determination. To
the extent that we were evaluating it; it met our setback requirements.
City Attorney Jarrard
And, the City Manager makes a good point as well. I don't want to get into a position of stating on the
record that one was warranted and the other is warranted. I was simply trying to make the point that we
will be dealing with them at one location or the other.
Councilmember Mohrig
And, my question was more just for edification. I completely understand what the first proposal; not to
say well let's go to that one because that is not what is before us.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday , January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 50 of 59
Mayor Lockwood
To further my question, because we have had it recommended to us and again, I certainly understand, I
wish we didn't have to deal with cell towers, no offense, but nobody wants a cell tower in their backyard
and I totally get it, but what is the process. We have this with zoning sometimes. There are certain
things that if we choose to deny then sometimes we lose all control.
City Attorney Jarrard
A couple of thoughts, number one, first of all, but for the variances to the extent that they met the
definition of modification, and this wouldn't really be that onerous of a task because it would almost be,
I'm not going to say as a matter of right, they would still need to show a need, but it is only because of
the variances that I think the council has a lot more flexibility and candidly, you would have the right to
deny. They may have satisfied a need requirement but the variances alter the analysis.
Councilmember Mohrig
And, I guess when I look at this the difference I see is that we are putting something a lot larger, in my
view, than what is there today. The people bought knowing what was there today. The property owner
and the developer knew what was there today . That is my concern. When I look at this, yes, there is a
need; is this the best place to put it?
Councilmember Hewitt
To Rick's point, in my opinion, the modification ordinance was, that is just my opinion, is a slight
modification here or there, perhaps another array on an existing tower. I know that is not the type of
tower that is there now. Building another tower that is 45, 35 feet taller than what it is now in a different
location even though it is right there now, is a new tower in my mind. Yes, the folks that bought
recently knew that thing was there, but again, that is what they thought was there. I'm not sure that this,
in my mind, meets the spirit of our modification ordinance. To me, it is a new tower on the same
location.
Mayor Lockwood
The only comment I would have, unless you tell me I'm wrong City Manager, Staff, or City Attorney,
we are going to deal with this somewhere. And, to the point, obviously this is a different tower and
bigger and all that and I'm not saying it should be here or there or trying to pick one spot or another, but
obviously if a tower goes somewhere else, it is going to be different than what people bought too. What
I am saying is that we may be just pushing the can down the road but we have to come to a resolution.
Councilmember Mohrig
My main concern and in voicing my concern, after talking with different councilmembers, is the change
and to Ken's point, if it was in compliance with our current ordinance, you are right, we wouldn't even
be having this discussion, it would go up 30% but because we already have these variances from what
we said, this is what we think protects Milton, that is where my concern comes in for the residents that
are there and the impact this would have on them.
Councilmember Kunz
. Considering I am one of the new guys on council, how did we come up with 150 feet to begin with?
What is the history on that? Was it originally a Fulton County ordinance that we just took in? Did we
actually have a debate on it?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 51 of 59
City Manager Lagerbloom
It was a thorough evaluation by the council and it was adopted. It is not a carryover from Fulton
County. But, it happened and it preceded the most recent process which was to look towards the more
general philosophy of limiting the number of towers in Milton. That is the one thing that I want to focus
you back in on is the policy decision that the council approved was to limit the number of towers in
Milton either by incentivizing the extension of an existing one or allowing one to be a replacement
where one already exists. This is a bit of a nuance compared to what this would look like if a new tower
application were to come in. So, it is subject to what does replacement mean and I get that there are
different interpretations of that but this request is travelling on a different path than a new tower
application and you just have to remember that as you make whatever decision you want to make. We
can talk about a new tower process but that is not the process we are in right now. We can talk about
that all day long but that doesn't exist tonight for the purpose of you making a decision on this
application.
Mayor Lockwood
That is the big issue and unfortunately what we are faced with is that we are looking at something that is
bigger than our ordinance but the intent was to eliminate a new tower.
