HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 04/23/2018Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 1 of 30
This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not
the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this
notice. Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes
limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record
of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded.
The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on April 23,
2018 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Octavia Sargeant, St. James United Methodist Church, Alpharetta, Georgia
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Jamison, Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember
Bentley, Councilmember Hewitt, Councilmember Longoria, and Councilmember Mohrig.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by Mayor Joe Lockwood)
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Add or remove items from the agenda)
(Agenda Item No. 18-120)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the
following changes:
• Move Item #3, under Reports and Presentations (Presentation of Tree Canopy
Conservation Ordinance) and incorporate into Agenda Item No. 18-111 which is Item #2
under Unfinished Business (Consideration of Tree Canopy Conservation Ordinance).
• Remove Staff Reports from the Agenda.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 2 of 30
PUBLIC COMMENT (General)
The following individual submitted a public comment card:
Majid Madani, no address given
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of the March 19, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 18-121)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of the Financial Statements and Investment Report for the
Period Ending February 2018.
(Agenda Item No. 18-122)
(Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director)
3. Approval of the Financial Statements and Investment Report for the
Period Ending March 2018.
(Agenda Item No. 18-123)
(Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director)
4. Approval of a Parks and Recreation Department Athletic Association Manual & Facility
Use Agreement between the City of Milton and Milton Mustangs Swim Team.
(Agenda Item No. 18-124)
(Jim Cregge, Parks & Recreation Director)
5. Approval of Change Order #1 to a Professional Services Agreement for TSPLOST Batch
2 Design Services.
(Agenda Item No. 18-125)
(Sara Leaders, Transportation Engineer)
6. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Cooper
Carry, Inc. to Provide Final Design Services for the Proposed Court/Police and Fire
Facilities on State Highway 9.
(Agenda Item No. 18-126)
(Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager)
7. Approval of a Contract Renewal with eCivis, Inc. for a Two -Year Subscription to Web -
Based Grants Management Software.
(Agenda Item No. 18-127)
(Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 3 of 30
Approval of the following Subdivision Plat.
Name of Development / Location
Action
Comments /
Total
Density
# lots
Acres
1. Andreu Estates at Henderson
LL 262, 263
Minor Plat
3 Lots
3.75
.8 Lots / acre
Henderson Road
(Agenda Item No. 18-128)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation Recognizing the First City of Milton Community Emergency Response
Team.
(Mayor Joe Lockwood & Robert Edgar, Fire Chiej)
2. Proclamation Recognizing Georgia Cities Week.
(Mayor Joe Lockwood)
The following presentation was moved under Approval of Meeting Agenda to be incorporated
into Agenda Item No. 18-111 under Unfinished Business.
3. Presentation of Ordinance to Amend Chapter 60, "Tree Canopy Conservation Ordinance"
of the City of Code of Ordinances.
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
FIRST PRESENTATION
1. Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend Appendix A, Parks and Recreation Fees and
Other Charges, Chapter 34, Section 24 of the Milton City Code.
(Agenda Item No. 18-129)
(Jim Cregge, Parks & Recreation Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve the First Presentation Item.
Councilmember Jamison seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 4 of 30
1. Consideration of an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia,
to Adopt Amendments to the Fiscal 2018 Budget for Each Fund of the City of Milton,
Georgia, Amending the Amounts Shown in Each Budget as Expenditures, Amending the
Several Items of Revenue Anticipations, Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed
Appropriations, and Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed Actual Funding Available.
(Agenda Item No. 18-1.10)
(First Presentation at ,April 9; 2018 Regular Cit, Council Meeting)
(Bernadette Haswill, Finance Director)
Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director
On the display screen is the summary of the amendments that have been requested for the fiscal
year 2018. On page two, there is a summary of our general fund and some highlights of the revenue
amendments that follow. I have highlighted some of the larger revenue amendments to bring to
your attention. The first one are the property taxes. As you know, we decided last year to change
the accounting principle so the way we account for property taxes is no longer at the end of our
fiscal year but at the beginning of the fiscal year. By making that change, we now have to
recognize some changes in the overall property taxes for the current year and prior year collections.
You will see an overall decrease of $289,800 to the prior year line items which are offset by an
increase of $146,893 to the current year line items because those are coming in higher than
expected. Additionally, we have had some changes in the franchise fee line items. The Georgia
Municipal Association has conducted a recovery search for us and they found $65;000 due to the
city from prior year collections in the cable franchise fee line item. However, offsetting that is a
decrease from the telephone franchise fees which have been coming in lower than anticipated of
$79,630. The local option sales tax is trending higher than we originally predicted so an increase
of $200,000 is being requested and court fines and forfeitures are down, so we are requesting a
decrease of $100,000. Lastly, the increase of $272,636 to the operating transfer in from the capital
projects fund. This transfer will cover $1,800 to the fire department for the mass notification
system maintenance contract that was originally budgeted in the capital projects. We are just
moving it over to better account for it in the maintenance operating account. Additionally, we
have a request for an increase of $155,400 for the operation of the newly acquired property on
Dinsmore Road. And, we have an increase of $115,436 to the IGA between Milton and Alpharetta
to account for the increase of the use of Alpharetta parks programs by Milton residents. On page
three; you will see the General Fund summary. In the first column are the revenues by sources
and the expenditures by department. Then, our current budget as it appears right now, in the middle
are the requested amendments that are included in this report, and on the far right-hand column is
the total budget after the amendments. On pages four and five, there is a detailed summary of each
revenue line item that is requesting a change. In addition, the expenditures by project which
includes the cost to cover some of the fees related to the GMA franchise fee audit which is more
than offset by the $65,000 we recovered from the audit. Next, the credit card fees have been
pushed out which will create an increase to cover the fees we collected from the users to cover the
fees that the city pays on their behalf. We have an increase of $16,000 from the budgeted
contingency to cover a technology assessment for the IT Department for city-wide IT usage. There
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 5 of 30
is an increase for the State of the City contributions and donations that were received. Also, there
is an increase to account for insurance proceeds and deductible payments received that will go to
the Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments to cover the repairs needed for the damage that
was caused during those accidents. There is an increase in the Police Department due to a donation
from the Milton First Responders Foundation to cover some of the equipment needed for police
personnel. The Police Awards Banquet is being increased by $1,833 to account for prior year
donations and city funding. In addition, $50,000 will be taken out of the budgeted contingency to
cover the cost of a third -party arborist that the city needed. Also, there is an increase requested for
FYI storm clean-up for the December snow storms which will also come from the budgeted
contingency. Lastly, on page six, there is the breakdown by category for each of the expenses
incurred due to the newly acquired property on Dinsmore Road. So, that closes the General Fund
so I will move on to the Capital Projects Fund. There is a transfer in from the Capital Grant Fund
of $803 that is going to increase the Downtown Milton Masterplan for additional expenditures.
There is a decrease in the next line items in order to move all of the impact fees back to the impact
fee fund. In the Capital Grant Fund, we are reducing the revenue line item for the GDOT landscape
grant because we did not receive those revenues.
ZONING AGENDA
Consideration of ZM18-01NC18-04 — Southeast Quadrant of Birmingham
Hwy and Birmingham Road, by OHC Birmingham LLC to request a zoning
modification and concurrent variance for the following:
1) Request to modify ZM14-06, Condition 2.a. to the Revised plan Dated March 16,
2018;
2) Request to modify ZM14-03 — To delete Condition 6.c., the reference to the
village green;
3) A Concurrent Variance to delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot
improvement setback along the south property line of the MIX -zoning district
adjacent to AG -1 — Sec. 64-1142(a)(3.)b; and
4) A Concurrent Variance to reduce the Village Green in the southeast Quadrant
from 13,000 square feet — Sec. 64-1324(b).
