Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 07/20/2015 - MINS 07 20 15 REG (Migrated from Optiview)-~~.....-=~~-~-----~-------------------- Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:00 pm Page I of38 This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice . Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded. The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on July 20, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION Councilmember Karen Thurman CALL TO ORDER Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order. ROLLCALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Kunz , Councilmember Lusk, Councilmember Hewitt, and Councilmember Mohrig. Councilmember Absent: Councilmember Longoria PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by Mayor J oe Lo ckw ood) APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Agenda Item No. 15-189) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following changes: • Add an Executive Session to discuss ongoing litigation. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 , 20 15 at 6 :00 pm Page 2 of38 CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval ofthe July 6 , 2015 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes. (Agenda Item No. 15-190) (S udie Gordon, City Clerk) 2 . Approval of the Financial Statements for the Period Ending June , 2015. (Agenda Item No. 15-191) (Stacey In glis, Ass istant C ity Manager) 3. Approval of a Real Property Agreement with Georgia Department of Transportation for PI 0011675 Crabapple Streetscape Project. (Agenda Item No. 15-192) (C arter Lu cas, Ass istant C ity Manager) 4. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Blount Construction Company , Inc . for the FY15 Road Resurfacing Projects. (Agenda Item No. 15-193) (Ca rter Lu cas, Ass istant C ity Ma n ager) 5. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Clayton Joseph Construction Services , LLC for the Demolition of structures at 12608 Crabapple Road. (Agenda Item No. 15-194) (C arter Lu cas, Assistant City Man ager) 6. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Cheryl A. Hilvert, Consultant, for Facilitation ofthe Strategic Planning Retreat. (Agenda Item No. 15-195) (C hris Lagerbloom, City Ma nager) 7. Approval of a Lease Agreement with MailFinance , Inc . for Mailing Equipment. (Agenda Item No. 15-196) (S ta cey In g lis, Assis tant City Manager) 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 from the meeting. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation to Winners of the 2015 City of Milton Tree Photo Contest. (Mark Law, City Arb oris t) FIRST PRESENTATION (No ne) ------------------------------- Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 , 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 3 of38 PUBLIC HEARING 1. Consideration of an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia, to Fix the Ad Valorem Tax Rate of the City of Milton for Fiscal Year 2015; and for Other Purposes . (Age nda Item No. 15-184) (Firs t Public Hearin g and Fir s t Pr esentation at July 6, 20 15 Regu lar City Cou ncil Meeting) (S ta cey In g lis, Assistant City Manager) Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager This is the second ~ublic hearing of the three public hearings that we are required to have. The first one was held on July 6 1 , the second one is tonight, and the third one will be held on August 3rd in which we will also be considering the adoption of the mileage rate at that time. Tax bills are projected to be mailed on September 1st and they are due October 31 st. The total tax digest is $2 ,238 ,970 ,962.00. The total taxes levied will be $10,592 ,572.00 which is both property taxes and motor vehicle taxes. Property taxes are approximately $10.2 million and motor vehicle taxes are approximately $380,000. The property tax is increasing due to inflationary reassessments of existing property. It is increasing 5.48% due to the reassessments. When coupled with the upsurge of the digest for newly improved properties , overall taxes levied will be 6.5% higher than 2014. The mileage rate that we are proposing is 4. 731 mills and that is the same mileage rate that we have had since the inception of the city. 2. Consideration of a Resolution Transmitting a Draft Capital Improvements Element, Relating to the City 's Consideration of an Impact Fee Program to the Atlanta Regional Commission for Regional and State Review. (Agenda Item No. 15-197) Kathle en Fi eld, Community Developm ent Dir ector) Michele Mcintosh-Ross, Principal Planner This is regarding the Impact Fee Program we have been working on. There is a Capital Improvement element to it. Our consultant, Bill Ross , is here tonight to answer any questions you may have . ALCOHOL BEVERAGE APPLICATIONS 1. Consideration of the Issuance of a Brown Bagging Permit to Just for Giggles of Crabapple, LLC dba Just for Giggles, Located at 12635 Crabapple Road , Suite 250, Milton , Georgia 30004. (Agenda Item No. 15-198) (S tacey In glis, Ass istant City Manager) Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager Just for Giggles changed ownership and the new owner has requested a brown bagging permit. They have met all the requirements of the ordinance and staff recommends approval. -------------------------------------~ Re g ular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 4 of38 Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No . 15-198 . Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting . 2. Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Sequoia Golf Manor, LLC dba The Manor Golf and Country Club, Located at 15951 Manor Club Drive, Milton , Georgia 30004 . (Agenda Item No. 15-199) (St acey In glis, Assistant City Man ager) Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager This request is also due to a change in ownership . The new owner is Sequoia Golf Manor but there has been a change in the structuring of the company. It is owned by Club Corp . The applicant has met all the requirements of the ordinance and staff recommends approval. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No . 15-199 . Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. 3. Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Sequoia Golf Manor, LLC dba The Manor Golf and Country Club , Located at 15952 Manor Club Drive , Milton , Georgia 30004. (Agenda Item No. 15-200) (S tacey In glis, Assistant City Manager) Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager This request is also due to a change in ownership . The new owner is Sequoia Golf Manor but there has been a change in the structuring of the company. It is owned by Club Corp. The applicant has met all the requirements of the ordinance and staff recommends approval. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve Agenda Item No. 15-200. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousl y (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. 4 . Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Sequoia Golf North Atlanta, LLC dba White Columns Country Club , Located at 300 Clubhouse Drive , Milton , Georgia 30004. (Agenda Item No. 15-201) (Stacey In glis, Ass istant City Manager) Re g ular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, Jul y 20 , 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 5 of38 Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager This request is also due to a change in ownership. The new owner is Sequoia Golf Manor but there has been a change in the structuring of the company. It is owned by Club Corp. The applicant has met all the requirements of the ordinance and staff recommends approval. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman mo ved to appro ve Agenda Item No. 15-201. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting 7. Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Sequoia Golf North Atlanta, LLC dba Atlanta National Golf Club , Located at 350 Tournament Players Drive , Milton, Georgia 30004. (Agenda Item No. 15-202) (S tacey In glis, Assistant City Ma n ager) Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager This request is also due to a change in ownership. The new owner is Sequoia Golf Manor but there has been a change in the structuring of the company. It is owned by Club Corp. The applicant has met all the requirements of the ordinance and staff recommends approval. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk mo ved to appro ve Agenda Item No. 15-202. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. Zoning is transcribed verbatim ZONING AGENDA 1. Consideration ofRZ15-13 -3225 Francis Road by Sexto Omar Martinez Rivera to Rezone from AG-1 (Agricultural) to R-3 (Residential) to Develop 2 Single Family Residences. ORDINANCE NO. 15-07-254 (Agenda Item No. 15-182) (Fir st Pr esentation at July 6, 2 015 Regu lar Cou nc il Mee ting) (Kathlee n Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Director) Kathleen Field, Community Development Director Good evening Mayor and members of the City Council. The applicant's property is outlined on the site plan in red. The current zoning for this particular site is AG-1 . The future land use map shows this as medium density . And , this is a copy of the site plan submitted to us on April30, 2015. Here are some pictures showing the subject site from the front and the rear. The subject site contains 1.45 acres and is developed with one single famil y residence on the south side of Francis Road with Crooked Creek subdivision surrounding the parcel on three sides. The site is located within the Medium Density ----------------------------------------------------------------------·--. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 6 of38 Residential (MDR) designation ofthe City ofMilton 2030 Comprehensive Plan Map. Staff also notes that this property is within the Hwy 9 Overlay District which does not require the Rural View Shed. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to R-3 (Residential) to develop two single family residences on .7 acre lots at an overall density of 1.38 units per acre . The existing home will be tom down to allow the construction of two new homes. Based on the applicant 's site plan submitted to the Community Development Department on April 30 , 2015 , Staff offers the following considerations and we have enumerated here the development standards for the R-3 residential zone and we show that the applicant meets all those development standards. On May 26 , 2015 the applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information Meeting (CZIM) held at the Milton City Hall. There were four citizens in attendance for the subject site. They all were residents of Crooked Creek and voiced concern about the location, size, overall look of the homes, and if they would be operating businesses in the homes. Also , they asked Staff if a buffer would be required between Crooked Creek and the proposed lots. In response , Staff stated that no buffers are required between residential zoning districts. Staff received the public participation report on June 12 , 2015. The applicant's Public Participation Meeting was held on June 9 , 2015 between 5 :00pm and 8:00pm at the Brumbelow-Reese offices located on Hwy 9. There was no one in attendance at the meeting. At the City of Milton Design Review Board Courtesy Review Meeting on June 2, 2015, it was suggested that they provide barrier plantings between Crooked Creek and new structures on subject site , the design of the homes to be consistent with the architecture of Crooked Creek homes and require the City Architect to review the building plans. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its June 24 , 2015 meeting and they approved it conditionally . The Planning Commission recommended Staffs proposed conditions except for Condition 4 .a.1.ii in which they recommended two (2) driveways on Francis Road in lieu of the recommended one driveway to be shared between the two lots. This is based on the applicant 's response that requiring one driveway to serve both lots would decrease the future value of the properties. The proposed 2 lots developed at a density of 1.38 units per acre is consistent with the adjacent Crooked Creek subdivision to the east, south and west developed at 2 units per acre. Standards of review: the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet; front setback is 35 feet ; side setback is 7.5 feet; rear setback is 35 feet and minimum heated floor area is 2 ,000 square feet pursuant to RZ93-08. To the north , it is zoned AG-1 with scattered single family lots and a Use Permit for Canine Assistants. It is Staffs opinion that the proposed use and density is suitable with adjacent properties within the City. It is also Staffs opinion that the proposal may not adversely affect existing use or usability of the adjacent properties if approved with the Recommended Conditions. Proposed use /density: Single Family Residential at 1.38 units per acre is consistent with the City of Milton 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map -Medium Density Residential (1 to 3 units per acre). The proposed 2 lots are consistent with the City of Milton's 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and adjacent and nearby properties. Therefore , Staff recommends approval conditional ofRZ15-13. Recommended conditions: To the owner 's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows: a) Single family detached dwellings and accessory uses and structures . b) No more than 2 total dwelling units at a maximum density of 1.38 units per acre , whichever is less , based on the total acreage zoned. Approved lot/unit totals are not guaranteed. The developer is responsible through site engineering (at the time of application for a Land Disturbance Permit) to demonstrate that all lots/units within the approved development meet or exceed all the development standards of the City of Milton. The total lot/unit yield of the subject site shall be determined by this final engineering. To the owner 's agreement to abide by the following: a) To the site plan received by the Community Development Department on April 30 , 2015. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance , all other applicable city ordinances and these conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. Regular Meeting of th e Milton C ity Council Monday, Jul y 20 , 2015 at 6 :00 pm Page 7 of3 8 Unless otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. b) All areas which are not part of an individual lot and held in common shall be maintained by a mandatory homeowners association, whose proposed documents of incorporation shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval prior to the recording of the first final plat. To the owner 's agreement to the following site de velopment considerations: a) Minimum 32 ,000 square foot lots. b) Minimum heated floor area per unit-2 ,400 square feet To the owner 's agreement to abide by the following requirements , dedication, and improvements : a) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton prior to the approval of a right of way encroachment permit, sufficient land as necessary to provide the following : 1. Access to the site shall be subject to the approval of the City of Milton Public Works Department i.Access to the site shall meet City ofMilton Code of Ordinances and AASHTO guidelines and subject to the appro val of the City of Milton Public Works Department ii .Access shall be limited to one driveway within the Francis Road right of way Provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements along entire property frontage of Francis Road according to Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places and Chapter 50 Subdivisions of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances and as approved by the City of Milton Public Works Department. i.All proposed infrastructure improvements (i .e . sidewalk, curb and gutter, ditch drainage , etc ... ) shall tie to the existing facilities on adjacent properties as required by the City of Milton Public Works Department. Back of the sidewalk shall be no more than one foot inside the proposed right ofway. And , that is my presentation. Councilmember Thurman Is the minimum square footage 2 ,400 or 2 ,500 because you said 2 ,500 and the presentation says 2,400 ? Kathleen Field 2 ,400 Councilmember Thurman Okay, I just wanted to make sure. City Manager Lagerbloom Mr. Mayor, before you go to the public , I conferred with Robyn just before this agenda item , there is a topic that I need to have brought up subsequent to this presentation real quick that Robyn will do before we move on. Robyn MacDonald, Principal Planner I think one of the neighbor 's had brought up the issue of proposing a privacy fence along the interior adjacent to their lots in Crooked Creek. When we have a residential zoned property against another single family residential zone , there is no required fencing or buffers that are required. It is just a subdivision against a subdivision and obviously if a pri vate owner decides to put up a privacy fence to have more pri vacy then the y have the right to do that at some future time but it is not a requirement of the zoning ordinance between two different single famil y residential districts. Mayor Lockwood So , to clarify that there was an existing neighbor that was requesting that ? ----~-----------------------------------------------------------------------~- Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 8 of38 Robyn MacDonald Yes , and I believe he is here to speak as well. City Manager Lagerbloom The thing you all as the council could consider is if you would like to add that as a condition to include a fence there, it wouldn't be something that typically staff would include as part of our report because it is not required by code but I think you are going to hear that request tonight and I just wanted you to be aware that the request is coming. We certainly would not object to it if you wanted to add it as a condition if this were to be approved. Councilmember Lusk Is there an existing fence there now? City Manager Lagerbloom I do not know the answer to that but I am guessing that we will hear the answer to that as we move forward with public comment. Mayor Lockwood And , we can ask questions after public comment. Councilmember Mohrig Kathy, tell us why the request for one driveway ; staffs recommendation for one driveway versus two individual driveways. Kathleen Field Sara should be here representing the Public Works Department. Is she in the audience? Oh, there she is. Sara is prepared to address that question for you. Sara Leaders, Transportation Engineer That is just a policy we usually look at with usually when it comes up is with a minor subdivision plat which is two or three lots being subdivided and just a policy to limit the curb cuts on a collector or higher type roadway. Mayor Lockwood Is that a requirement or just a recommendation? Sara Leaders It is a recommendation. There is not a specific place in the ordinance that states that. Councilmember Lusk Kathy, conditions 1 and 2 as it pertains to a public works requirement. Would you go over those please? Kathleen Field Again , I am going to ask Sara to come up . Councilmember Lusk On number one, I think it is the first one , required public works access to the property. Is there a drainage easement through there? ,..---------------------------------·-- Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 9 of38 Sara Leaders Access is referring to the proposed driveway. It is not necessarily an easement given to the city. It is just access to the site. That is what the access in that item is referring to. It is access from the right of way into the property. Councilmember Lusk Is that standard? Sara Leaders That is a standard condition so it is saying that when the new driveway is proposed that the access point is subject to approval by public works. It is not saying that we will have access to the property beyond the right of way. Councilmember Lusk Public Works is approving the curb cut. Sara Leaders Correct. Councilmember Lusk How about condition 2; I didn't pick up on that one. Sara Leaders In this particular case, it has sidewalks on both sides so I think there is a supplemental item that just talks about connecting to those two sidewalk points so to continue that section across the right of way. Councilmember Lusk Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT Scott Reece, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004 Mr. Mayor and members ofthe council , I am Scott Reece doing business at 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004 with Brumbelow Reece and Associates. I am here tonight representing the Rivera family and their application to rezone the property located at 3225 Francis Road which is currently zoned AG-1 with a proposed zoning ofR-3 . The property is 1.45 acres proposing two lots, a 32 ,000 square foot minimum size. We are proposing two homes of a minimum of 2,400 square feet. If we obtain our rezoning and go forward with the minor subdivision plat if we receive approval. Fuquay and Associates are under contract to build the two new homes. They will be owner occupied. They are not speculative homes. Four sided brick with side entry garages with similar architecture to what he is building at Triple Crown, Kingsley Estates , or the Hayfield. We are surrounded on three sides by Crooked Creek with CUP zoning with the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet with 2,000 square foot homes. Our lots are more than double the size of the current lots that we are adjoining. We have Canine Assistants with a special use permit across the street which is a dog training facility. We are in compliance with the future land use plan. We are not seeking any variances. Everything will be designed to code. We are fine with all the conditions except for 4(a) (1)ii. The applicant requests two driveways if we meet city driveway standards meaning site distance and separation. The reason they are Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 ,2015 at 6:00pm Page 10 of38 asking for this is the problem with ingress and egress easements; maintenance easements in the future if one of the properties is sold. It is hard to contemplate life five or six years from now. Maybe your best friend is your neighbor now but in the future , I know those of us who have been around a few years remember the driveway on Cogburn Road where the father gave his son the property , the son moved and we ended up with a yellow painted curb down the middle of the driveway with a chain linked fence. If at all possible, if they meet the requirements , they would like two separate driveways. It just works out better. You maintain your driveway ; your neighbor maintains his , and we won 't have any ofthose problems. In my meetings with the adjoining neighbors who are very concerned about privacy and issues with the new neighbors coming in. The price that the applicant has paid for the property; the time and effort put through to get to a building permit process; these will not be pink elephant homes. They will be an attribute to the community. I have tried to alleviate any of their fears and I will just have to wait until after they speak to see if I can address that further. I will save the rest of my time for rebuttal and to answer any questions . Thank you very much. Michael Schiefer, 540 Heron Run, Milton, Georgia 30004 My name is Michael Schiefer. I live at 540 Heron Run , Milton , Georgia 30004. My lot backs up to that lot. I am requesting a private fence for the nine of us; there are nine homes that it will affect. That is my request. Jay Murphy, 530 Heron Run Court, Milton, Georgia 30004 Hello City Council. Jay Murphy , 530 Heron Run Court, Milton, Georgia 30004. Just like Michael , I live next to that lot and I am requesting the same thing; a privacy fence . As we are going through gating and have very tight covenant rules we would like to be able to ensure; since we can't ensure that they will be in accordance with ours , we would some type of privacy fence to separate the two neighborhoods . Howell R. Reddick, 550 Heron Run Court, Milton, Georgia 30004 Good evening members of the City Council. My name is Howell Reddick. I live at 550 Heron Run Court, Milton , Georgia 30004. Basically, I would like to second the comments my two neighbors; we all three our lots adjoin the subject property and our biggest concern is that we live under the rules of Crooked Creek Subdivision which has covenants , etc . and standards that are monitored and enforced. This property will not be subject to those standards so our concern is that the privacy fence be enacted to maintain that separation. Thank you . Scott Reece I would like to rebut or at least comment. There are no requirements inside Crooked Creek between neighbors . I have never had a requirement for a , in this case , a less dense zoning against a more dense zoning. I have never had one in a residential situation where there is more dense against less dense. I guess I don 't like the thought of the precedence of forcing a new neighbor to provide a privacy fence in a residential neighborhood who is in complete compliance with the future land use plan and the desires set forth by staff and council in their 2030 land use plan. My point is that I don 't feel like we should treat this applicant any different than any other citizen in the City of Milton based upon what ... .1 don't know what the fear is; I guess it came up when we put the sign up ... .I don 't understand . Anyway, I will be glad to answer any questions. Councilmember Lusk Is there a fence there now? ------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------~~ Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, Jul y 20, 2015 at 6:00pm Page II of38 Scott Reece There is not. Councilmember Lusk Is there a planted buffer between the homes ? Scott Reece On the west side , the Crooked Creek , Francis Road to the north so to the west there is a line of ..... I am not a horticulturalist but I am pretty sure they are Leland Cypress maybe Crete Myrtles that were planted by one of the builders in Crooked Creek. The y are on the Crooked Creek side of the property line . I think a lot of what has happened is the storm that came through two years ago maybe took out some of the neighborhood trees on the adjoining parcels. It damaged a major oak tree at the front of our property that is going to have to come down. I hate that they lost the trees but I don 't really understand or feel that my applicant should be required to replant a buffer for them. I am not trying to be argumentative or difficult but I don 't feel like I would be fulfilling my fiduciary requirement ifl didn 't state that. Councilmember Lusk If we are talking about a privacy fence , what is the definition of it? Scott Reece Is that a tall fort fence that is going to have to be painted and maintained by .... does code enforcement come in ...... we are going to send a city employee out to force this neighbor to keep his fence up and not someone else or ... Councilmember Lusk Is there a design for this fence ? What are we talking about ? City Manager Lagerbloom We have a fencing standard and if you are dealing with a privacy fence then it would be something at five feet and opaque to some degree. Mayor Lockwood Depending upon the outcome here , whoever elected to build a fence they would have to get a permit and meet the fence code requirements. Councilmember Lusk Well , it is still kind of an arbitrary requirement. If we are going to approve it, I think we need to set some limits or guidelines. We certainly don 't want to create a feud afterwards . Mayor Lockwood Again , if it is going to be a privacy fence it would have to conform to code and a permit obtained and obviously the owners would have to agree on what type of privacy fence they would like. I don 't know if the government is going to pick a fence for them. Councilmember Lusk I guess we need to put that in the motion. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 12 of38 City Manager Lagerbloom If it is something that the council finds fit to add as a condition of the zoning I would think we would look for a couple of things ; maximum height , material of construction if you wanted to go so far as to say chain link but we wouldn 't allow that by our code anyway and probably to some degree if you are going to include it would be at a height not to exceed fi ve feet of wood construction . Mayor Lockwood My opinion is that gain this is residential ; this application is for residential abutting residential and typically is not a requirement to have a fence. I think as far as the private owners are welcome to chip in together and work together if the y want to build a fence or the neighbors on their side if the y want, again , I don 't think that we should be in the business of requiring someone to put up a fence. It is one thing if it was a different use or something that would be offensive but when you look through most neighborhoods in Crooked Creek there are not fences in between the houses so it is fine if there is a fence there but it should be a private decision among the individuals who have lots along the buffer. If they want to get together along with this owner and split the cost of one or if not if they want to pay for it or one or the other. I think that is fine but I personall y would not want to require that we force one property owner to put a fence up just because the other property owner wants him to . Councilmember Lusk I agree with you, Mayor. Just recently , when the library was completed , there was the same issue with pri vacy with adjoining residential property . The county and property owner got together. When you have dissimilar uses , it is probably more appropriate. Mayor Lockwood And , on the driveway issue too , as Sara said, it was a recommendation but I certainl y understand long term things do change so if I would be fine too with two driveways if it were obviously legal and within code. Councilmember Hewitt I am okay with the two dri veways as well and the fence ; I think that is something they need to work out amongst themselves. I'm not sure a five foot fence would provide much privacy anyway. So , I am willing to vote in the affirmative of this with two dri veways. Councilmember Kunz I concur. I think you guys are heading in the right direction on that. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 15-182 with the deletion ofthe 4(a) (1)ii condition which states as follows: • Access shall be limited to one driveway within the Francis Road right of way . Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. End of verbatim transcription Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 , 2015 at 6:00pm Page 13 of38 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of an Ordinance to Create a Conservation Subdivision-Chapter 50 , Article V of the City Code of Milton. (Agenda Item No. 15-183) (First Pr es entation at July 6, 2015 Regular Co un c il Meeting) (Discuss ed At July 13 , 2015 Ci ty Council Work S es sion) (Kathleen Fi eld, Community Dev elopm ent Director) Kathleen Field, Community Development Director Our consultants, Don Broussard and Bruce McGregor, are here tonight to answer any questions you may have. As you know, we had the presentation last week but if you would like additional information we will be happy to provide it. City Manager Lagerbloom Per the council's request from last week 's work session, we can have a Special Called Work Session on Thursday , August 20 , 2015 at 5 :00p.m. ifthat works with everyone 's schedule. Councilmember Thurman Just to be clear, based on our discussion at last week 's Work Session, it was our intent not to vote on this item tonight but to defer it. PUBLIC COMMENT Jack Lindon, 14810 East Bluff Road, Milton, GA 30004 As you know from the previous comments I have made , I have been in support of the conservation subdivision concept for a long time. I have been involved with putting these type of ordinances together since 1985 when my hometown of Andover , Massachusetts came up with one of the very earliest versions of a conservation subdivision ordinance. I have been following very closely the developments in Milton for the last eighteen months. I started out thinking that a CSO would be appropriate for any new subdivision in Milton. I know they historically work well in other parts of the country as well as here in the south. Over the discussions during the past year and a half, I have changed my mind. I started to change my mind with the Planning Commission's exercise to look at various options for a 33 acre parcel on Birmingham Road. It became clear to me that although a conservation subdivision would work well for that parcel, it was nothing compared to some other land I have seen. For example, Bernard Wolfs property off of Arnold Mill Road which is a very beautiful piece of property, very rugged , very hilly , very picturesque and it tends to lend itself very nicely to a conservation subdivision. In addition, various conversations I have had with people who have pointed out reasons why, in some cases, a cluster type of design that would incur with a conservation subdivision, is not necessarily the best use of the land. So , what I would like to propose is what we need is a conservation subdivision ordinance that provides options. I would like to see options that include a basic conservation subdivision approach where 50-60% of the land is put aside for open space and the houses are clustered together in parts of that property. In addition , have another option for large lot subdivisions , for example , anything more than three acres. Also, create another option for smaller lot subdivisions such as one plus acre . These subdivisions would be able to have standard type septic systems like we have now in AG-1 zoning. All of these options should have strong provisions to protect important environmental and historic features which would provide for significant undisturbed buffers along the ~--~--------------~---------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 ,2015 at 6:00pm Page 14 of38 roadways and the perimeters of the plats. In addition , a certain amount of that land as undisturbed property. I would hope that this is something that the city council can· direct our city's consultants to come up with a draft that addresses this option approach. Thank you. Joan Wunderle, 765 Owens Lake Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Thank you for your service to the City of Milton and the community. While everyone believes in greenspace preservation and responsible development , the pending CSO document is not the vehicle to protect the citizens of Milton to ensure that we have true greenspace and not to increase density. The citizens that all of you appointed to the Planning Commission have denied that CSO and they have recommended that you do the same. I will mention three important issues that concern me regarding this ordinance. 1. The introduction of community septic and no confirmation of who will bear the financial responsibility for a failing system and the impact on adjacent landowners. 2. The lack of specific language regarding density neutrality. 3. The definition of greenspace; tennis courts , swimming pools, basketball courts , stormwater facilities , detention ponds; when people speak about greenspace , these items are not included in that. There are many critical details missing from the proposed CSO and I am asking you to deny it. A solution that many people in the community and the Planning Commission have suggested is to enhance the current AG-1 standards. Require and inspire developers to add greenspace to AG-1. That appears to be a better path to follow. Thank you. Laura Rencher, 1060 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 To be clear, we have told the people who support this ordinance that this was going to be deferred tonight. We have not encouraged anybody to come to support this ordinance tonight. We would like to thank the Mayor and council for continuing to work on this ordinance and to have faith in it as a good tool for shaping future development in the city. We applaud the continuing commitment to value conservation subdivision design as an important piece of a much larger plan to address the current problems in the city. At this time , Preserve Rural Milton would like to suggest that two things happen: 1. The resolution of questions regarding onsite septic options. The questions that have been brought up are: • Potential Failure • Maintenance • The City as a Trustee Cities in Georgia and all over the country have answered these questions. The information for resolution is easy to obtain. There is no reason for this to continue to be a perceived impediment to this ordinance or to be a problem in the public 's eyes. We urge the city to address resolution of this problem as soon as possible. 2. We would like to encourage the publication of a third draft to this ordinance. This is because , so far , we have had two galvanizing drafts on different ends of the spectrum ; one being mandatory and one being completely optional. There are some obvious changes and clarifications that are needed and see profound problems with the current AG-1 that must be addressed. Due to potential legal challenges with taking , we believe the AG-1 zoning issues are much better addressed through the conservation subdivision ordinance. So , we are suggesting a new draft that contains several different Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 , 2015 at 6 :00 pm Page 15 of38 options for development. The menu of options model is an alternative to all optional or all mandatory as proposed thus far. It strikes a balance between all concerned, addresses badly needed changes in the current zoning and provides additional and more creative options for developers. It is our belief that this model addresses most, if not all the issues brought up by the community. We would very much like to see these options brought forward as part of a working draft that can demonstrate that the public's concerns have been heard and , in addition, be used to move the community and the council 's discussion of the ordinance forward in a positive manner. Thank you. Carl Jones, 730 Richmond Glen Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 Mr. Mayor and members of the Council , thank you so much for this opportunity to speak to you in regards to this dangerous thing known as the CSO. Dangerous because making the conservation subdivision ordinance be mandatory and put on the citizens as well as the builder/developers of this community. I respectfully ask you to please reject this conservation ordinance. This is an expensive proposition in dealing with the state of Georgia EPD as opposed to the Fulton County Health Department on a single family lot one acre minimum . The lead to time for applying for a permit with a specialized engineer for community septic system has not been tried long enough. The costs for such avenues could reach more dollars than a builder/developer has projected in his possibility of making money on a project. The land holding costs has always been ignored here with the consultants and anybody speaking. Really the property is either tied up with the original owner while you are going through this process with EPD or either you go ahead and close the land and you are paying interest on it while you are dealing with the state EPD. Every civil engineer that I have approached in regard to this matter says please stay away from the state and that is a quote from Sam Massadee, who has four degrees in soil scientist work. I was going to have him here tonight but I understand the actual vote was going to be put off. Sam 's actual quote was , "The cost dollar wise in time is not feasible". This is a gentleman that did the Blaylock Farms in Henry County for Tom Cousins , 400 acres. I will have him here and you can ask him anything you want to. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled just last month that the EPA had to consider costs in any of its rulings. This was handed down at the same time that the gay rights was being done so one could google that without any problems at all. Implementing this conservation ordinance is really a dangerous facility on our citizens. There are a lot of people in the audience that have been holding onto their property and thinking that their children would inherit it and build on it for themselves because of costs associated with land. You folks , it is in your power then to preclude them from doing that or let them sell it. If a man has an investment for 30 years on a piece of property and I know a lady here tonight who has owned property for over 30 years and I was a good friend of her husband and to preclude her from making a profit on her land after 30 years ... she has lost her husband , he is deceased and her two sons are here in the audience today. I just implore finally that we are looking at other folks ' land and it constitutes a taking which is unjust without proper compensation. The trust indenture is not a forgone conclusion. The City of Milton may be asked to stand good to be the trustee for these community septic systems. No homeowner associations will accept this responsibility without ample cash reserves. You are looking at $200 ,000 -$300 ,000 in a cash reserve. I do not know if that would repair a community septic system. I am concerned that the staff and also the consultants talk about a "park like " setting that these community septic tanks end up being. If we have all of these "park like " settings who is going to police them? We know from just reading in the Milton Herald , we have unwanted characters (drug issues, sexual deviants), are we going to let them in our backdoor within the community? Construction has always been the life blood of Atlanta. I have been here since 1969 , right out of college , and in construction for 42 years. And I tell you that is what makes and moves Atlanta. You are choking it off if you pass this. Now I would like to read something into the record , it is from Bill Quillen : ----------------------------------------- Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 16 of38 The CSO is a bad idea for Milton. The PRM continues to lack transparency, only supporting one side ofthe argument, leaving out the many potential negative side effects of the CSO. I think the problem with the way you present your argument is your negative condescending tone toward anyone that disagrees with your opinion. We all want the best for Milton, however, the CSO as written, is a slight of hand. Now you see it , now you don't. I personally find it troubling given that we all want the same outcome however or attempting to discuss civilly different ways to obtain that goal. Instead of being condescending taking an elitist know it all attitude and assume folks are ignorant , how about opening up your forum to discuss ways in which we can solve the problem in a manner we can all agree on. You talk about propagating falsehoods yet use the same cheap scare tactics regarding septic system failure from the Chesapeake Bay area, a completely topo and geographical soil type. It is an absolutely invalid comparison on so many levels. The consultant last week did the same thing talking about different places that have been successful with this but we are talking about a different area of the country. You have made many blind assertions on how density and sewer will not be extended and yet seem to support it which is contradictory to your mission, a classic example of cognitive dishonesty. I think the real problem here is that instead of discussing options and solutions that appeal to the majority you spend an inordinate amount of negative energy trying to bash folks that disagree with CSO. It goes on with more of the same . I respectfully submit this to the secretary. This blog ran for three days. He was a member of Preserve Rural Milton. Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager This is not technically a public hearing so I did not have the clerk keep a 10 minute clock on support or opposition because we should not be hearing comments on either of the two sides. We should just be hearing general public comments. We do have a rule that typically we allow for five minutes per speaker, if you would like us to start doing that so we can get through the stack quicker. Mayor Lockwood Sudie, how many more comments do we have? Sudie Gordon, City Clerk We have about 10 more. Mayor Lockwood I would respectfully then like to give everyone a chance to speak but tighten it up a little bit. With respect to time, if folks could limit it to two minutes per person. Walter Susong III, 905 Freemanwood Lane, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 Bebee Susong, 14880 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Last Monday night was my first time ever here and my hat is off to you. I am really grateful for your service. I have lived on 10 plus acres for 30 years on Freemanville Road. It is not just all cute little bunnies, squirrels and deer. The deer eat everything you do not want them to eat. Bunnies and squirrels eat the rest and multiple quickly . Squirrels love to eat the wiring in your attic. Coyotes eat your dogs, cats and chickens. Chipmunks cause snakes to come around. And mice and rats are a major problem. I live with all the above but my main concern with CSO is with people. Crime is getting worse and yes , even in Milton has sexual predators, druggies , thieves, etc. listed in our paper daily. I do not want them walking around in my green space. The CSO could put these people at my back door. Everywhere I go Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 , 2015 at 6:00pm Page 17 of38 in Milton there are beautiful yards and plenty of green space without taking up other's property to make what someone else wants. If someone wants to have deer , squirrels, bunnies and the like let them buy some acreage like I did 30 years ago. I am sure they will enjoy it despite the hardships. If they cannot afford it here , they can certainly move farther north so they can afford it. Please do not let the CSO pass. Thank you. Scott Reece, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004 Mr. Mayor and City Council , I would just like to reiterate that I hope if we pass the CSO that it is optional. I think there are inherent problems and my biggest concern is it does not suit smaller acreage tracks. I think before we pass an ordinance we need to have a few exercises on some designs of smaller tracks. Behind the larger developments , where I do think it will work with package plants septic treatment , the smaller sized tracks that would have the community septic systems; I do not think we have addressed that near enough. I would just ask that you please hash out all the problems and not pass a bill. Figure out what is in the ordinance and then try to make the ordinance work. Thank you for your time . Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlet Oak Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004 I just want to reiterate what the last speakers said that I am not in favor of this CSO and the way it is written. It is much more restrictive than we actually need ; limiting it down to five acres seems very improbable. Also to make it have a 60% open space where you would not allow the road , detention ponds and many other things be considered in that open space is fairly unreasonable. I think if you look in other communities around the metro area, I cannot find another ordinance of this much required open space. The other problem is when you start looking at these smaller lots that you are creating, the way the ordinance is written now with 25% impervious service area that is allowed , with 15,000 square foot lots, the impervious area that is allowable for house and driveway is so small , the homes will need to be extremely small to fit on the lot. This is not what you want , I didn 't think. I really think the people that come to Milton are looking for one acre lots. There are not looking for 10 ,000 , 12 ,000 or 20 ,000 square foot lots. To say they are all looking for open space and beauty , yes that is true and is an attribute but when they come to settling on buying a home for their family, they are looking for a one acre lot with a 4,000-5 ,000 square foot house , the ability to put a swimming pool, tennis court, etc., then to say no we cannot have that anywhere just doesn't seem right. We have had many great communities that are one acre communities . Golf courses are not even allowed in the open space with this ordinance. Thank you for your time and what you do for us. Kim Horne, 415 Wade Glen Court, Milton, Georgia 30004 Thank you for allowing more time on this ordinance. The way the ordinance is written is certainly not a conservation tool for the City of Milton at this point. It is not useable for many of the reasons that people before me have said. One of my big concerns as stated before is community waste water system and the possible failure and the liability it would put on the city and HOA's of the communities if it were to pass the way it is written. The other big issue I have as Mr. Rekuc said is the smaller lots. We moved to Milton for one acre minimums. There many communities that are being built with one acre lot minimums. They are very popular and selling very well. I think most people want their own green space and they do not necessary need or want shared green space. I hope you will take all the things people have said here tonight into consideration when you are looking at this ordinance. One of the better possibilities is to take the ordinance we already have and making it better by increasing the rural view shed , setbacks , etc. Take what we have and make it better, do not recreate the wheel. Thank you. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 18 of38 Joe Whitley, 1250 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. The deferral I think is a great idea. I applaud the Council for that and I think it makes a lot of sense. I hope to be at the work session with others. I am opposed to the CSO as currently constructed. I think it needs a lot of work. I really do support AG-1 and am looking at how we can improve it. It has been good for us in Milton and our zoning. I am concerned about school over-crowding, traffic load on our streets , and community septic. If you look around to the other cities and counties that tried to do this , I don't think it has worked very well at all for them. There are just too many unknowns . Being a lawyer, my job is to find unknowns and to find a way to work through those unknowns. I think this maybe a work opportunity for lawyers if we were to pass this. When the Planning Commission voted 7-0 against this proposal that should speak for itself because, rarely do you find seven people to agree on anything . Thank you for your time tonight. I encourage you to give this a closer look and I respect your judgment. Mary Bosman, 15620 Thompson Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I have lived in Milton for 32 years and we have seen a lot of change and growth in Milton. I would not want to stay the way we were but I am also very anxious about the way we are going. From what I understand about the CSO , as it is proposed , is not something we should consider. The AG-1 to me is still a little constricting, but maybe if we enhance it, it might be a better way to go. I do believe we need to continue to look at this as we continue to look at our growth in the area. Bernard Wolff, 1000 Lackey Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I put together the Lockaponee project. We have 113 acres and I have joined other landowners who have lived there for years. I am very much a preservationist but I am also a land owner and I am representing the family. I am also a citizen of Milton and very interested in conservation development. I have spent three very intense years studying conservation and development. There are several issues that have come up that I would like to discuss . First is the sewer system. We have looked at this system and it does work, if it is done properly . The system used at Serenbe , which we are looking at , is basically like a septic tank system but you use two inch PVC pipes to naturally purify the water. You do not have tanks and pumps. You basically have a briar patch followed by anaerobic field of gravel in it. It can be maintained by anyone that pumps out a septic tank. Very easy also to expand into other areas and it 's energy efficient. One thing about it saves the community the cost of putting in and maintaining a sewer system. People moving here from Atlanta are terrified what is going to happen if you do not have control of the bills. These systems , you put them in and generally they are bought by a private company that actually maintains them and sends you a bill. At Serenbe, the average cost is $45/month for a small house and $65/ month for a big house. It is something evolving. The next issue is density. Our property has areas where you can have very dense development. I would really love everyone to come up and visit us. We have this natural , beautiful area, Bill and others have been there , that is surrounding by ridges coming in. You could put dense development there and leave all the other property natural. Then you could have other areas where you could have large lots. You could have diversity. As a landowner, you need to have some density or you need to have something that is going to allow the developer to justify paying you a higher price. Conservation development because it is a nicer place to live you can ask a higher price for that. Serenbe I understand are selling one quarter acre lots for almost $250 ,000 . The other thing I wanted to talk about was demographics. We have a lot of talented people moving in and you have some that are older that do not want a big lot , they want a retirement community. You have others that do want a big lot. If we have a CSO , why don 't we look and make sure we have all the facts right and do some test cases , looking at the whole design . Then once you flown the airplane you designed , make sure that the wings don 't fall off before you regulate everything. Do things that really work. Conservation is good for everybody. Thank you very much. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20,2015 at 6 :00pm Page 19 of38 Matthew Mitchell, 1750 Providence Farms Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004 Good Evening. I have attended all of the work sessions we have had with the Planning Commission. I have been involved in Milton Grows Green with trying to figure out how we deal with this. What it boils down to is, the current AG-1 development will destroy Milton, that is a given, if it continues the way it is going. I greatly appreciate the city 's interest. I know we incorporated as Milton to preserve Milton 's character. I think the best thing in the world we can do is exactly what you and the Planning Commission are doing and that is to find a way to control the growth and to maintain what makes Milton so unique. That unique character and the schools here are what drive the property values. So the irony is if we continue to listen to no one but builders and developers and we do not guide that, then we will destroy the property values that all property owners are trying to preserve in some of their primary objections to the CSO. That said , I do not think this CSO is the solution. I think a CSO could be , but I think this one lacks sufficient detail. I think it has some substantial flaws in it that shows a lack of understanding by the people that drafted it in terms of what needs to be preserved. The definition of green space is one of those pieces. I think in the end, if whatever we do is not profitable then we are doing a disservice to the property owners, but by the same token, if all we care about is profitable for the builders and developers that come in and really have no interest other than the profit of that project, then I think we will destroy both the character of Milton and the profitability that the homeowners and the property owners are trying to maintain. In a nutshell , I think CSO is a possible solution. I think this one is not that solution. Thank you. Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Good Evening. As I noted before I am a strong proponent of greening Milton and conserving Milton. I appreciate your efforts to that regard. The CSO is not necessarily the correct tool for Milton and especially as it is presented at this point. Instead, modifying the current AG-1 development standards could be an easier and less risky way of accomplish additional preservation of Milton's rural landscapes. The Planning Commission spent a great deal of time and effort evaluating every facet of the CSO before you. They voted unanimously not to recommend the CSO based on the risks. Please support that unanimous decision made by your Planning Commissioners as you go through this deferral process , which it sounds like you might vote on this evening. It is important to note that again we all can be for preservation and still recognize that this CSO is not an appropriate tool for Milton. I ask during this deferral period that you please consider the risks associated with the introduction of community septic systems . There is risk; it has been noted by the city staff, Planning Commission, EPD , as well as those who have been engaged with these systems that requires a more detail evaluation. The language surrounding community septic systems obviously is way too vague. Legal issues tied to how to prevent systems being misused in other areas is an issue that needs to be addressed. The allowance of 8,000 square foot lots , that is more than 5.5 units to the acre , there is nothing rural about that. That is inconsistent to the premise of a rural landscape within Milton. Unfortunately, the yield plan is riddled with risks. It is not density neutral despite some things that have been written in the paper. It assumes that every AG-1 parcel would develop at one acre per home and that is not the case. The soil does not merit that. We heard Carl Jones last week talk about his 60 acre development where only 48 homes based on percolation tests could be developed. There are a lot of risks within that yield plan. It is not density neutral. It must be for this effort to proceed. Definitions of green space are very inadequate. I have to say if you are ever going to have a CSO you want buildable land to be green space, you surely do not want tennis courts and basketball courts in otherwise non-buildable land to be your green space because it is not green space, all we are doing is allowing for density. Inadequate buffers, as well as , limited public input, density bonuses are an issue. Lot standards are too narrow and it shouldn't be on small parcels. I would bid that you please during this deferral process consider your Planning Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 , 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 20 of38 Commissioners 7-0 vote to deny. It has been a year and a half and we still have not come up with a draft that would work for Milton. I respectfully ask that you consider the details of my letter I submitted to you today. Thank you very much. George Morris, 13675 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 The CSO is bad for everyone involved except the Preserve Rural Milton Group that seems to need a political victory. Please vote it down. If you make it voluntary , it won 't work but will use up more time and money. Thanks. John Susony, 14860 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 How many lawsuits can Milton afford to fight regarding this matter? The following names and addresses were read into the record only. Comments were emailed to the City Clerk and incorporated into the minutes. John & Marty Blevins, 2145 Country Ridge Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 My name is John Blevins , president of Country Ridge HOA , and I ask that my objection to the change to high density construction with shared septic for five homes per acre. This goes against what the citizens of Milton were promised when asked to vote yes for Cory of Milton formation and is a negative to the look of our city and ground water safety. I feel that I speak the majority opinion of Country Ridge Subdivision. Clint Darnell, 15750 Hopewell Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 My name is Clint Darnell and I am 45years old and have lived in Alpharetta my entire life. One of the things that make this area special is the open space and 1/acre home sites. I am pro-growth but not at the expense of high density housing. It compromises the feel of the area and it is just developers being greedy. Build on one acre lots and let's keep the growth going , but in a positive direction. Thank you. Randy and Sandy Faires, 2065 Country Ridge Road, Milton Georgia 30004 We are AGAINST any subdivisions in Milton that allows more than one house per acre. We moved to Milton to have our OWN Green space , take care of our own green space and not burden any other neighbors or taxpayers if our septic tank needs repair. Any decision by any committee is completely wrong . This large of a decision should be put on a public voting ballot. We feel like this is a lobby for a few individuals or developers that have land with less than desirable building situation, that does not perk, and they are trying to come up with a creative solution for their problem. We all have our own problems, and shouldn't be burdened with theirs. Please leave things alone in Milton! Charles Fisher, 388 Taylor Glen Drive, Milton Georgia 30004 I have previously written to the mayor and council about my thoughts. I thought that now I would like them entered and read for the record. I am 100% in favor of the CSD amendment. As a resident and citizen of Milton, let's stop continuing ruining the beautiful city that we call home. Let's do everything in our power to keep Milton Rural with open spaces that we are used to. Do we want to be called the next Roswell or Alpharetta where there are roads and roads of nothing but subdivisions. The average home in the United States as of June 2014 is 2600 square feet our homes are at least twice that size. And the median lot size is 8750 sq ft. The average lot size in the state of Georgia is 0.25 of an acre. --------------------- . ---------------------------------------------------------------~---a Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 21 of38 With all the talk about the septic system in the CSD Why have we not heard from someone who works on them and pumps them out and services them? There have been over 100 people who have spoken out for and against over the past year but never from a representative from a company that would do the actual work in case of a malfunction. We have heard from companies that sell the units and do installation but not from someone who has had to do the work if something happens. Since this seems to be the big concern then let's hear from an expert. I hope that in the end we can find a way to Preserve Rural Milton. Gail D. Gill, 575 Hopewell Downs Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 For the record , I support the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance . Rick Harp, 410 Highlands Manor Court, Milton, Georgia 30004 I would like to urge that you vote against the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance. I have lived here since 1977. We have seen a lot of unfavorable growth in the last 40 years and we feel that this would be a terrible land management decision for Milton. The current zoning that we have of 1 acre per house best suits the area. We are at a dangerous cross road with this and if you need to see what this will lead to just drive through Roswell. It used to be a beautiful area but uncontrolled growth of all shapes and sizes has led to their current visual disaster and over-crowding . This is nothing more than developers trying to get around the 1 acre per home and nothing to do with land conservation. Please vote no to the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance. My understanding is that a better proposal of immediately enhancing the current AG-1 development standards via improved buffers, a deeper rural view shed , expanded setbacks , stronger tree save requirements , more narrow streets, removal of excess concrete used for curb and gutters is also a proposal. These ideas better serves the city of Milton to preserve our beautiful uniqueness that sets us apart from every city in Georgia. Thanks for your time and consideration. Carole Herman, 85 Arabian A venue, Milton, Georgia 30004 Please have my comments read into the record for the next City Council meeting. I am a resident of Milton. I strongly oppose the proposed CSO plan. It is too vague to protect the rural character and property values of Milton homeowners. Strike it , and instead , enhance our AG 1 standards to better protect trees and green space. Thank you. Chris and Ray Hoffman, 14475 Thompson Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 We appreciate your updates on the Milton website to keep residents informed about legal, recreational and social happenings in our community. My husband and I purchased 38 acres of mostly pine- harvested land on S. Thompson Rd in 1985 and divided it into 4 lots from 7+ to 12+ acres with a shared driveway. Our neighbors are not anti-development, but we are very concerned with the future of Milton 's rural integrity. The City of Milton is truly unique and can grow "smarter" than it has so far. We already know that our roads are becoming parking lots in rush hour. As a licensed real estate agent since 1978 , I can personally profit from developers increasing the density of homes in our area. But as an environmentally conscious home and land owner, that's not worth the long-term loss. As I read the CSO -it sounds good, but nothing is specific -which means anything could happen down the road (pun intended). I have reviewed on-line input on the planning process which is sometimes confusing . Our main concern is playing games with so-called green space. Increased density requires a well thought out design. We don 't think acre+ lots with oversized homes should be a mandate, BUT -If you allow 6 homes on half acre lots -what about another 3 acres of undisturbed or landscaped "dirt", with perhaps a natural walking path, bordering their property. Paved parking , tennis courts , clubhouses and pools are "developed " land. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 ,2015 at 6:00pm Page 22 of38 Like other residents, another concern is the increased number of proposed community septic systems. I find it hard to believe our out of control EPA -who now prevent us from having enough water in our toilets to properly flush waste into our septic tank, might soon decide to outlaw community septic systems. Bottom line-Milton residents really do care about our future, even if you haven't heard from them. Our city will have new tax revenue in 2016 from increased property evaluations. We suggest that some of those funds be used to hire a proven environmentally conscience city/landscape design firm. They could evaluate the big picture and propose a long term win-win plan for "yet to be developed" acreage. NW Fulton has been blessed with beautiful rolling terrain, grassland and wooded areas. Let's not waste it. At least one of us will attend this evening 's meeting. Kim Horne, no add ress provi ded I am emailing today to ask for the denial of Agenda Item No, 15---183 , Consideration of an Ordinance to Create a Conservation Subdivision and uphold the Planning Commissions unanimous vote on June 24 to deny. I attended the community meetings regarding the proposed ordinance and have serious concerns and questions about the possibility of such an ordinance for the City of Milton. Conservation is important to our community, however, the Ordinance as it is written , is not a usable solution for the City of Milton. The current AG---1 zoning should be redesigned to allow for further conservation efforts . The areas of concern include: • Community Wastewater treatment systems being built within the City and their reliability , public health concerns and financial liability they would bring to the City. The EPD mentioned these serious concerns at the June 10 meeting and again it was presented at the Planning Commission meeting, • Lack of community input into CSO zoning requests, as an example, there are no required site visits by adjacent landowners, insufficient advance notification, • No percolation soil tests meaning that there is no density neutrality, and no yield plans have to be reviewed by City professionals , • Allowance of 8,000 square foot lots (i.e. more than 5.5 units to the acre); these are way too small , • Definitions of green space include many things that are clearly not green space (i .e. allowing the sewer systems , storm water facilities , utility easements , active impervious areas such as tennis courts and basketball courts, swimming pools , detention ponds , barns , practice show rings , outdoor riding rings, etc. all to be considered "green space", including the buffers themselves, • Inadequate buffers for adjacent properties-dense development and active amenities could be visible to roads and neighbors ; 50 ---foot buffers are included which are not sufficient. • Community Development would have the discretion to recommend increasing the 50--- foot buffers to up to 150 feet , but this is discretionary and we cannot count on it. Additionally, buffers can be counted as "green space ," and certain active amenities are allowed in the green space. There is also no mention that buffers must remain undisturbed and native, but instead the ordinance mentions that when buffers are disturbed , they shall be replanted. Buffers should not be disturbed, period. Buffers shielding dense development and active amenities must be greater than 50 feet, and probably ought to be the 150 feet that is optional, with no active development of any -----------------------~-~------------------..... Re g ular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, Jul y 20 , 2015 at 6:00 pm Page 23 of38 kind . Neighboring property owners and streets should be shielded from dense development, or there is no benefit to CSOs except for residents of the communities. • Lot standards allow for structures to be very close to one another; front , side, side interior lines , adjacency to streets and rear setbacks are minimal in many instances. Side interior lines are as tight as 10 ft., as one example , and rear setbacks are as close as 20 ft. There is a clause that allows the developer to propose even tighter alternative building setbacks that can be approved at the discretion of the Community Development Director, • No setting aside of otherwise buildable land for conservation (if only land that was not buildable anyway is set aside as green space , we haven't accomplished anything except adding more houses and dri vers to Milton roads). Milton is a distinctive community embracing small town life and heritage while preserving and enhancing our rural character. Our rural character is not about dissolving all development standards ; the current draft is not a viable solution for the City Milton. We moved to Milton for the one---acre minimum lots , not to have houses clustered together where your neighbor is only a zero lot line away. The current AG---1 standards should be enhanced to include impro ved buffers, a deeper rural view shed along Milton 's main corridors , expanded setbacks , stronger tree save requirements and narrower streets. Development standards should remain in the subdivision regulations to maintain the open, undeveloped character of the community and provide a sense of privacy and openness for individual homes . Please deny the CSO on the current agenda as there are too many unanswered questions , and too many details that are counter to the rural character of Milton. Just because an ordinance has the term "Conservation" in its title does not necessarily mean that it actually accomplishes the conservation and preservation it claims to represent. I appreciate your time and consideration. Mike and Susan Jackson, 2095 Country Ridge Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 As resident of Milton, I ask you to please vote no on this is sue . It will cause more harm than good. I do not want this area to tum into another Johns Creek. I have talked to surveyors and builders and it would be too costly to put in sewer and shared septic will cause a huge problem. We moved to this area for the space. Please do not pass this just for the tax revenue the city would receive . Martha Kaplan, no address provided I am not in favor of allowing 5 units in an acre with group septic and donated green space. Kenny Libby, 16340 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am writing to gi ve my opinion for this zoning change. I strongly oppose this potential change. Milton is one of the few places left that you don't have neighborhoods and homes stacked on top of each other. This is a major reason that we live here. The idea to develop 5 lots per acre is out of character for this beautiful area and will destroy the uniqueness and special qualities Milton has . Thanks for your consideration. Curtis Mills, 16355 Birmingham Highway, Milton, Georgia 30004 My business location is 15800 Birmingham Highway Building 400 (Birmingham Crossroads), in the 1860 Newton House (formerly called The Old Birmingham Hotel). I also own and recently renovated the old Buice 's Store property (now Wilbur and Rudy 's) at 950/975 Hickory Flat Road , which is also at the Birmingham Crossroads. I am in favor ofthe concept of the Conservation Subdivision and , with certain critical changes , would be in support of the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance (CSO) in front of you for decision tonight. Without these changes , I would be in opposition. Re g ular Meetin g of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 , 2015 at 6 :00 pm Page 24 of38 First , for the CSO to work , everyone needs to win -CSO residents , developers , adjoining property owners , and other citizens of Milton. In spite of much goodness , the current draft is not structured for a win/win/win/win. Much of the orientation of the current CSO draft seems to be toward benefitting the development residents and , secondarily , the CSO developers. Much more emphasis should be placed on benefits , or at least not detriment, to adjoining property owners , and right of way drivers and taxpayers (Milton citizens). My recommendations/requests for specific changes are below. 