Councilmember Lusk
Just one last comment, I find it curious based on the joint meeting that the applicant had with the
community that we came down 10 feet in height. Just a question, is it based on an engineering study or
was it based on just a compromise? And, is there any more room there for compromise on height?
Ellen Smith
Sure, I absolutely can address that. Lanry Oggen, who came to the meeting last week on behalf of
AT&T, and also his immediate superior Inman Mustafa who is the Senior RF Engineer for AT&T, we
all had a conference call and meeting Wednesday afternoon immediately after our meeting, they looked
at it Wednesday afternoon, Thursday and Friday morning and the answer that I was given from their RF
team was, frankly, first you can go down six feet, you can go down because we are losing the additional
elevation, and I appreciate that four feet in elevation doesn't sound like much, I absolutely appreciate
that, but their answer was first we want to go down, if at all, just five feet and then taking into account
that additional four feet elevation. They came back after we came back to them and said no really what
is the bottom line and they have said definitively, 180 feet. I am not a RF Engineer. But, their team did
look at it. They have been looking at this area for years. They have looked at this site for years. This is
the only solution that works for them from a radio frequency perspective. It was not just a settlement. It
was a good faith attempt based on the engineering needs to meet customer demands.
Councilmember Lusk
So, just to be totally clear, we are talking about the highest mounting height of the equipment is 180 so
that would make the top of the tower 185?
Ellen Smith
The top of the tower is 185, yes sir. So, AT&T's RAD center is the midpoint of the antenna, for any
carrier, not just AT&T, is at 180 feet. The top of the steel is 185 feet with branches hanging off so you
don't just have a metal pole sticking up. With all due respect, I certainly appreciate the discussion and I
also appreciate that this is a different stealth design than what is there now. I do, at the same time, the
current design doesn't work. The ordinance allows you to consider technology changes and still
approve a stealth design. That is the direction we were given a little under a year ago when we in good
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday , January 22 , 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 52 of 59
faith withdrew the application at Stars Soccer Field and have spent the past year modifying your
ordinance to allow for this particular policy decision to say we prefer taller towers than new towers up to
certain limitations , up to no lighting requirement, to preserve the aesthetic view of the city, no blinking
red or white light , and to ensure that we don't increase the height over 30%. We have met that. We are
at 23% increase in height and certainly I appreciate the weighty consideration. It isn 't a question of
whether there is a need. That was determined; your independent RF consultant determined that. The
question is, I think , is where and this is the best alternative that exists and that meets your ordinance
requirements. We are here before you for a Public Hearing because there is a variance request. We are ,
with respect to the closest property owner that is not our landlord , reducing the impact of the variance
requested . It is still a large variance , I appreciate that , but as you take into account both tower height ;
existing and proposed, we are reducing the variance by a percentage over what is currently there. So , it
is an improvement as to the existing property owners.
Councilmember Mohrig
Just so I am totally clear, from a height standpoint, the minimum with this type of teclmology, the
minimum height, in that location, you can go would be the 185 feet?
Ellen Smith
Correct.
Councilmember Mohrig
To accomplish what is that you would like to do.
Ellen Smith
Yes , sir.