(Agenda Item No. 18-083)
(First Presentation at March 5, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Deferred at March 19, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney
Technically, this item should have been placed on the agenda under Unfinished Business since it
was deferred. Public comment will not need to adhere to the Zoning Procedures Law with support
and opposition given separate but equal time. Public comment will be general with each person
allowed five minutes each; whether in support or opposition.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 6 of 30
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
This is a continuation of the discussion that began at the March 19, 2018 meeting. Outlined in red
is the parcel being discussed and it has two zonings attached to it. The area in green is zoned MIX
and the area in the cream color is zoned AG -1. This is the revised site plan that was submitted on
March 16, 2018. It has 24 single-family housing units and commercial office space consisting of
three buildings as well as a stormwater facility and greenspace. In addition, there is a rural
viewshed along Birmingham Highway. Also, there are 10 units of AG- 1. This is a site plan for
30 townhomes and I would like to address the city attorney whether or not the zoning is in place
to allow a development with 30 townhomes as well as 11 residential AG -1 units.
City Attorney Jarrard
The zoning conditions identify no more than 33 townhomes and/or single-family dwelling units.
Kathleen Field
I also asked the city architect to review this plan to verify that it could be built under the conditions
that are in place. He verified that it could be built and if you substituted the MIX use building at
Birmingham Road for townhomes, then you could definitely fit 33 townhomes. I would now like
to move on to recommended conditions. There are two scenarios: (1) if the council decides to
deny the petition and (2) if the council approves it. If the council denies this request, staff asks
that 6(c) be deleted. It is more of a housekeeping issue than a zoning modification. Should the
Mayor and City Council approve this petition, the recommended conditions should be revised to
read as follows: To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
Retail, service commercial and/or office and accessory uses, including all exterior food and
beverage service areas, on 6.63 acres within the Southeast Quadrant of the Binningham
Neighborhood Node at a maxim -um density of 452.49 gross square feet per acre zoned for retail,
service commercial uses and 3,016.59 square feet per acre for office uses or a total of 3,000 square
feet of retail, service commercial and 20,000 square feet of office, whichever is less, but excluding
billboards, fast food restaurants, gas and service stations, commercial amusements (cinemas not
included) , liquor package stores; motels, hotels, adult entertainment establishments, check cashing
stores, pawnshops, coin operated laundries, convenience stores; video arcades, pool halls, massage
parlors, nail salons; beauty salons, barber shops, flea markets, discount retail shops, roadside
vending, roadside produce stands or seasonal vending. Above described acreage shall be zoned
MIX (Mixed Use) Conditional. No more than 24 single family dwelling units on 6.63 acres within
the Southeast Quadrant of the Binningham Neighborhood Node at a maximum density of 3.62
units per acre, whichever is less. Above described acreage shall be zoned MIX (Mixed Use)
Conditional To provide an executed copy of a Deed of Conservation Easement between the
landowner and a third party which maintains includes the Village Green, Open Space/Park,
Stormwater Management Facility, and Rural Viewshed in perpetuity prior to the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. The developer/owner will be responsible for
maintenance of the Village Green, Open Space/Park, Stormwater Management Facility, and Rural
Viewshed and shall be open for use by the public. Provide a minimum heated floor area of 2,400
square feet per dwelling unit. No more than 9 single family lots within the AG -1 (Agricultural)
District Conditional with the lot identified as Lot 1 containing 1 .002 acres on Site Plan submitted
on March 16, 2018 shall be incorporated into the StormwaterPark /Open Space. Said 1.002 acres
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 7 of 30
shall be subject to Condition l .e. which states that it will be put into a conservation easement and
maintained by the owner/developer.
In addition, to the owner's agreement to abide by the following: to the revised site plan dated
March 16, 2018 submitted to the Department of Community Development. Said site plan is
conceptual only and most meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these
conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted herein,
compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy. 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
prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit, sufficient land as necessary to provide the
following: Provide a 50 foot wide pedestrian trail easement free of any structures or above ground
utilities and construct the improvements in the location shown on the revised site plan received on
March 16, 2018 or as required and approved by the City of Milton Public Works Department.
Pedestrian trail shall be open for use by the public. All street improvements shall extend across
the entire street frontage. Sufficient public right of way shall be dedicated to the city to ensure that
all improvements are contained within the right of way. To the owner's agreement to the following
site development considerations: we would take out 6(c) and delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer
and 10 foot improvement setback along the south property line of the MIX zoning district adjacent
to AG -1. A stormwater management pari: that will serve as an amenity shall be created through a
combination of the following landscape and hardscape elements as approved by the Director of
Community Development.
Landscape materials around the stormwater pond shall consist of evergreen and deciduous trees
and shrubs, as well as groundcovers, ornamental grasses, and perennials that are native to the
region and require little maintenance. The plantings shall be designed to create aesthetic appeal
and highlight the pond as an amenity rather than provide an evergreen screen to block views to it.
The shallow areas at the edges of the pond shall be planted with native aquatic plants to create an
appropriately vegetated littoral shelf. Hardscape materials within the stormwater management
park shall be specified as shown on Exhibit A and the pedestrian trail system should consist of
natural materials suitable for location in a stream buffer. The stormwater management park and
stormwater management facility shall be constructed in accordance with the plans as depicted in
exhibit A and exhibit B and as approved by the Director of Community Development. Mail kiosk
and pump station enclosure shall be subject to the approval of the City Architect.
Mayor Lockwood
Since we have received feedback that seems to counteract some of these plans, before we do public
comment and ask questions, could you give us a brief synopsis of the comparison between the two
plans regarding density and greenspace.
Kathy Field
The zoning allowable plan, ZM14-06, which was allowed in 2014, the open space is 4.935 acres.
The plan that was submitted to us on March 16, 2018 is 2.251 acres. In terms of the greenspace,
the 2014 plan was 1.55 acres and the current one that is under consideration tonight is 2.355 acres.
The Village Green on the 2014 plan was 11,500 square feet and the current plan we are considering
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 8 of 30
is 13,064 square feet. The residential mix in 2014 was 29 units and currently we are looking at 24
units. In 2014, residential AG -1 was 9 units and we are currently looking at 10 units on the plan
presented to you tonight.
City Manager Krokoff
I would like to add that the office retail from 2014 was 22,250 square feet and the most current
site plan presented to you tonight is 20,200 total square feet.
City Attorney Jarrard
Just as a reminder, the public comment is just public comment. There is no support or opposition
and five minutes per speaker is allowed.
Douglas Dillard, 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 1200, Atlanta, Georgia 30309
I represent the applicant. Ted Braswell is the developer and we have some minor changes to the
conditions and I think it would be helpful to state what the developer wants to do. What we are
dealing with tonight is the difference between what we are currently asking for versus the 2014
zoning. I think we are all in agreement that the conditions control not the site plan. I want to be
very clear, we are not asking for an increase in density. In fact, we are asking for nine units less
than what we would otherwise be entitled to do under the 2014 plan. So, in 2014, we had 33 units
approved and nine single-family detached. Tonight, we are asking for 24 single-family detached
under the MIX development and ten units on the AG -1 area. We are giving you more open space.
The variance we are asking for relative to the 75 feet has never been recognized in any site plan
that was approved by Fulton County or the city since 2004. We realize that is part of the zoning
conditions and so we are still asking for the variance. We have eliminated the variance on the
open space and greenspace since we are providing that. I have given each of you a red -lined copy
of our response to Kathy and staff regarding the recommended conditions. 1(a) is okay; we agree.
On 1(c) we want to eliminate the term "whichever is less." We are talking about 24 single-family
units. The density is 3.62 per acre. We know that calculation is correct. We do not want to take
a chance that we carniot get 24 units so we are asking that the language, "whichever is less" be
stricken. On (b) we have a concern about the liability attached to the open space being open to the
public. We want to take that out because we have insurance issues pertaining to that which is
giving us a problem. The minimum house size is 2,000 square feet; not 2,400 square feet. On (g)
it needs to state 10 single-family units; not nine. So, it needs to read, "no more than 10 single-
family lots within the AG -1 area." The rest of the paragraph needs to be removed. On 4(i)(iii) it
states, "provide a 50 foot wide pedestrian trail." I can't imagine needing a 50 foot wide pedestrian
trail. We will provide a 10 foot pedestrian trail which is what we normally see. On 6(c) is
removed; the 75 foot buffer is why we are here. On r(II) we would like it to read, "hardscape
materials within the stormwater management park shall be specified as shown on the revised site
plan dated March 16, 2018." And, on r(III) the stormwater management improvements will be
done in general compliance with the site plan as shown.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 9 of 30
Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am speaking in opposition to Oak Hall's variance request. This request should be denied for
several reasons. First, I believe that most citizens do not want the variance approved. I understand
the emails you have received are overwhelmingly opposed. I have also received many calls and
emails in opposition. Just in the last 24 hours, nearly 800 people have come to my Milton Coalition
blog so it is fair to say that citizens are certainly interested in this issue. Secondly, I believe that
we are a country of laws and we are a city of laws. We must respect the rule of law. The variance
process requires a finding of hardship. Staff has found no hardship and even the applicant has
admitted there is no hardship. Thirdly, this variance should not be granted because the developer
has used threats to coerce council. We should not reward such threats. Rewarding this developer
will only lead to similar requests from other developers and similar intimidation tactics. We need
to draw a red line with developers and enforce that red -line. I have heard enough from Mr. Dillard.