1) Common Septic/Sewer -I will assume that the future operational liability issues (in the event of HOA default or some breakdown) can be addressed via bond , or some other insurance instrument. a. This , of course , must be clearl y defined and "bullet proof." 2). Density Neutrality and Yield Determination -This wording is too vague and lacks Certification specificity. Density neutrality is implied , but must be bullet-proof or will fail. a. There must be a firm natural AG-1 yield basis determination that would drive the maximum number of homes. This would include perc tests , and the entire process used today for developers to determine maximum yield. b. If the CSOs result in more houses and cars than AG-1 would have allowed , the citizens of Milton lose -quality of life , future property values , etc. c. Recommendation -Ensure that AG-1 Yield Determination is legally enforced , and ensure Density Neutrality. 3) Bonus Density-Given current serious traffic congestion and the widely known fact that it will only get worse , we have no extra density west of Highway 9 with which to barter. a. We cannot afford to add a single car that would not otherwise be there. b. Traffic circles are calming the bottlenecks but will not alleviate the problem. c. If the CSOs result in more houses and cars than AG-1 would have allowed , the citizens of Milton lose -quality of life , future property values , etc. d. Recommendation -Eliminate Bonus Density from the CSO draft before approval. 4) 10% of Green space can be Active Development (Amenities , pools , tennis courts , etc.). Since Active Development is not Green space , this is the same thing as saying that 10% of Green space does not have to be Green space. a. We must keep ourselves honest on this. 100 % of Green space ought to be Green space. b. Recommendation -No Active De velopment in Green space. 5) Public Input -Community Development Department is not required to see public or adjacent land owner comment. a. Recommendation-Seeking and allowing public and adjacent landowner input should mandatory, as with any important zoning matter. 6) Buffer of 50 feet with Community Development Department (CDD) discretion for up to 150 feet. This is a show stopper for me. a. A 50 foot buffer for a CSO development , under many circumstances , is too narrow for adjoining property owner and right of way driver protection, and they must benefit as much from the saved Green space as the CSO residents. b. Please see the inserted photo below, which represents a 60 foot "rural view shed " bu ffer between the Blue Valley Amenity and Birmingham Highway. The photo is taken from my car, which means that it includes at least an extra 15 feet before the buffer begins. 1. This road-side amenity was approved unanimously by the BZA , with the following motion stipulation: "Maintain the 60 foot rural view shed along Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 , 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 25 of38 the Birmingham Highway frontage . Plantings shall be approved by the City Arborist. " n . Even with a 60 foot buffer (versus 50), specifically intended to maintain the "rural view shed ," any reasonable person would agree that it fails , for Milton at least. I can actually see this from inside my house over a quarter of a mile away across the street, plus the tennis court lights at night. c. Recommendation-Minimum undisturbed buffer of 1 00+ feet , with CDD discretion for up to 150 feet. This must be variance-proof. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, Jul y 20 , 2015 at 6:00pm Page 26 of38 Thank you very much for your time and I hope that my points will be seriously considered. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 20 15 at 6:00 pm Page 27 of38 Laurie O'Connor, 15435 Laurel Grove Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am unable to make tonight's meeting that includes the vote about the CSO ordinance. I would like my voice to be heard via e-mail and be entered into record. I respectfully ask that the Mayor and Council vote against the current CSO that is being considered, just as the Planning Commission has already done. Instead , please enhance the AG-1 development standards. When guests arrive at my home they often comment that it's so nice to enter Milton where they can suddenly "breathe" and it "opens up" and it's so nice to be "in all this space." I ask that you protect what makes our city special. All it takes is one misstep on a vote like this to erase the efforts that produced what we have, erode our city brand and reputation for beauty, and ruin what our citizens enjoy by living here. Please vote against the CSO ordinance. Tony and Heather Outeda, 325 Taylor Glen Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 We are writing to let you know that we are NOT in support of the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance (CSO). We did attend one of the earlier meetings of the planning board and there was no real opportunity to speak so we felt it better to convey our thoughts in writing. This is a very important issue for us. We moved to Milton seven years ago from Laguna, CA. We specifically did not choose Johns Creek, Alpharetta, or other towns nearby, and did choose Milton because of the rural look and feel and because of the minimum one acre lots. And it is very important that this look is maintained. One only needs to drive out of Milton to see what higher density housing looks like on plots of less than an acre. It is terrible. It does not compare to the beauty of our town and the CSO will not preserve Milton's look and feel at all , in fact it will significantly diminish it. Three units per acre to five units per acre is high density housing, and it is a delusion if people think it will not be seen and that "offsetting green spaces" will retain the special look and feel that Milton has now. Before moving to Milton, we lived in a Conservation Subdivision in California. And we can tell you, even very expensive high density housing does not come close to look or the experience of the one or more acre zoning that we have here now. The CSO is not a good idea for current or future residents of Milton. What if this CSO had been on the books when the Valmont subdivision was built at the comer of Batesville and Taylor Roads? The developers would have been able to put 40 cluster homes in open field, three to five units per acre, and it would have looked horrible. There are lots of open fields in Milton that, if developed with this CSO , would put clusters of homes out in full view. The look of Milton is dense woods, open fields with farms and horses and homes on one acre or more. It looks beautiful when driving down the roads. That is what needs to be retained. We think the CSO should be thrown away and instead, the City of Milton should strongly consider a number of actions, including: 1) Incentives to current land owners to retain their large parcels as-is 2) Increasing the lot minimums above one acre to two even three acres , which will reduce the density of development. For example: Rivers Edge on Taylor Road has multi acre lots and it is beautiful. 3) Actions to maintain view sheds, such as , requiring 50 to 100 foot setbacks from the road and requiring builders to retain the trees/woods along the road and if building in an open field, plant barriers 4) Putting forth a referendum to the citizens of Milton to increase taxes slightly each year so that the city can purchase land and hold it in trust. Daniel & Sheila Pineyro, 2135 Country Ridge Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 We have been residents of Milton since 2003 -before it WAS Milton. While we understand that growth is necessary, we are concerned about the path that the city is currently taking, including the passage of the high density construction ordinance. We DO NOT support the current Conservation Subdivision Ordinance. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 28 of38 Bill Quillen, 115 Liberty Grove Pass, Milton, GA 30004 I would once again like to express my extreme opposition to the proposed CSO. I find building homes on as small as one fifth of an acre lots and increasing the density on a small portion of a parcel a poor fit for Milton. The resulting community sewer will take up a significant portion of the green space and the maintenance issue is a huge liability for our young city. The many potential negative side effects are not something we should take lightly. Alternatively , I would suggest keeping one acre lot minimums for residential development, however with the following changes to help preserve our rural nature. Increase the amount of green space that must be included on parcels, increase buffer sizes , increase both front and rear, as well as side setbacks , and consider tree save agreements four areas that our street facing , request large developments donate land for small pocket parks. These are just some of the things that we can do to help preserve the rural appeal of Milton without making a major zoning change loaded with negative side effects and unintended consequences. The conservation subdivision ordinance proposed is chocked full of pitfalls , the example being used by preserve rural Milton explains their goal is for the zoning would be an end product mirroring Vickery village or Crabapple crossroads. I think I can speak for most Milton residents when I say that is not what any of us in desire for Milton to look like. What's move forward with make sense changes to large undeveloped tracts , It will not affect the value of the land nor be seen as taking to increase green space as the value of the lots in these types of communities will be higher in value due to these added green space amenities I asked that my letter be read in tonight's meeting and for the record. Thank you for everyone on staffs time. Your efforts are appreciated. Mary Ann Reid, 2495 Northwood Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 As a homeowner and active voter in the City of Milton, I am writing to share my perspective on the Conservative Subdivision Ordinance that is being considered for the City of Milton. For personal reasons , I am unfortunately unable to attend the Monday, July 20 , 6 p.m. Milton Mayor & City Council Meeting. I do not believe the CSO is the right tool for Milton. Rather than pursue the CSO which has many risks, I hope the Milton Mayor & City Council will instead, immediately enhance the current AG 1 development standards. By name and on the surface , the Conservation Subdivision has positive attributes. It basically allows a development to concentrate home development (numerous homes per acre) in one area in return for offsetting open green space. Theoretically , the total number of homes would remain the same , but green space would be preserved . There are certainly benefits to this concept for certain communities. Like most zoning ordinances, however, the devil is in the detail -there are less obvious but serious downside risks and possible unintended consequences ofthe CSO that could easily offset benefits if not carefully mitigated . If implemented, CSO's will change the fabric , look and feel of Milton almost immediately, and beyond our lifetime. It is not an understatement to say that we need to get it right, or remove the CSO as an option for Milton. Unless the risks a CSO introduces for our community are changed, then it is not the right tool for Milton. After careful study , the Planning Commissioners unanimously voted that the CSO is not the right tool for Milton. One strong recommendation from the community and the Planning Commission is that rather than pursue the CSO which has many risks , instead, immediately enhance the current AG 1 development standards via improved buffers , a deeper rural view shed, expanded setbacks , stronger tree save requirements , more narrow streets , removal of excess concrete used for curb and gutters to name a few. The issues with the current CSO must be addressed or this ordinance should not proceed. The City is contemplating numerous tools and vehicles relative to Conservation, but it is not clear that a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance has to be one ofthose tools. Following is a list of some ofthe issues/concerns with the CSO ordinance: Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, Jul y 20 , 2015 at 6 :00 pm Page 29 of3 8 1) Introduction of community septic systems throughout all of Milton even in the AG-1 areas , and no confirmation as to who will bear the financial responsibility of failing community septic systems or health issues that arise from failing systems and their impact on adjacent landowners and wells, 2) Allowance of 8,000 square foot lots (i.e. more than 5 .5 units to the acre), 3) Lack of specific language regarding density neutrality-that is , no insurance that no more houses could be built in a given CSO development than could have been built under traditional AG 1 with natural land constraints-percolation, streams , steep slopes , etc. The y ield plan must be reviewed by professionals who are certified and accountable , and plan submissions must require the science/math to validate the density that could be allowed under current regulations , including percolation tests , 4) Definitions of green space includes many things that are clearly not green space (i.e. allowing the sewer systems , storm water facilities , utility easements, active impervious areas such as tennis courts and basketball courts , swimming pools , detention ponds, barns , practice show rings , outdoor riding rings , etc . all to be considered "green space", including the buffers themselves , 5) Inadequate buffers for adjacent properties -dense development and active amenities could be visible to roads and neighbors ; 50 foot buffers are included which are not sufficient. Community Development would have the discretion to recommend increasing the 5 foot buffers to up to 150 feet , but this is discretionary and we cannot count on it. Additionally, buffers can be counted as "green space," and certain active amenities are allowed in the green space. There is also no mention that buffers must remain undisturbed and native , but instead the ordinance mentions that when buffers are disturbed , they shall be replanted. Buffers should not be disturbed , period. Buffers shielding dense development and active amenities must be greater than 50 feet , and probably ought to be the 150 feet that is optional , with no active development of any kind. Neighboring property owners and streets should be shielded from dense de velopment, or there is no benefit to CSOs except for residents of the communities. 