City Manager Lagerbloom
Mr. Mayor, if I could weigh in just a little bit. This is one of those nights where you wish that when you
became a City Manager they gave you some sort of magical power that you could all of a sudden take
situations like this and figure out a solution that benefited everybody but since that didn't come with the
job, one of the other things I have to do is that I have to try my best to remain as impartial as possible
and just offer up suggestions to you that you can thereby make decisions on , and the one that I feel that I
need to offer up to you tonight is one that is in the spirit of protecting the City of Milton. That is just to
be mindful of the fact that we have an adopted ordinance that allows for towers to increase in height
from 150 to 195 as a matter of policy; as a matter of ordinance . We allow up to 30% extension which is
why in the meeting that we had, and we were able to get to a reduction in height, is my ability to say,
hey , you got it to 185 let's now get it to 170, let's get it to 160 , let's get it to 150 , let's do away with it
altogether; I have a little bit of a hard time doing that for a couple of reasons . Number one is I felt as
though the application was in conformance with our code that existed at 195 because it didn't seek a
variance. Number two , I think that the purpose of this whole ordinance is to incentivize co-location or
drop and swap or extension of a tower. At some point , we are going to be pushed to the point where we
all of a sudden say okay , well 185 wasn 't good let's go down to 175 . At what point do we legislate out
that future request to say, well we wouldn 't needed this next one if you had let us go up to 185 but now
we 've got coverage problems somewhere else because we were limited to 175 on that one . So , that is
some of the balance that went into trying to figuring out what was a good recommendation for this. Is it
the perfect answer? Are people going to agree and disagree in the room tonight? Absolutely , but at the
end of the day one of the things that you charged me to do is to make sound recommendations that
protect the City of Milton. Number one, the citizens , number two , you as an elected body, and number
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 53 of 59
three, our general city from outside exposure that we don't need to endure. That is why you don't see
that there is a lot of discussion beyond this one reduction in height because I felt as though it was a good
faith offering to start with, it might not be perfect, but I didn't necessarily have a lot of latitude to press
for more.
Mayor Lockwood
Is council okay with a comment from an adjacent property owner? We will allow a minute.
Frank Morrow, 290 Batesville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am an adjacent property owner. So, from what I understand here is 185 foot cell tower is better on
Batesville Road because it will provide coverage for Birmingham Highway than putting a 140 foot
tower, a much lower tower, on this open soccer field. That is what you have to consider. You are going
to totally destroy property owners on Batesville Road at 185 feet, whereas at 140 feet at the soccer field
it will not nearly have that same affect, not nearly, and they need the service over there not over on
Batesville. We've got service on Batesville. They are in need and we have to pay the penalty and I
think that is unfair and I behoove you to consider that. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood
I was afraid of this but okay, one minute on the other side.
Carolyn Lauterbauch, 649 Citation Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004
Just to let you know that the Stars Soccer application, that is not in the middle of an open field. It is next
to, right next door to Triple Crown, which is a neighborhood of 130 existing homes. The homes have
been there for ten years. It is not a new neighborhood. And, it does not meet your city ordinance for a
new tower. It is well within the 3500 feet and not by a little bit, by a lot of bit. So, don't think it is one
or the other. A new tower there does not meet your city ordinance. This application meets the existing
city ordinance. Thank you.
Councilmember Kunz
I'll speak on this. You go through a series of logic and understanding of where we got to where we are
today and talk to everybody on this, it began when I was driving down Birmingham Highway and I am
talking to people and I drop coverage. That does exist on Birmingham Highway. There is a safety issue
with that. I didn't really think there was until I had to meet with people of the Arcaro Subdivision and
actually talk to them about another issue above them and they complained that people are actually
driving on Birmingham Highway and pulling into their right turn lane to stop and finish a call because
they know they will lose the call if they continue on Birmingham Highway. So, is there a coverage gap
there? Yes, from my perspective. The current carriers that I hear there are, I can see how it doesn't
meet their needs, because I have Sprint and it doesn't meet my need. I drive down there. I understand
that. So, is there a real safety issue on that from a traffic perspective? If I needed to call 911 while I
was in that area, I couldn't do it. I know exactly where I wouldn't be able to do it. That exists. The
next question is, as we go through this, we have a lot of people that buy homes next to an existing tower
and I am trying to understand why, personally. I've seen it; I've looked at it, what it looks like right
now looks awful to me. I apologize on that. I've driven up and down. I've been on the site. I saw it
and the current tower, if it were to fall, is going to hit a house too. It is just that close to it. I understand
that. I see it. It is right there. I have driven on the east side of Batesville Road, the west side, and came
back and I could see how high it is now over the existing tree line. It is up there. I don't deny that at all
but it looks bad the way it is right now. It really does. So, how do you fix that from this perspective?