Fourthly, granting this variance will set a dangerous legal precedence. Other developers will
certainly expect similar treatment. Fifth, the buffer will provide some shielding for whatever gets
built which will certainly look out of character regardless of what get built. Sixth, it makes no
sense to seed over an acre of greenspace at the same time the city is buying greenspace. I know
that past mistakes have put the city in a bad situation. However, the solution is not to avert the
rule of law, or to ignore the will of citizens, or to set dangerous legal precedence. Hopefully, Oak
Hall will work with the city to find a solution that will please all parties, however, please deny this
variance.
Tad Braswell, 5256 Peachtree Road, Suite 195, Atlanta, Georgia 30341
I am with Oak Hall Companies. We purchased this property about a year ago with the intention
of developing it. We had a site plan approved. We came to you to try to make some changes to it
to get rid of the retail. At the time we did that, there was not a market for the retail. After that, we
now have a 10,000 square foot building under contract with a pediatrician. We are simply asking
to build what we intended to build when we purchased the property. I would like to review with
you what we want to build. This is the overall site plan that shows the park in the front right
corner. We designed this as a typical detention pond then we met with Bob Buscemi and he
suggested how to make it into a park. So, we took what he suggested to heart and designed this to
be a very attractive feature for the city looking across this into the development. We have
greenspace and a seating area as well as the mail kiosk. There is a trail system that goes to the
street. There is greenspace on the other side of the road and the open space will be planted. The
intent of the overlay in the 75 foot buffer was to give distance and buffer between the AG -1 and
the MIX. We think that the open space and the park serve as a good buffer. This is the Village
Green consisting of 13,000 square feet at Birmingham Road. This is the overall view that shows
how the park and the open space on the other side creates a buffer between the AG -1 and the MIX.
This serves the intent of what that buffer would have required. Our AG -1 buyers are going to
know what is there. As you pull into the property, you will not be able to see the AG -1 property
from the MIX. The pediatrician will have a very large floor plan and he is really trying to get a
practice opened in Milton. This is a picture of the product we want to build with a master on the
main. We originally had six townhomes but now we are asking for 24 detached homes. You have
received a copy of the 33 townhomes plan that we could build by -right. It is not what we would
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 10 of 30
prefer to build. We would prefer to build the plan that was approved by the council a couple of
times and the community three times. We are not trying to threaten anybody. We feel like the
plan we are presenting and the variance we are asking for is a much better product. It will look
much better than the 33 townhomes. The 75 foot buffer, if it were hardwoods but it is just some
scrubby trees. The buffer in the park and the open space that we will be planting is a much more
appealing look.
David Damiani, 935 Post Oak Close, Milton, Georgia 30004
That was a great presentation and a beautiful design. It is hard to compete with that and not want
to support it but I am here in opposition to it. I know that corner pretty well. I shop at the Publix,
I donate clothes at the Goodwill, my dog, before he died, was groomed at Bark and Paw, we go to
I Love New York Pizza every Friday night, and occasionally I will go to Wells Fargo. So, I know
the corner well. I live there and spend a lot of time there. I may be a simpleton but this isn't about
what looks better. I think what is at stake here is the rule of law. And, when our current president
was voted into office, one of his slogans was "Drain the Swamp." He wasn't talking about people;
he was talking about back door politics. Doing stuff you should not be doing. This is a variance
request and I sympathize with the developer. It is probably more cost effective, better margins,
and may even look better than doing what you need to do with the rules you have been given. But,
I do not see a hardship here. And, if that is the threshold to approve a variance then I think you
need to take that into serious consideration. It would be easy to put this through but I do not think
it is the right thing to do. Less than six months ago, we had an election and those of you who
actually ran opposed, we encouraged over 3,000 citizens to get out and vote. Those of you who
ran unopposed got re-elected easily. If you ran opposed, you won in a landslide. And, why is
that? Because of things like this. Folks said, we are tired of it. We are tired of stuff going through,
we are tired of votes being bought, and we are tired of overdevelopment. I don't care what he puts
on that corner. I don't care if he puts cardboard shacks. What I think is at stake here is following
the rules that we have on the books. And, everyone who comes in here and wants something else,
you are going to look at this, and every developer has the right to request a variance. There is an
old saying in the investment business, "you make your money when you buy." Well, if you paid
too much and you are counting on somebody changing the rules so you can maximize your
margins, well, that is too bad. I have kids who are asking for stuff every single day and throwing
a tantrum is not the way to get what you want. So, I am asking you to do the right thing. Follow
the rules that are on the books and make sure there is a hardship. As far as I know, there is not
one.
Kurt Nolte, 82.5 Dockbridge Way, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am here to speak in opposition to the variance. The removal of the buffer alone is the most
concerning to me. It seems to be in direct conflict with the masterplan that a lot of people put a
lot of time and effort into. Removal of this buffer will also allow the retail space going from
10,000 to 17,000. I don't think we need more retail space in that area. Whether the developer
builds townhomes or detached buildings with as few as ten feet between the buildings and a ten
foot front yard, the current required buffer will provide the necessary barrier between that and the
AG -1 land around it. Removal of the buffer will make the entire development much more visible
from Birmingham Highway and Birmingham Road. This variance should be denied and no
hardship has been proven. Staff analysis states that these variance requests do not meet the four
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 11 of 30
legal requirements for the approval of re -zoning. As we all know, once the precedence is set, to
remove the buffer with no legal basis, it becomes easier for the next buffer to be removed. I do
not see any advantage to the citizens of Milton by allowing the variance.
Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
The developer showed you some beautiful pictures. However, those pictures are not zoning
conditions. In fact, the developer proposed five amendments to the conditions that were
recommended by staff. Townhomes, I said it, it is not a bad word. It is not a word to be feared.
We have some beautiful townhomes right behind us. It is unfortunate that the developer thought
he needed to present a plan showing 33 townhomes to achieve his objectives. The choice before
you tonight is not about 33 townhomes, or 24 detached homes, or even the 16 or 17 that can be
built if the buffer is not waived. The discussion tonight is about what can really be built; the
number of single family homes can be built it: the buffer has to remain in tack. The choice before
you tonight is to uphold a buffer requirement. This screams high density whether it is detached
homes or townhomes. The choice before you is to uphold the rules that are in place or to grant a
variance that allows more density. The sketch I showed you that when you have 10 feet between
homes you have more density spread over a larger area. The second page shows the townhomes
but it also shows a large buffer that will visually screen the townhomes or the single-family homes
if the buffer is required to be maintained. The difference between 24 and 33 is not significant in a
community our size. But, the loss of a buffer, a visual barrier between high density and the rest of
our community, is significant. It is significant now and will be 10, 20, or 30 years from now. The
open space that was included in the current zoning conditions is part of the site plan and in addition
to removing the buffer you are being asked to change the site plan. When a site plan is changed it
is going to reduce the open space from 30% to 11%. Fulton County approved the townhomes but
the council tonight will have to answer to the citizens when this tract of land is clear cut and the
trees and buffers are gone. I am asking you to deny this variance request and the site plan changes.
Do not fear the unknown because it can be constructed beautifully and there are examples located
right behind us.
Bill Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat .Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
As many of you know, I have lived here for 30 years. I go by that corner all the time. I am not
going to discuss the specifics of that. I am ,going to discuss what citizens expect. Citizens expect
laws to be applied predictably and uniformly. They do not have a hardship. It has been said many
times. The attorney and the applicant know that they do not meet the requirements for a variance
to be approved. Please do not approve it.