6) Limited public input process ; site visits do not require adjacent landowners to be included, notice in the local newspaper is onl y required 15 days prior to a hearing at the Planning Commission, posted signs are only required to be up 10 days prior to a hearing at the Planning Commission, there is no mention of the previously required Community Zoning Information Meeting (CZIM), developers are not required to send letters of notice to nearby landowners as has been required historically for other rezoning. This must be changed. 7) Density bonuses offered to developers , up to 1 0% at the discretion of Community Development. Our traffic situation is a serious problem right now. We do not need any development vehicles that will allow an artificially high number of new homes , and contribute further to traffic problems. 8) Lot standards allow for structures to be very close to one another; front , side , side interior lines , adjacency to streets and rear setbacks are minimal in many instances. Side interior lines are as tight as 1 0 ft., as one example , and rear setbacks are as close as 20 ft. There is even a clause that allows the developer to propose even tighter alternative building setbacks that can be approved at the discretion of the Community Development Director, 9) No setting aside of otherwise buildable land for conservation (if only land that was not buildable is set aside as green space , we haven't accomplished anything except adding more houses and drivers to Milton roads), and the list goes on. I hope the Milton Mayor & City Council will seriously consider my thoughts on this matter and instead of pursuing the risky CSO , you will instead, immediatel y enhance the current AG 1 development standards. Thank you for your time and service . Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am writing you to urge you to reject the proposed Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for our City. The proposed CSO is ineffective and dangerous. It will not ensure the protection of our natural resources and it will not protect the rural character of Milton. The City Attorney has not approved the Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20,2015 at 6:00pm Page 30 of38 proposed Conservation Subdivision Ordinance and the Planning Commission has recommended denial of the proposed CSO in a unanimous vote for good reason. I strongly urge you to withdraw the proposed conservation subdivision ordinance from consideration and to consider other alternatives that will better protect our natural resources and the rural character ofMilton. I have outlined some of my concerns with the proposed ordinance below. Minimum Lot Size: The proposed ordinance allows a Cottage size lot of 8,000 square feet. This allows 5.45 lots per acre that are a little smaller than 90 feet by 90 feet. A lot that size is smaller than the front yard of any home located in AGQ 1. Homes clustered together on 8,000 square feet lots are not consistent with the rural character of Milton. Number of the smallest size lot allowed: The proposed ordinance limits the number of 8,000 square feet lots to 33% ofthe allowable lots for the Conservation Subdivision. However as the ordinance is drafted , the remaining 67% of the allowable lots can be 8,001 square feet. The ordinance does not state that the remaining 67% of the lots must be Traditional, Large or Estate lots. I hope this is a drafting error and not a reflection ofthe author's intent. Minimum Lot Width The proposed ordinance allows lots with a minimum width of 60 feet. A 60Qfoot wide lot is about as wide as six parking spaces. Most homes located in AGQ1 will not fit on a 60Qfoot wide lot. Homes clustered together on 60Qfoot wide lots are not consistent with the rural character of Milton. Setbacks: The proposed ordinance allows 1 OQfoot side setbacks , 20Qfoot rear setbacks and 30Qfoot front setbacks. AGQ 1 development standards require 25Qfoot side setbacks , 50Qfoot rear setbacks and 60Qfoot front setbacks. High density rows of clustered homes spaced 20 feet apart is not in keeping with the rural character of Milton. Streetscape: On a 60Qfoot wide lot with 1 OQfoot side setbacks on each side, there is a 40Qfoot wide buildable zone. A typical two car garage is 20Qfeet wide. That leaves 20Qfeet for the house fa9ade. The streetscape will consist of 20Qfoot wide homes with 20Qfoot wide garages separated from each other by 20 feet. This is not consistent with the rural character of Milton. Regular Meeting of th e Milton C ity Council Monday, Jul y 20,2015 at 6 :00pm Page 31 of38 When "green space" is not green: The existing natural environment and the rural character of Milton is not preserved when the green space required by the conservation ordinance is allowed to be cleared of trees , graded, and built upon. The proposed conservation ordinance allows the following land uses to be included in the calculation of the total "green space": • Ten percent of the total green space can be used for active recreation areas. The active recreation area can have an impervious area as large as 20 ,000 square feet (0.46 acres). The pervious area around a playground , a clubhouse and pool in a recreational amenity area is considered green space . Clay tennis courts are considered green space. • If landscaping is added around the storm water retention pond and structures, the storm water management facilities are considered green space. • Indiv idual and community wastewater treatment systems and their associated drain fields are considered green space . • Easements for drainage , access , and underground utility lines are considered green space. The proposed conservation ordinance requires 60% of the tract to be comprised of green space. A ten acre tract would need 6 acres of green space. The 10 or 11 allowed houses would be constructed on 4 acres. The acti ve recreation area can utilize 0.6 acres , the storm water facilities will need 0.4 acres , the wastewater treatment system and drain fields will require at least an acre , and if drainage , access , and utility easements require an acre , 3 acres of the required green space has been cleared of trees , graded , and used for development purposes. Fifty percent of the required land in the green space has neither protected the natural env ironment nor preserved the rural character of Milton. The remaining three acres can be cleared and graded for walking and bicycle trails , passive recreation areas , and community gardens. These last three uses are good uses of land , but these 6 acres of green space has neither protected the natural env ironment nor preserved the rural character of Milton. Green space is not required to be contiguous: The ordinance states , "To the extent practicable, green space shall be preserved in larger, contiguous, and connected tracts. The proposed conservation ordinance does not establish a minimum percentage Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20 ,2015 at 6 :00pm Page 32 of38 of the green space that must be in a contiguous tract. The ordinance does not establish a minimum corridor width for connectivity between non-contiguous tracts. Individual scattered septic tank absorption fields can be considered green space. To preserve natural resources such as woodlands, to protect wildlife habitat, and to protect the rural character of Milton, at least 75% of the required green space should be in one large contiguous tract , and not in a single tract made contiguous with the use of narrow corridors. Sprawl: The remaining land available for development in Milton is finite and fixed in location. The proposed conservation ordinance will not reduce sprawl , the distance between where people live , work, shop, and recreate. Developing scattered high density communities where housing units are crammed together will not reduce commute times or dependence on automobiles . The ordinance will produce scattered pockets of high density developments , separating small residential communities from each other. This is certainly not the goal of those who oppose sprawl. Attempts to protect small tracts of non- contiguous land that are too small to prov ide meaningful conservation benefits while encouraging communities ofhigh density clustered homes to "leapfrog" throughout the City will quickly destroy the rural character of Milton. Bonus lots-Discretionary Density Bonus: The proposed conservation ordinance allows the developer to construct more lots than the yield plan. A 10% increase in the number of lots is allowed. No explanation is given for this bonus award. No plausible, fathomable explanation of how these bonus lots help preserve the natural resources and protect the rural character of Milton is conceivable. Yield Plan: The yield plan is a theoretical concept that does not have to be economical feasible for the developer or marketable to potential homeowners. It is a plan drawn in a manner to maximize the number of lots . It is not necessary to consider if a homeowner would be willing to buy a home on a given lot in the subdivision. Few potential homeowners would buy a home located on a lot where 80% of the land is wetland or in the 1 OOQyear floodplain. However nothing prevents the yield plan from dividing the tract into unmarketable lots. Steep slopes create economic barriers to development. The yield plan requires steep slopes to be shown on the yield plan, but the total area of steep slopes is not required to be subtracted from the buildable area of the site plan . The developer is not required to subtract bodies of open water from the buildable area of the site plan. The developer does not have to demonstrate that the plan is economically feasible , only that it is legally permitted. Economic and market realities limit the number ofhome sites per acre in AGQ1. Depending on topography , streams , wetlands, rock outcrops, etc. a 20 acre tract may only have 10 buildable acres and will yield 10 home sites. When the economic and marketability of these natural features can be ignored, the conservation subdivision ordinance yield plan could allow 20 homes on the same 20Qacre tract, 22 homes with the bonus lots. This does not help to preserve natural resources and protect the rural character of Milton. The proposed ordinance does not require a developer to perform or submit the results of percolation test to substantiate the theoretical yield plan. This may be the greatest weakness in this concept and can lead to developments of much higher densities than are possible in AGQ1. The capacity ofthe soil to support septic drain fields varies from tract to tract and within a given tact. Before the City of Milton existed, it was not zoning , but rather the lack of public sanitary sewer in this unincorporated area of North Fulton that keep commercial development and high density residential development out of the area. Simply put, private septic tanks and their required drain fields kept this area rural. I never thought I would see the day that would erase this natural barrier to development density. The approval ----------------------- Regular Meetin g of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, Jul y 20 , 2015 at 6 :00 pm Page 33 of 3 8 -------~--------- of yield plans that ignore a soil characteristic that limits development and the introduction of community wastewater treatments systems is a prescription for disaster. Had this proposal been enacted ten years ago , there would be no rural Milton to preserve today. If it is enacted today, there will be no rural Milton in five years. Community wastewater treatment systems: State of Georgia standards require lot sizes of no less than 21 ,780 square feet (1 /2 acre) to provide necessary space for septic tank drain fields. The requirement can be greater depending on soil type. Legal review is required to determine if it is permissible under Georgia and Fulton County law to allow the small lot sizes proposed in the ordinance. There must be an unobstructed area on each lot or a dedicated space for each lot in the green space for installation of an approved on-site sewage system and an area equal in size for a conventional system or larger area, as appropriate , for an approved replacement sy stem; this will include sufficient area for necessary site modifications for installation of both the initial system and a replacement system. All pertinent zoning setbacks and other space requirements must also be met. Locating