So, we have to decide then that if we are going to fix a problem there then what do we do? And, I've
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 54 of 59
tried to think about it. We have, if we could put it on the middle of a flood plain at Stars Soccer, I would
understand that but for whatever reason it doesn't make sense. You would have to put a light up there if
you do that as well. Right? That wouldn't fit the existing ordinance. I'm just trying to understand from
that perspective can we avoid homes at all? I would love to do it. I'm trying to find out how we can.
There is a concern about affecting kids and I have looked into that. I have looked at the American
Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute. They don't support that RF waves cause cancer. And,
I have looked into that too trying to figure that out. So, I have to throw that out. So, what do we do with
regards to this particular piece of property? Will it come up at a later date? Will it not? We have to
decide as a council if we are going to face tough issues. In my perspective, where I am, people have
said I wouldn't want a large pine tree cell tower near me. From the technology perspective, it is
interesting. I've seen a lot of different cell towers. There is one going down GA 400. I never noticed it
until we started talking about cell towers and there it is right there above the tree line. It looked a lot
better than what we have there now, from my perspective. That is my opinion. I have the right to have
that. So, as I look at where we are, we have a need for a cell tower, I can't see health effects to it. If you
are worried about RF waves then you would want a taller tower because taller towers actually prevent
that. So, if you are more concerned about land values then you would want a smaller tower and I can
understand that. The question is which one do we want. Do we want none? Then, let's just throw out
our cell phones. We have to make that decision as well so this is a very hard decision for me. I've
looked at it all kinds of ways and it has been 50/50 for me all night and the more I look at it and I keep
going back to the fact that we have one there. People have bought homes next to an existing one. They
knew it was there when they bought the house. I can't understand why they did what they did. There is
an economic risk in that; when people do that and we have to make a decision from that regard. This
probably won't pass tonight from my perspective. I don't know. In my own thoughts but I know where
I am and I think we have to make a decision. A lot of people are going to be unhappy about it but I
know where I stand.
Mayor Lockwood
As I mentioned before, this is a tough decision. I can look every person in the eye in the audience and
every property owner and totally understand. But, the reality is that we are going to be looking at
somebody, whether it is this neighborhood, that neighborhood, my neighborhood, your neighborhood,
whatever; nobody wants this situation. So, unfortunately we are going to have to deal with that. I think
that the intent of the city ordinance and the whole reason we are here tonight is because there was
already an existing tower. I tend to agree. I have driven through the neighborhood probably 20 times
and the pole does stick out. Trying to imagine a pine tree, obviously you are going to know it is a cell
tower. it is a tough one and that is my point too just like Matt said, this is a decision we are going to
have to make one way or the other and unfortunately there are going to be individuals that are affected
no matter where it is. It is a very tough situation but we are going to have to make that decision.
would have to say, too, that I would prefer to swap a tower than add an additional tower but that is no
disrespect to the property owners that are affected here. The affected residents have said they would like
to see if it could be 175 feet or whatever; this and that. Can we make a decision based on something,
and I think we had a tower a while back where we approved a certain height which was lower, i.t
wouldn't work for them.
City Attorney Jarrard
Again, I would not dare get in to the way of what the council chooses to do but I will say that to the
extent that the council takes action that any applicant finds to simply be unworkable, then they will
pursue whatever legal remedies that they may have an opportunity to pursue. Again, I don't want to
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 55 of 59
forecast, I have no idea what AT&T would do but they may challenge whatever action you may take and
then they may file for the other tower to be elsewhere just to hedge.
Mayor Lockwood
I appreciate Ellen and Crown and AT&T and everybody as well as the affected property owners coming
together and trying to meet. What we have presented to us is an improvement. Obviously, nobody is
going to be real happy with it but it is an improvement so thank you for working on that.