Daniel Fernandez, 14855 Wood Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
It has been awhile since I have spoken before council but I appreciate the opportunity to express
my concerns about matters that significantly affect our city. As you know, protecting gravel roads
and viewsheds is something that I am passionate about. Viewsheds play a critical role in the
preservation of Milton's rural legacy that has been under attack with increased development. The
request to remove the 75 foot undisturbed buffer via the variance process is an insult to proud
residents committed to maintaining the beauty of this city which first lured us here. It is an insult
to those who have spent hours and days crafting laws to protect it. The request alludes to either a
lack of understanding of why the variance process was created or selfish undertones giving proper
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of 30
development a bad rap. As there is clearly no hardship evident in this request. I am not quite sure
why the city would consider departing from principles outlined in the City of Milton's masterplan
or code of ordinances. In simple terms, there is a reason they are there and meant to be upheld.
But, I am hopeful that as the elected officials of this city, you will uphold your oath and do what
is right and to protect Milton's legacy so that generations to come can enjoy the same quality of
life we currently enjoy.
Joan Wunderle, 765 Owens Lake Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I would like to thank you for your service to the citizens of Milton and your continuing efforts to
support and uphold zoning rules that were designed to preserve and protect our community's vision
and integrity. In this context, I respectfully ask you to deny this variance. It is inconsistent with
the intent and design of our community vision. We have ordinances and standards for our
protection, safety and security, and quality of life. Most of you know that I have been the recipient
of those standards and ordinances which you have upheld for ten years. And, I want to thank you
for doing that and I request that you deny this variance for this developer.
Sharon Mays, 15160 Highgrove Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I find it odd that we are here once again. We pass plans, we work hard, we work through the night,
there are compromises, and there is give and take on both sides. And, the end result is the plan
that says, okay, this will work, this is good for the community; this is what sets Milton apart. And,
I find as I am looking through my notes that actually I keep saying the same thing over and over
again but it keeps coming back to greenspace. What is Milton all about? What have we said over
and over again that sets Milton apart? Whether you call it rural character or greenspace; that
concept and feel of Milton is what sets us apart from other cities. That is what is unique about us
and makes us want to call this place home. We all work so hard and get these plans passed with a
lot of compromise and then a developer comes along and asks for a variance that turns everything
upside down. And, we have to trust our elected officials that you will abide by what was put into
place and that it was put into place for a reason. The reason was that the community wanted it.
Our citizen voted 82% for the greenspace bond. We just bought how many acres in my backyard
that was once the golf course that I live on is now going to be greenspace; walking trails for Milton.
I find it inconceivable that we would then turnaround and eliminate greenspace on another corner.
If that is what we are about; because it does make us different and does increase our home values
and it does make it a place where people want to come and live, work, and play. How can we want
to preserve greenspace on one corner and do away with it on another'? Consistency and following
the rule of law is what is important to all citizens. We want to call this home and feel confident
that our city council will not change the rules at the request of yet another developer. That
consistency and our reliance and trust in you is what is so important to all of us. The buffer does
screen the density. We don't like the density that is there. No, I do not want townhomes there
and I do not want small lots there as opposed to having one acre lots, but that is what was already
in place. The buffer mitigates that and gives you a visual buffer. I ask that you uphold the
Birmingham Masterplan and the allowable density. We need the community to know that we can
trust the people that we elected. We want to keep Milton what we visualized it to be when we
created it. We want it to be different. We have commercial on the outskirts and we need the
commercial but we don't need at the sake of setting a precedent that is so dangerous.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 13 of 30
Kurt Nolte (on behalf of Joe Whitley) 825 Dockbridge Way, Milton, Georgia 30004
Joe Whitley asked me to read the letter that he emailed to the Mayor, Council, and City Manager
earlier today.
Dear Mayor, City Council and City Manager Krokoff, In a perfect world given the importance
of the petition for a zoning modification and concurrent variances at the Birmingham Crossroads
SE corner — and a small degree of confusion on the part of the Council and staff as to what rules
apply to this request for a zoning modification and concurrent variances — this agenda item
should be re -advertised as a zoning modification (or possibly as a zoning) for there to be
greater public participation. What will be considered on Monday, April 23, 2018 is so vastly
different than what was advertised — with various iterations and "what if' scenarios being thrown
about — better notice should be given to all nearby and adjacent landowners and concerned area
residents. As I think you know, my wife, Kathy, and I live just down the road from this
quadrant (a stone's throw), and we also own property that is an official component of the
SW quadrant of the Birmingham Crossroads. Needless- to- say, we have a vested interest in
what transpires at the Birmingham Crossroads. The lawyer in me might even say we have legal
standing. That aside, if this hearing moves forward, I strongly urge the Council to deny the request
for the variances outright. The existing buffer called for in previous planning exercises and
legally binding and adopted policies is critical to preserving lower commercial density and
appropriate buffering of the mixed- use development that will develop at the SE corner. The
buffers that have always been planned for inclusion on the SE quadrant are intended, and needed,
to avoid non-residential growth creep outside of the Birmingham Crossroads node and to provide
a visual interruption to the density. The currently required 75 -foot undisturbed buffer and the
10- foot improvement setback clearly will protect against the entire development being visible
from every vantage point both along Birmingham Road as well as Birmingham Highway. T h e
required buffer is needed and has always been considered integral to this development being
different from "anywhere USA". As a long-time resident of this community who has invested
personally in the Birmingham Crossroads with both time and money, I fully expect the required
buffers to remain in place. Why would you consider doing anything else? I am not concerned
with the idle "threats" of the developer, nor should you. That is not a sound mechanism for
making legally grounded decisions for our great city. I suspect you know that without my
having to point it out. Standing your ground as a Council in the face of threats from this
developer is the responsible thing to do. On my behalf, and on behalf of all the citizens you
were elected to protect and represent, I implore you to deny this zoning modification and the
concurrent variances associated with it. I have reviewed again the four legal reasons to approve
a zoning modification, and none of the four requirements are present in this case. From a legal
standpoint, there is no basis for approval. You must deny this zoning modification. I have
known Mr. Dillard for many years; it is his job to threaten and intimidate you, please do not
let it work. Instead, stand strong for the community and citizens you represent. Make no mistake,
I am opposed to this zoning modification and the related concurrent variances. They should be
denied. Regrettably, I will not be able to be in attendance for the April 23, 2018 Council meeting
as I will be in Washington meeting with the U.S. Attorney. I would appreciate the inclusion of
this letter in the record of the proceedings upon its reading to the Council. Thanking you for your
attention.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday; April 231, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 14 of 30
Julie Za ner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
Please deny ZM18-O'1/VC 18-04, specifically the Zoning Modification and Concurrent Variances
for the Southeast Quadrant of the Birmingham Crossroads at Birmingham Hwy and Birmingham
Road. The zoning modification and concurrent variances are in direct conflict with the
Birmingham Master Plan, the Milton Overlay; the original zoning and the zoning modifications
that have already been sought. These concurrent variances would allow more density (to the
tune of 7,250 square feet) and visibility than what could be accomplished otherwise. No public
good has been demonstrated. These variances should be denied. There is no hardship_ The
Southeast quadrant of the Birmingham Crossroads can be developed according to the
Birmingham Master Plan, the Milton Overlay and the zoning's approved to date. Please require
all applicants stick to the plan including the requirement of over an acre of undisturbed buffer
and an improvement set back allowing for an appropriate transition from the MIX density back
to the AG -1 land.. This substantial buffer provides a visual transition, breaks up the sea of density
across the entire quadrant, and appropriately buffers the higher density portion of the quadrant
back to the AG -I land and residential development as is required by our zoning laws. The City
of Milton staff is recommending denial and delineates well all the reasons to deny this zoning
modification and the concurrent variances. These zoning modifications and concurrent
variances serve no purpose other than to allow more density than would otherwise be allowed.
Many citizens and many years went into the Birmingham Crossroads, the Milton Overlay and
the underlying zonings. The conditions of those plans are very clear. Undisturbed buffers,
setbacks, specific greenspace placed in a conservation trust for perpetuity — and many other
design details -- were always the intent for the Birmingham Crossroads; nothing has changed.
This zoning modification and concurrent variances must be denied. It is clear this quadrant will
develop as has been the plan since we first pursued the Birmingham Crossroads Masterplan; but
it should develop according the approved plans and legally required policies. The fact that the
developer and his attorney are "threatening" the city, each of you and the community with a
potentially less desirable plan changes nothing. Whether the applicant builds 25 detached
buildings with no more than 10 feet of separation or 30 townhomes, the incremental 5 rooftops
will not make a bit of difference with the buffer completely gone. Many would much rather
have 30 townhomes with the buffer intact because it will visually break up the density.
Regardless, these various concept plans are just "threats" and should be treated accordingly, i.e.
ignored. Your decision Monday night is not about evaluating various "what if' plans that may
or may not ever come to fruition. These "threats" are directly from the Developer Playbook
"Hong to win what you want when you are a developer" class 101. Instead, your decision is
supposed to be legally grounded in whether to approve a variance based on four specific legal
requirements. In this instance not -a -single -one of those legal requirements are met; not one. 75 -
foot undisturbed buffers are required in other locations of Milton as a means of separating
commercial and high density residential from lower density residential and they are required
here. Why in the world would we expect anything less in an area that was always planned and
promised to develop uniquely and in concert with the unique community it is intended to serve?
If there was ever a time to abide by a buffer, it would be here in the most rural areas of Milton;
an area that has been master planned expressly to ensure distinction rather than it look like any
other commercial/high density development. Buffering the density is a critical component of
the masterplan for this area and citizens deserve to have those legally binding requirements
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 15 of 30
upheld. Whether you individually think they matter or not candidly is not for you to decide; at
least it is not supposed to be according to the laws of our land. You were elected to uphold the
laws, not make them up on the fly when you so decide to uphold them or not. There is no legal
basis for anything other than denial. This should be a slam dunk. It is important to highlight
also how inconsistent it would be with the city's mission regarding greenspace to do anything
other than deny this variance request. This undisturbed buffer is greenspace; to the tune of more
than an acre. It is unconscionable anyone would consider removing this greenspace. It is ironic,
too, that the Greenspace Committee will be meeting Monday night to find and acquire
greenspace to protect our community at the very same time you will be determining whether to
protect greenspace by denying this variance request or to allow the greenspace to be clear cut.
This is yet one more obvious reason to deny this variance request. Staff's analysis provides the
following critical information that so clearly supports nothing other than denial:
® The minutes from the November 3, 2004 Board of Commissioner's meeting clearly state
the buffers to the south of the development shall remain intact. These buffers were
always intended to remain in place and to allow for an appropriate transition from the
higher density within the quadrant to the agriculturally zoned land. The buffers were also
always intended to prevent more density than what was intended from being built. This
area was always intended to be contained in part with buffers so there was no commercial
or high density creep,
• Furthermore, the conditions of zoning stipulate the following in Condition 2.a.: "Said site
plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning
Resolution and these conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit."
Therefore, the zoning ordinance (previously referred to as the zoning resolution in Fulton
County) requirements must be met unless a concurrent variance is granted and there is no
basis for anything other than denial of the zoning modification or the concurrent
variances,
A variance must be based upon credible evidence submitted at a public hearing
compliance with 1 through 4 of the following:
(1) Relief, if granted, would not offend the spirit or intent of this zoning ordinance. It
is Staff's opinion that if the requested deletion of the buffer and improvement
setback should not be approved -because it would offend the intent of the zoning
ordinance to provide an adequate buffer between non-residential uses and single
family uses or property zoned AG -1.
(2) There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to
the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of this zoning
ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography
or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the
variance applicant. The required 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot
improvement setback does not create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape
or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations based on the fact
that the site can still be developed with a mix of uses including commercial, office
and residential.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 16 of 30
(3) Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and
surrounding properties. The reduction of the buffer and improvement setback
would not provide the necessary transition from the MIX (Mixed Use)
development to the AG -1 single family homes to the south.
(4) That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice
is done. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that the public safety,
health and welfare are secured and that substantial justice was done.
• Part 2: To reduce the Village Green in the Southeast Quadrant from 13;000 square feet to
12,000 square feet (Sec. 64-1324 (b)). It is Staffs opinion that the applicant can re -design
his site plan to meet the minimum required 13,000 square foot Village Green that is
required within the Birmingham Crossroads Overlay District as well as recommended in
the Birmingham Plan within the southeast quadrant of the Crossroads. The Village Green
consisting of 13,000 square feet in area is an integral part of the overall Crossroads
Overlay District and to reduce the size is inconsistent with the Birmingham Crossroads
Plan. The village green should also be required to be placed into a Conservation Trust for
perpetuity to ensure it remains true greenspace.
• A variance must be based upon credible evidence submitted at a public hearing
compliance with 1 through 4 of the following:
(1) Relief, if granted, would not offend the spirit or intent of this zoning ordinance. It is
Staffs opinion that if the requested reduction in size of the Village Green from
13,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet should not be approved because it would
offend the requirements of the Birmingham Crossroads Overlay District.
(2) There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the
particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of this zoning
ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or
other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the
variance applicant. The required 13,000 square foot Village Green does not create an
unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations based on the fact that the site can still be developed with the
required Village Green.
(3) Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and
surrounding properties. The reduction in size of the Village Green will cause a
substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties based on the fact
that it is not in conformance with the Overlay District and Birmingham Crossroads
Plan.
(4) That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is
done. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that the public safety, health
and welfare are secured and that substantial justice was done.
As you all know, what happens at this corner is critical to the long-term look, feel and viability
of the most rural area of the City of Milton. It should develop with the one acre plus of
buffer/greenspace to ensure a visual softening of the density. This zoning modification and
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 17 of 30
concurrent variances must be denied. This undisturbed buffer and improvement set back — to
the tune of more than an acre — were never supposed to be optional. And in fact, they are not
optional. This quadrant will develop, but it should develop according to the requirements put in
place legally with the benefit of the appropriate and extensive community input, legally
grounded hearings and approvals that were always intended to remain in place. You were all
elected to uphold the laws and policies of our community, including these laws and policies.
There is no hardship. Thank you all for upholding the laws and zoning policies of our
wonderfully unique community. Please deny this zoning modification and concurrent variances.
Your service to the citizens of Milton is greatly appreciated.
Vincent Taylor, 15670 Casterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004
Please reject this. It is not council's job to bail out developers.
City Clerk Gordon read the following names and addresses all in opposition.
Joe Whitley, 1250 Birmingham Road, Milton, GA 30004
Emily Tate, 15180 Highgrove Road, Milton, GA 30004
Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road Milton, GA 30004
Barbara Taylor, Drummond Pond Road, Milton, GA 30004
Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, GA 30004
Lauren Holmes, 1.3900 Hagood Road, Milton, GA 30004
Bill Hosmer, 235 Weatherwood Circle, Milton, GA 30004
Vincent Taylor, 15670 Canterbury Chase, Milton, GA 30004
Councilmember Longoria
We have received questions from the public via email and public comment regarding the validity
of this type of request and the legality of the council hearing the variance request, and that there is
a set of criteria that governs it. Could you please comment on if we are not doing the right thing
in even discussing the request? Is there some type of criteria that we need to be following? And,
do we need to ensure that if there are applications that do not meet the criteria then we would not
even consider or discuss them.
City Attorney Jarrard
A property owner has the right to apply for a zoning modification or a variance. It is anticipated
that the requirements will be provided through the application and the information that is given to
the city. Whether or not the applicant has met the criteria or not is up to the council. And, if you
want me to get into whether or not they have met the criteria, I would prefer not to, but if you want
me to do that, I could. But, the issue you asked was is it improper for us to consider the application
at all. And, the answer is no. It is not improper for us to consider it.
Council ember Longoria
I am not asking you to weigh in on it.
Council ember Bentley
I have a couple of questions for Kathy. Could I get clarification on the height of the single family
versus detached?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 21, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 18 of 30
Kathy Field
Robyn, can you respond to that?
Robyn MacDonald
Please go to the next question while I look it up.