City Attorney Jarrard
I also want to mention that since you offered it up to me, for purposes of fair play; I think the property
owners have also filed their constitutional objection letter as well so everyone is hedging, if you will.
Mayor Lockwood
And, whether I like it or not, to the City Manager's point, we did have an ordinance and in good faith the
applicant has tried to work within that enough and also meet and address and try to come up with a little
bit better and has offered a little bit better solution. Obviously, it is not what everybody would like.
Councilmember Lusk
Mr. Mayor, it is with mixed feelings that I offer a motion.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved approve Agenda Item No. 13-297 with the following
modifications:
• Move the tower to ground elevation of 1,008 feet above sea level.
• Maximum height of the tower cannot exceed 185 feet.
• Accept a Waiver of the 30% limitation on the equipment compound size that is part of the
definition of modification in the code.
• There must be a finding that this telecommunication facility is necessary and essential to provide
wireless service.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed (3-2). Councilmember Thurman
recused herself from the vote. Councilmembers Hewitt and Mohrig were opposed. Councilmember
Longoria was absent.
An amendment to the motion was made by Councilmember Kunz to include the following:
• The applicant must work with the City Arborist to provide a vegetative screen to the base of the
tower and equipment compound.
Mayor Lockwood seconded the amendment. The amendment passed unanimously (5-0).
End of verbatim transcription
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 56 of 59
NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of A Resolution Appointing or Reappointing Members to the City of Milton
Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals for District 11P0st1, District 21P0st 1, District
31P0st 1 and At Large.
(Agenda Item No. 14-009)
RESOLUTION NO. 14-01 -287
(Deferred at January 6,2014 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Mayor Joe Lockwood)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 14-009 to approve Bill
Newell, District 11P0st 1; Michael Doyle, District 2/Post 1; Scott Ponder, District 3/Post 1 and Don Lee
At Large. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Councilmember Longoria was absent.
The following Agenda Item No. 14-025 was moved by motion and vote during Approval ofMeeting
Agenda to directly after First Presentation.
2. Consideration of a Contract between the City of Milton and Federal Signal Corporation for the
Purchase and Installation of Outdoor Emergency Warning Sirens.
(Agenda Item No. 14-025)
(Matt Marietta, Fire Marshal/Emergency Manager
Matt Marietta, Fire MarshaUEmergency Manager
As we have looked at our emergency management infrastructure in the city, we have noticed that we are
missing a critical piece.
All of our neighbors have a means of warning their citizens.
To correct that problem, we adopted the Code Red program which we use on a regular basis to give
emergency notifications.
We have about 10,000 subscribers to that and we have a city with 32,000 residents plus any visitors.
We also do not have a tornado siren in the city.
Generally, that is pointed out to me every time one of our neighbors sets their siren off and our citizens
start calling asking me about it and I tell them that it is not us because we don't have a siren.
This agenda item is to correct that problem.
Last September, we put out an invitation to bid for the development, design, and build out of a tornado
warning system; outdoor sirens within the City of Milton.
We received two bids.
The bid that I am bringing before you tonight from the Federal Signal Corporation was the best bid that
met the needs of the city.
If you approve this agenda item tonight, we will be able to fill the gap that we have with our emergency
notification system in the form of outdoor sirens.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 57 of 59
Councilmember Lusk
How many different installations will there be?
Matt Marietta
Because it is a design build and there are audio graphic issues, topography, sound distribution impact,
etc. that is kind of up in the air but there are 10 projected sites to start with and that is what the bid was
based on.
Councilmember Kunz
How is each unit powered?
They will be wired and will have battery back-up. They will also have a radio much like what we have
in our police cars and fire trucks that will tie it back into the system so the sirens can be set off. At this
point, it will be part of our relationship with the City of Alpharetta who provides our 911 service. It will
be tied into their system as far as the activation is concerned.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 14-025.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember
Longoria was absent.
3 . . Ratification of a Second Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement (lGA) for the
Extraterritorial Provision of Sewer Service by Fulton County for Property Located at 13175
Hopewell Road, Milton Georgia.
(Agenda Item No. 14-026)
(Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager)
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney
You should have in front of you a document that says, "Second Amendment to the Intergovernmental
Agreement. That is very very slightly different than the amended IGA that was in your packet. This is
actually the product of working with the City Manager and the Fulton County attorney. Let me give you
a very brief history of this. As you know, Fulton County provides sewer service within the City of
Milton pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement as required by the Georgia constitution and the
general laws of the state. We have had an original IGA that was adopted some time ago, we have had an
amendment to that IGA that affected the map and this is the second amendment. You may also recall
that in August of last year, you actually approved this second amendment. We then sent it to Fulton
County and because we were working with Fulton County staff to develop a modified map adding one
parcel. It took a while to get the map completed. They finally sent the map back to us and they had a
few tweaks to the IGA and because of the length of time that had passed by, my recommendation was to
bring this back to you and have you ratify it again. So, this is a very very modest modification to an
IGA that you have already approved. Fulton County has already approved this. So, on your ratification
of what I handed out this evening, we will have a new IGA, an IGA that adds a single parcel and
provides that, henceforth, if the City of Milton wants to add additional parcels for sewer, we do not have
to do a full blown IGA with Fulton County. We are able to do that by unilateral resolution. We will
then send that down to Fulton County . That doesn't impose upon Fulton County an obligation to run
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday , January 22,2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 58 of 59
infrastructure, but it just says, "We give you permission." And, that is all that is necessary. This
ratifies the lOA and adds to the official map 13175 Hopewell Road. That is all this does.
Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlet Oak Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am sorry to speak at all but again this is involving a rezoning that you handled back in August for
Milton Place, the second phase. I'm just here to make sure that if there are any problems or objections
that I was here to respond to those questions. I have to say that sewer, may not be as important as
communication , but it is another service that we have to have in our community. Thank you very much
for your consideration.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve Agenda Item No. 14-026 as handed out
by the City Attorney. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed (5-1).
Councilmember Hewitt was opposed. Councilmember Longoria was absent.
4. Consideration of a Resolution Unilaterally Modifying the Sewer Service Map between the City
of Milton and Fulton County Pursuant to the Amended FultonlMilton Sewer Intergovenunental
Agreement.
(Agenda Item No. 14-027)
RESOLUTION NO. 14-01 -288
(Chris La gerb/oom, City Manager)
Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager
To Councilmember Mohrig's question, what is it going to look like going forward when we need to
amend the sewer map; this is what it will look like. This resolution, now that you have ratified the prior
agenda item , gives us the unilateral authority to add parcels to the sewer map and then forward that
information to Fulton County. We no longer have to obtain prior approval from Fulton County. This is
the action that will add the nine acres on Bethany Road at the comer of Cogburn Road to the allowable
sewer map based upon the rezoning that you approved at the last meeting. This is our consent to allow
that property to receive sewer when they apply for it.
Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlet Oak Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004
Since I did not see the wording of the two agreements, I thought this was a separate agreement so excuse
me for thinking that one was going to be handled for just the one parcel and then this new agreement
was going to be the second one . So, I do not need to speak on it. I commend you for getting this worked
out. This is the way most govenunents do this. This is a good way to handle it. Thank you.
, .'
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 14-027.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (5-1). Councilmember Hewitt was
opposed. Councilmember Longoria was absent.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Page 59 of 59
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
ST AFF REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION (ifneeded)
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 14-028)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 10:55 p.m.
Council member Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember
Longoria was absent.
After no further discussion the Regular Council Meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Date Approved: February 19,2014.
Sudie AM Gordon, Ity Clerk