Councilmember Bentley
Can you help me with the detention pond? Can anyone tell me if that is visible from Birmingham
Highway?
Kathy Field
I would like to call up our City Architect who worked with the developer on that proposed design.
Bob, could you please address this question?
Bob Buseerni, City Architect
The answer to the first question on height. There is a condition that says that height is two story
which is the first and the second floor. Height does not include attics or basements. So, the
condition also addresses if there is a basement then there is a dimensional height of 28 feet to the
underside of the eave which is standard throughout the city. So, if they could fit a basement with
the grade then there would be a basement there. If not, it would just be two stories. The second
question was the detention pond. On the plan with 24 units, the detention pond area is incorporated
into more of a parks setting amenity. We had the developer- redesign the detention pond to really
retain at least five feet of water year round. It would have a shallow pond that would spill over to
the larger pond and then have a greenway going through it for people to enjoy. Yes, it is visible
from Birmingham Highway and it would be more of a park -like setting with ornamental trees,
color, grass, stone walls, places for people to sit, versus the other plan, the townhouse plan. On
the townhouse plan, the developer really has two options. One; is to bury it under the ground and
by doing so he would be removing any vegetation that is there including the trees. Or, the second
option, is to do a surface detention pond with a four to one slope. That detention pond is very
different. It is just a pond that temporarily stores storm water and drains down and is not very
attractive. They usually have a fence for protection and a ten foot landscape strip to hide it. So, it
is not very visually attractive or anything you would want to experience or walk around.
Councilrneber Bentley
I would like to ask Mr. Braswell a few questions. I know we have some questions about the criteria
for requesting a variance. Can you tell us why you are requesting a variance?
Tad Braswell
In our application, we went through the different criteria and spelled out why we think we meet
those criteria. I don't have that information with me. Our application makes a very good case of
why we think we meet the criteria for the hardship. The additional hardship that we have is that
prior to buying the property, we came to the city and asked if the site plan met all the zoning
conditions and we were given a letter from staff that said that it does. That was our due diligence
on the property and so we purchased the property, moved forward with getting a land disturbance
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 19 of 30
permit and then a few days before we thought we were going to get the permit that we needed this
variance. I want to remind everyone that in every plan that has been done on this property since
2004, the buffer has never been shown. So, two things I would like to clarify. The original plan
had 40,000 square feet of retail space and 33 townhomes.
Councilmember Bentley
Staff is recommending denial and I have their report but I am asking you, in your words, what you
can tell me about the hardship.
Tad Braswell
This really does not affect anybody other than people who would be interior to the development.
This has always been contemplated to be a mixed use development with different types of products.
There is no neighbor who would be harmed by this. It is only interior to our development.
Councilmember Longoria
Kathy, staff's review of the request. Do you feel like it meets the conditions that are required to
grant the variance? I know that you have given us a good analysis.
Kathy Field
There are many overlays affecting this site and a plan and two zonings. However, from staff's
perspective looking at the suggested recommended conditions for approval that there is much merit
in those conditions in terms of the plan that is proposed that was submitted on March 16, 2018 and
we really feel that in terms of greenspace, you are going from a one acre buffer to a 2.3 acre green
park storm water facility which is incorporated into the park. And, the concept of a village
crossroads, and as you know I am a big fan of villages, in terms of Crabapple, I look at that as a
smaller version but to really promote the walkability and connectivity between all these uses, to
put a 75 foot buffer which really separates the uses, to me is counterintuitive to what we should be
doing. I also think that townhomes really do not reflect the rural vision of what that crossroad
should be looking like. Townhomes are a suburban type of housing development. I really think a
single family rural farmhouse type of structure is much more in keeping with the vision. I feel that
with the new conditions that are being proposed that there is much relevance to consider the plan
that was submitted on March 16, 2018.
Councilmember Longoria
The property was originally zoned AG -l. Fulton County allowed it to be rezoned in 2004. We
added some conditions to that zoning in 2014 and now it is up again and we are discussing what
else needs to be done to the zoning in order for a developer to develop this property. So, this will
be the fourth time we have made changes to this property and I feel like we are negotiating with
ourselves. Because nothing is actually being done. We just keep changing the rules on what can
be done. And, that doesn't seem right to me. So, do you think that the changes that the developer
is asking for are required in order to make this work?
Kathy Field
No, I said that very early on that the plan that he submitted with the 33 townhomes per the original
zoning does work so it is not required. I think the issue is ... is that a plan that is superior to the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council'
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 20 of 30
one that is being proposed that was submitted in March. Clearly, the developer can meet the
original zoning in terms of the single family homes as well as the townhomes.
Councilmember Longoria
So, would you say then that the appeal of the changes that are part of the request are the hardship
that is being looked at for this request to be considered?
Kathy Field
I cannot respond to the hardship issue but I can respond to the relevance and the superiority of one
plan over another. And, from a planning perspective, I would say that with the proposed conditions
as they have been presented, that the plan submitted on March 16, 2018, I believe, really helps
create a walkable, rural, crossroads village that we all have an interest in. With an additional
amount of greenspace, we are trading the one acre buffer for a 2.3 acre park area.
Mayor Lockwood
I certainly appreciate all of the feedback from the community and all the public comments we have
had here tonight, however, I have seen a reoccurring theme and I want to dispel some of that. I
have heard that there have been threats or intimidation by the developer. I do not believe that any
of us up here or the staff have been threatened or intimidated by the developer. I certainly
understand variances and rules. The only reason I would even consider this is because it was
brought to me by our council and citizens. This plan has a lot of merit. We can follow the rules
which is an easy way to do it. But; we can cut our nose off despite our face too. We may have a
better plan in front of us tonight. Just so the citizens know, the only reason we are considering this
is because it has merit. It could be a better product for the community. I would like Bob to give
us the positive versus the negative of both plans. When I looked at it, it had less density, more
greenspace, and more amenities for the public.
Bob Buscemi
It has less density. It eliminates having a buffer that would separate the uses and rope off the
crossroads look and feel. The original intent of the crossroads is really to have a small town
community interconnectivity look and feel. It includes pedestrian pathways and walkways and
outlines the whole look. It also has single family dwellings instead of townhomes. Single family
housing on a small scale would be positive because back in 2014 we established guidelines
regarding the look and feel of those type of houses because we wanted them to look as if they
belonged in Milton.. The minimum size of these type of houses is 2,000 square feet. We are going
to have commercial and retail along Birmingham Highway and Birmingham Road. Once we start
eliminating that, we no longer have the crossroads corner feel anymore and it will just be a big
buffer running down the road. I really think we are going to get more usable open space with a
park etc. I really think that the March 16, 2018 plan will result in a better product for Milton.
Mayor Lockwood
I am not bringing this up in support of the application. I wanted to bring this information forward
to make sure the public knew the reason we were looking at this plan which would be less density
and more greenspace and possibly a better product for the city.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 21 of 30
Councilmember Kunz
Carter, if this is denied, we would possibly have 33 townhomes built in that area. And, would it
be connected to the community septic located behind the Publix across the street?
Carter Lucas
That is correct.
Councileber Kunz
Are we sure that system has the capacity to handle all of that?
Carter Lucas
They have been given an allotment of sewer from that system. The original was based on 24
townhomes and a mix of office and retail type uses so as long as they stay within that allotment
there should be capacity.
Councilme ber Kunz
24 is different from 33.
Carter Lucas
They had an allotment of office and retail so if you swap the office and retail for additional
residential, as long as you stay within the given allotment, there should be capacity.
City Manager Krokoff
We are basing this information on letters and information we have received. We are not experts
on community septic systems so we are relying on information that has been given to us.
Council ember Kunz
Ken, if we approve this request, would there be some type of law that we would violate based on
interpretation?
City Attorney Jarrard
Milton has always had very strong variance criteria. If you read the variance criteria, it is in the
connective. Every element has to be satisfied. In a lot of codes, you normally do not see words
like "extraordinary' and "exceptional" which are located in paragraph two. That is strong
language. One thing the council may want to think about, "Is it breaking the law to grant a variance
in this situation?" No, it is not breaking the law but from the standpoint of public policy and the
expectations, you may want to give that some consideration. And, once you hear that someone
can do a plan on a piece of property but maybe not optimally, it begins to lend itself in favor of
perhaps it is not an extraordinary hardship. Milton may want to think about changing your variance
criteria, perhaps, if you want additional flexibility on issues like this. Because the way this
language is drafted right now, it is very strong.
Regular Meeting of the Milton. City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 22 of 30
Councilmember Kunz
Are you implying that we do not have that flexibility in this situation?
City Attorney Jarrard
I am suggesting that the council can grant a variance if it chooses to but I am suggesting that once
you begin to go down the road that you are simply going to grant variances to make developments
better, then really what you are doing is something different than the variance language that is in
place right now.
Councilmember Bentley
I would like to thank everyone who has come here tonight and I know this is an important issue to
the community. I will tell you that there are many nuances to this plan that we have all spent a lot
of time looking at these different scenarios and I think that is why you want us up here. The merit
might be there but we have staff that has told us that there is no demonstrated hardship and has
recommended denial. We are all listening closely to what the community wants for this corner
and for those reasons I cannot support this variance. This is a tough place to be because you can't
guess what might be there but if we are going to stand by our ordinances then that is where I fall
in this.
Councilmember Longoria
This is a difficult position to be in and I agree with all of Laura's sentiments. From my point of
view, the biggest challenge is that there are promises and there are guarantees. The only guarantee
that we have right now is what we have agreed to and put on paper. The promises are that if we
change it we might be able to get something better. We have been doing that quite a bit on this
piece of property and that is why I brought up the fact that it seems like we are negotiating with
ourselves. Because we keep changing it and nobody is developing the property. So, I am not
going to be able to support this variance request either.
Councilmember Jamison
When you gave us the recommended conditions for denial or acceptance; on the denial you wanted
us to make a change and so my question is, can we just make any blanket changes on a denial?
City Attorney Jarrard
I believe that was a housekeeping issue but I will defer to Mrs. Field.
Kathy Field
Yes, it was. It was something that was achieved through a zoning modification and it really should
have been achieved through a variance so we really want to take it off the plate. So, if there is ever
a change in the future on that criteria, it would have to come back in for a variance request which
is the correct way of doing it. It is not achieved through a zoning modification. So, it is a
housekeeping issue.. If you decide to deny it, if you will include deleting that section because it
should not have been there through the zoning modification process.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of 30
Councilmember Mohrig
Ken, when we deny an item, it is usually a straight denial; we do not add conditions. Would that
be a separate item that we need to handle? Or, do we include that in the denial if we choose to
deny it.
City Attorney Jarrard
I have no objection to doing it that way. Again, if it was substantive, I would take exception to
that but the way it has been explained to me by staff, this is truly a housekeeping matter.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to DENY Agenda Item No. 18-083 with the
changes as proposed by Staff. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed
(6-1). Councilmember Hewitt was in opposition.
2. Consideration of RZ18-08 - to amend Article XIX Crabapple Form Based Code to
amend Table 1 Transect Zone Descriptions.
ORDINANCE NO. 18-04-347
(Agenda Item No. 18-112)
(First Presentation at April 9, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Discussed at April 16, 2018 City Council Work Session)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathy Field, Community Development Director
The purpose of this text amendment is to amend the T-4 Transect Zone description in Table 1
within the Crabapple Form Based Code. This proposed amendment will more clearly describe that
this transect zone is intended to be mixed use as per the list of allowed uses in Table 9: Specific
Function and Use and to eliminate the "primarily" residential statement which creates an
inconsistency in interpretation. The amendment also includes allowing office uses within T-4
within Table 1 descriptions. This proposed change will further solidify the idea that a mix of uses
will serve to promote a live, work, play downtown village in Crabapple. Staff recommends the
version of Table 1. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 recommending approval of the text
amendment with the following recommendation instead of Staff's recommendation under T-4
General Urban:
"T-4 General Urban Zone consists of a mix of uses which may be primarily residential and
may also include Office and Commercial. "
Also, within "General Character" the Planning Commission recommended to keep the word
"scattered" in the verbiage.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 30
Councilmember Bentley
We talked about this in the work session and I was okay with the language "primarily" except for
Green Road.
Kathy Field
We are talking about a small area near Waterside and the concern is any type of use aside from
residential. So, we thought we could create an infill rezoning for this area and rezone it to a T-3.
The average density in that area is approximately three units per acre and it would be residential
only.
Councilmember Bentley
I agree with that.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-112.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Consideration of an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia,
to Adopt Amendments to the Fiscal 2018 Budget for Each Fund of the City of Milton,
Georgia, Amending the Amounts Shown in Each Budget as Expenditures, Amending the
Several Items of Revenue Anticipations, Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed
Appropriations, and Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed Actual Funding Available.
ORDINANCE NO. 18-04-346
(Agenda Item No. 18-110)
(First Presentation at April 9, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Public Hearing at April 23, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director)
Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director
I do not have any additional comments to the presentation I made earlier. I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-110.
Councilmember Jamison seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 25 of 30
2. Consideration of Ordinance to Amend Chapter 60, "Tree Canopy Conservation
Ordinance" of the City of Code of Ordinances.
ORDINANCE NO. 18-04-348
(Agenda Item No. 18-111)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Public Comment
Scott Reece, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am here tonight representing primarily my family and relatives in reference to the tree ordinance.
Contrary to popular rumors, I am not now or ever have been a developer. My family owned either
all or parts of the land that became White Columns, Richmond Glen, and Potterstone Subdivisions.
We still own undeveloped property in the city. The existing tree ordinance will not allow for the
construction of the now typical Milton house with the required septic field on one acre lots without
purchasing significant additional canopy coverage. The ordinance also significantly affects large
estate lots that are not completely covered by trees and in some cases requiring the property owner
to plant trees or acres of trees to either meet the 30% or 60% coverage, whichever would apply. It
would appear that an unintended consequence of the ordinance will either force smaller lots or the
construction of smaller less valuable homes in the city. The premise that you can increase the
canopy coverage of the city as a whole and not include existing developed property but only
undeveloped property is flawed. I am told that the existing tree canopy for the city as a whole is
57%. My question is, "what is the percentage of tree canopy on developed properties?" Expecting
the property owners of undeveloped property to create this canopy increase and put in required
infrastructure plus home footprints, plus septic systems, greatly devalues their property. So, now
we are going to have multiple sets of regulations based on when you constructed your home. In
effect, the city is forcing future homeowners to dedicate 60% of their property to trees. The
ordinance states that the city will have tree banks in place to allow for canopy compliance. Has
this been addressed? The new ordinance which has now been vetted by staff has a significant
amount of red lined changes. This should be an alert that there are fundamental problems with the
new ordinance. I respectfully request that you rescind the new ordinance and reinstate the old
ordinance. Then a new ordinance should be crafted that creates a viable tree environment and
allows the by -right use of one's own property. I also respectfully request that you ask staff to
create a new ordinance that balances the wants of all citizens and property owners which defines
the balance that created the best quality of life in Georgia, without regard to the existing new
ordinance or a stepped up time table.
Steve Laboda, 14415 Morning Mountain Way, Milton, Georgia 30004
I own several properties, about 8-10, and they all have about three plus acres. I also own numerous
businesses in Milton as well. I am a developer, landscaper, farmer, builder, and the biggest
contradiction of all, my wife served on the committee to revise the tree ordinance. I am very
passionate about our constitutional rights. We have had a lot of speakers talk about enforcing the
laws of zoning. I want to read the following from conferences with the local North Fulton Chapter
of the Homebuilders Association, the Atlanta Homebuilders Association, the State of Georgia
Homebuilders Association, and the National Homebuilders Association. I have also spoken to our
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 26 of 30
State Agricultural Commissioner, Gary Black. Subsequent to Georgia code 210, Title 2, Chapter
1, 2-1-6; No county or municipality consolidated government or other political subdivision of this
state shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, rule, regulation, or resolution, regarding crop
management. This was a question that was proposed to our tree ordinance committee when it
comes to somebody who would like to have an equestrian farm. Georgia code 210, Title 41,
Chapter 1, 41-1-7; It is the declared policy of the state to preserve, protect, and encourage the
development and improvement of its agricultural and forest lands and facilities for the production,
distribution of food, and other agricultural products including without limitation forestry products.
All those items are covered under the current zoning of AG -1. Furthermore, as used in this code,
the term agriculture area means any land which is or may be legally used for an agricultural
obligation under applicable zoning laws; rules, or regulations at the time of commencement of the
agricultural operation of the agricultural facility during the first year of operation. Agricultural
facility includes but is not limited to any land, building, structure, pond, or equipment which is
used for the commercial production or processing of crops, livestock, animals, poultry, honeybees,
honeybee products, timber forestry, or any products used in commercial agriculture. I love trees.
I go to great expense to preserve Milton's trees. However, under the law, for any municipality to
have any ordinance regarding AG -1 property is mostly illegal. The council has the authority to
change the zoning. I don't want to see all of our trees cut down but under state law, anyone with
AG -1 property can.
Richard Wernic, 3366 Carverton Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004
I know people who want to purchase up to ten acres of land in Milton. Part of the land is pasture.
A good looking pasture is good looking. This ordinance seems to be infringing on individuals
being able to have a pasture that looks like a pasture. I'm not sure what we are trying to fix. I
have developed in Milton and a 15 year old subdivision such as Triple Crown which was developed
without any tree ordinance because Milton had not been formed yet. It actually looks good so I
don't understand what we are trying to fix. AG -1 zoning permits a single family house to be built
but with this tree ordinance, you are preventing a person from building a house on AG -1 property.
It creates a conflict.
Austin Lineberry, 16230 Hopewell Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
My wife and I own New River Building Company. We are a custom home builder, remodels,
renovations, flip homes. I am in favor to amend it as it has been adopted and getting to know it
better after reading through it, I have concerns from a couple of different perspectives. Clients
come to us for: advice and guidance on building a home. We discuss all the various costs associated
with building a home. We tell them about the impact fees, permit fees, and now if we adopt this
tree ordinance there could be an additional fee for some people. It is also a deterrent to buying
property in Milton to be able to build a spec house with all the additional fees that would be
incurred. For these reasons, I would like a diverse group of people to relook at this from different
vantage points. I am an outdoorsman and I love trees but there needs to be room in our community
for pasture land as well.
Steve Krokolrf, City Danaher
I am going to discuss where we were, where we are, where we want to be, and how we plan to get
there. In 2012, the best approach was to have an organized, proactive management program that
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 27 of 30
includes tools such as a tree inventory, benefit analysis, and canopy assessment from which goals
are set and progress measured. The tree conservation goal of no net loss. It was directed by council
to assess city's tree conservation efforts, primarily during land disturbance associated with
development. Tree density is based on DBH, unit value, units per acre site requirement. Canopy
coverage is based on square footage of canopy cover, actual canopy or standard credit assigned,
site coverage percentage requirement. The benefits of canopy coverage is to direct connection to
the benefits of trees, reduce under/overplanting and encourage diverse forest, as well as give a
better connection to places where canopy should be prescribed. Tree density units required is
based on minimum units per acre by land use and 20 tree density units per acre required for single
family residential. The percentage of tree canopy coverage required is based on minimum
percentage of lot covered by tree canopy by zoning district and a 60% canopy coverage required
for AG -1. We need workshops to educate individuals on how this plan works. There is a lot of
misinformation floating around in the community.
Melissa Branen, Plan Review Manager
As we all know, we went from a canopy based to a density based method for measuring canopy.
A tree density ordinance is based on measuring the diameter of a tree trunk and then it is given a
corresponding unit value according to the size of the trunk. The site density requirement overall
is based on the minimum units per acre. A canopy coverage ordinance is based on the square
footage of the canopy coverage of the actual trees. It can be measured with actual canopy cover,
measured in the field through a survey or aerial photography for conserved trees or it is given a
standard credit assigned to it by species for planted trees. So, the site coverage requirement for
canopy coverage is actually based on the percentage of the lot that is covered by the canopy. Staff
believes that trees help control erosion, provide shade; minimize heating and cooling costs, reduce
the chances of over planting and under planting, and encourage a diverse forest because it considers
species.
Michele -McIntosh Ross, Principal Planner
We conducted a canopy study in 2012 and we recently completed a canopy study as part of this
project. The study was done using a program called i -Tree which was developed by the U. S.
Forest Service Department of Agriculture for communities to be able to easily analyze land
coverage and the health of their ecosystem.
Sieve Krokoff
I believe that we probably rushed it at the end and should have taken more time to solidify all the
areas of the ordinance, however, we are 95% of the way there. So, we need to convene a
stakeholder group based upon the current condition to include large parcel landowners,
agricultural and equestrian individuals, master gardeners, staff subject matter experts, residents
of developed properties with tree permit exposure, tree removal companies, environmental
champions, and developers and builders. This stakeholder group shall consider the goal, staff
recommendations, and other considerations. Tonight, we need to consider passage of two staff
recommendations which are to provide the Community Development Director with the
discretion to effectively address the variabilities associated with real world conditions, and allow
applicants to apply the density or the canopy based ordinance until August 5, 2018. The
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 28 of 30
administrator shall have the authority to waive any provision of this tree ordinance where such
waiver is consistent with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and is in the best interest of the
public health, safety and welfare. The following factors shall be considered in evaluating the
waiver request:
• Whether a literal enforcement of the tree ordinance will create an undue hardship or an
unreasonable practical difficulty on the applicant;
• Whether the situation causing the undue hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the
affected lot and is not self-imposed;
• Whether a reasonable accommodation or alternative solution can be made to accomplish
the desired activity without the alteration of the tree;
• Whether the waiver will injure or be wholly compatible with the use and future or
existing development of adjacent properties;
• Whether the increased development costs caused by conserving the tree create an undue
hardship on the development of the lot;
• Whether there is any identified adverse effect of the alteration or conservation on erosion,
soil moisture retention, flow of surface water, and drainage systems;
• Whether there is any substantial impact to the buffering of residential areas from the
noise, glare, and visual effects of non-residential uses;
• The costs versus the benefits of relocating required utility service infrastructure and
easements based on the conservation or alteration of protected trees;
• Whether the proposed tree replacement procedures adequately mitigate the alteration of
the tree;
• Whether the alteration adversely affects public health, safety and welfare; and
• Whether the granting of the waiver will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
tree ordinance to the greatest degree reasonably possible.
Motion and Vote: Councilinember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-111 with the
following language:
To adopt 3.3 with the term "variance" in subsections (d) and (k) replaced by the term "waiver"
and to adopt 4.4 which should read, "the applicant may apply the density based tree conservation
ordinance or the canopy based tree conservation ordinance until August 5, 2018. The remaining
proposed changes to the canopy based tree conservation ordinance adopted on February 5, 2018
as presented today by staff will be assessed by the newly developed stakeholder committee.
Councilmember Bentley seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 29 of 30
3. Consideration of Amendments to Chapter 2 – Administration, Article II,
Division 2 – Meetings.
ORDINANCE NO. 18-04-349
(Agenda Item No. 18-113)
(First Presentation at April 9, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Discussed at April 16, 2018 City Council Work Session)
(Ken Jarrard, City Attorney)
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney
During the last work session, we discussed the changes that have been proposed to the city council
meeting rules. I will not read all of the changes in detail again, however, we decided with respect
to the zoning agenda, if we grant additional time to one side it automatically gets added to the other
side. Also, with respect to emails sent to the staff and council, the email needs to expressly state
that it is to be included as part of the record if that is the intent of the sender. In addition, if an
email is intended to be a proxy for a public comment card, it cannot be more than 300 characters.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-113 with the
— insertion of the "City Clerk" on page 10 in section 2(b) where it states "designee". Councilmember
Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
NEW BUSINESS (None)
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Burt Hewitt
This will be my last meeting tonight. My family and I are moving out of the city limits. I have
enjoyed the ten years I have served on the City Council.
The following Staff Reports were removed from the Agenda under Approval of Meeting
Agenda.
STAFF REPORTS
Department Updates
1. Community Development
2. Finance
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Page 30 of 30
EXECUTIVE SESSION (if needed)
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 18-130)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Date Approved: June 4, 2018
��6doq
Sudie AM Gordon, City Cl f
rk
Joe Lockwood,