drain fields in the Primary Conservation Areas is onl y feasible if appropriate soils are in the green space, which is typically not the case. The ordinance does not address these issues . Community wastewater treatment systems require regular professional inspection and expensiv e preventative maintenance. Who will own the drain fields and who will pay? Existing homeowners in AGQ 1 should not be subjected to the risk of sewer system failures and ground water contamination due to inadequately constructed and maintained community or private systems serving homes clustered together on lots that are too small. Primary Conservation Areas: All land identified as Primary Conservation Areas by the ordinance is already protected from development by existing Federal , State and local law. All such land is protected from disturbance and development in AGQ 1. A developer can be rewarded with bonus lots for protecting areas that they could not develop anyway (floodplains, wetlands , areas of steep slope, etc .). Secondary Conservation Areas: The protection of Secondary Conservation Areas is not mandatory. The degree to which such land will be protected depends on the extent of the Primary Conservation Areas. If 6 acres of a 1 OQacre tract are protected from disturbance and development by existing regulations , marketability or economic feasibility , no additional land is protected, but high density clustered de v elopment is permitted by the ordinance. Unless some buildable land is required to be set aside as green space, there is no insurance that the developer has not simply been rewarded with bonus lots for doing what was already required. Buffers: The section of the proposed conservation ordinance regarding buffers is vague. Buffers are described but no minimum width is required for most buffers . The ordinance states , "All buffers required by the applicable zoning district shall be shown on the conceptual plan and final plat. The Conservation Subdivision shall have setbacks for all proposed dwellings along the exterior property boundary. The resulting setback yards shall serve as a buffer ... " I believe the intent is to establish the rear building setback as the required buffer along the exterior property boundary. The proposed ordinance requires a 20Qfoot building setback for Cottage lots , a 30Qfoot building setback for Traditional (1 /3 acre lots) and a 40Qfoot building setback for Large lots (lh acre). If high density clustered homes are going to be introduced into the AGQ1 area, significant, functional landscaped buffers must be required along all Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, Jul y 20,2015 at 6:00pm Page 34 of38 exterior property lines and along all public streets to screen these high density clustered homes from the view ofhomeowners in AGQ1 and to preserve the rural characteristic of Milton . More troubling , it appears the proposed ordinance is anticipating variance will be approved allowing lot sizes to be reduced by 50%. The ordinance states , "For proposed lots having less than 50% of the minimum lot area required by the zoning ordinance , the following buffers and designs shall be required:" The conditions that following seem to require a 50Qfoot buffer if a dwelling exist on the adjacent property. Are 4,000 square foot lots being proposed ? This section of the ordinance needs careful review. Conclusion: The proposed conservation subdivision ordinance has significant issues that does not ensure any more land is conserved, does not ensure the rural nature of Milton is protected, but does provide a mechanism to increase the number of houses per acre and allows the construction of high density homes crammed together on small lots. This ordinance is not the right thing for our City . This ordinance will not achieve its intended goals and should be withdrawn from further consideration. Other alternatives should be considered to protect our natural resources and the rural character of Milton. Thank you for your consideration. Scott Womack, 2165 Country Ridge Road, Milton Georgia 30004 As a 46 year old Milton resident that grew up here on Bethany Rd. and now live off Thompson Rd. I am asking for all the people that are working for the City Of Milton to slow down all growth. In the past 5 years we are starting to look like the east side of 400 . We do not need any more subdivisions built in our city limits. The ordinance that is trying to get passed is in favor of now one except developers. There are too many loopholes that can change things and could cau se us to look like Johns Creek. This was a special place to grow up and I would like it to stay that way for my kids. We do not need any more cars on our roads than we have now. Please think about why most people move here and the area is becoming a different place and not for the better. Joan Wunderle, 765 Owens Lake Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am requesting the Mayor and City Council to please vote to deny the CSO ordinance. While most everyone believes in green space preservation, this document is not the vehicle to protect the citizens of Milton to insure that we really have green space and not to increase density . The Planning Commission denied it and recommends that you do the same. Please deny this CVSO ordinance. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to defer Agenda Item No . 15-183 to the Regularl y Scheduled City Council Meeting on September 21 , 2 015. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousl y (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a Resolution Transmitting a Draft Capital Improvements Element, Relating to the City 's Consideration of an Impact Fee Program to the Atlanta Regional Commission for Regional and State Review. (Agenda Item No. 15-197) RESOLUTION NO. 15-07-344 (Public Hearing at July 20, 2015 Regu lar City Cou ncil) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director) Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 35 of38 Kathleen Field, Community Development Director I am available as is Bill Ross for any questions you may have on this matter. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 15-197. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. 2. Consideration of a Resolution Ratifying Confirmation of Transferable Development Rights Between Robert A. Brannon and the City of Milton, Georgia. (Agenda Item No. 15-203) RESOLUTION NO. 15-07-345 (Ken Jarrard, City Attorn ey) Ken Jarrard, City Attorney You have in your packet this evening a document that is a resolution ratifying confirmation of transferable development rights between Robert A . Brannon and the City of Milton. As you are aware , the city has had a successful TDR transaction. Mr. Brannon has agreed to place five acres into a conservation easement which is due to the city's TDR ordinance. As part of the closing of that , they have requested a recordable instrument in the county property records confirming the existence of these TDR rights. This would be something that would put the world on notice that not only is the property subject to a conservation easement but also the existence of the five transferrable development rights pursuant to the city ordinance. The closing has already occurred but I am asking for the city to also approve this confirmation that is in your packet. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item No. 15-203. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. 3. Consideration of a Resolution Regarding Milton Sign Code . (Agenda Item No. 15-204) RESOLUTION NO. 15-07-346 (Ken Jarrard, City Attorney) Ken Jarrard, City Attorney This is a resolution that will lift the moratorium on applications for sign permits and the erection of new signage within the city . This is a byproduct ofthe Supreme Court decision that came out in June 2015 , the Reed vs. Gilbert decision. This is something that most responsible governments have looked at with some interest to ensure that the sign code is placed in the best light as possible from a defense standpoint. The city council adopted an emergency moratorium to give my office sufficient time to look at the city 's sign code with respect to compliance with the Reed vs. Gilbert decision. In addition , the council requested the moratorium for only the most limited time possible to allow businesses and citizens the opportunity to speak about the issue. You should have in front of you a copy of a resolution with Exhibit A attached which is the June 24th moratorium resolution that you adopted. This is my Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 36 of38 ~ ---------------------- opinion. We could go ahead and put in a moratorium for the next 180 days while we work through an ordinance but I would rather not do that. If I see a problem with our sign code the more responsible thing to do is to place a moratorium on that section of the code while we open up the remainder of the ordinance for people to use. That is what you have in front of you tonight. So , tonight if you approve this resolution, you will be lifting the moratorium that you placed on the sign code on June 241h but every place in the code that I saw a problem with respect to the Reed vs. Gilbert decision; I have highlighted that area and placed a moratorium on the city 's enforcement of that provision. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 15-204, a resolution of the Milton City Council lifting the temporary moratorium on the acceptance of applications for sign permits and otherwise erecting signage in Milton, placing a temporary moratorium on city enforcement of certain elements of the sign code , providing interpretation of the sign code , and otherwise authorizing further modifications to the sign code . Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Kunz I would like to give a big thank you to all the people who participated in the Grand Opening of the new Milton Library. It was a great turn out and event for the community. STAFF REPORTS Department Updates 1. Fire 2. Finance 3. Information Technology 4. Innovation & Engagement 5. Human Resources Mark Stephens, Deputy Fire Chief We had no incidents to report related to the use of fireworks. Next week, we will advertise the RFP for our new ladder truck. We have been working on a 105 page very detailed spec report that is associated with the purchase of the new truck. As part of the five year capital plan, we have begun the programming for the live fire training facility and the Station 42 replacement. Bernadette Harvill, Finance Manager Earlier this evening, Stacey mentioned that we were going to have a 6.5% digest increase due to the new valuation assessment of construction and improvements. Also , you will notice on the stats sheet that the property tax collection percentage has gone down due to a recent supplemental billing cycle. Anytime we have Fulton County making the decisions on any appeals , you will see a new set of bills going out Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 37 of38 for anyone who owes the difference between the 85% they had originally paid and the new 100% due. So , that is the reason for the decrease. The final day to appeal this year's Fulton County tax assessments that went out is today , July 20 , 2015. The county has encouraged all the residents to appeal on line if they can. They have streamlined the process and made it much quicker. The FY16 budget process is underway . Department Heads have submitted their initiatives and re~uests and Chris , Stacey and I will be meeting with each of the Department Heads beginning on July 2i to review those requests. We continue to meet with Tyler Technologies regardingthe development ofthe version 10 tax module. We are also looking at implementing an online module for business license applications in hopes of streamlining the process for all of our business owners. Lastly , in June we had a public auction for the surplus vehicles in the police department as well as some equipment and also items from the Green/Adams Cogburn Road property. It was very successful. David Frizzell, IT Manager I prepared a very lengthy PowerPoint presentation to give tonight but I will be sensitive to our time constraints and will present it to you another time. We had an increase in the number of help desk tickets that were received. There were 136 last month. Jason Wright, Director of Innovation & Engagement Angela has been doing a really fantastic job with social engagement and taking over press releases. Last week we sent out a press release about our transparency tools and we received wonderful feedback. We surpassed 3,000 followers on Facebook this month. The council meeting presentation on the Care Award reached 18 ,056 Facebook users and over 400 likes. So , we might have 3 ,000 followers but 18,000 people saw something positive about the city that day. The Facebook post about Providence Park reached 38 ,400 and received over 750 likes and 103 reshares . The reach that Angela is able to cultivate is amazing. The Flicks and Foodtrucks on the Milton High School lawn was successful; we received a lot of positive feedback. August 1st will be the next movie and also the last day of the Milton Farmers Market. Better Together had their summer social with over 30 attendees at the Broadwell Pavilion. It was a great event. We also want to thank Councilmember Kunz for talking about his book at the literary event. Our stats have been revised. Users for last month should have been 11 ,161 and page views should be at 41 ,196. If you compare those numbers to this month ; this month we had 16 ,793 users looking at nearly 41,000 pages. This is a great sign that our web content strategy is working. People are scrolling to get to the content they need which is a very good sign. We have received more than 400 responses to the Strategic Plan survey and we have more than a month to go. I have been working with our Strategic Plan consultant to provide you with a workbook at the retreat. Sam Trager, Director of Human Resources We had an extra termination that I did not account for. We have had three terminations this year so far; one in police, one in fire , and one in parks and recreation . We only have two vacant job openings ; one in parks and recreation and a fire position. Our workers compensation claim is ongoing. We expect for our employee to be back in September. He has been out since May with an injured back. Hopefully, he will be back mid-September. We had one vehicle accident in the past month. A fire truck received a little damage. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 38 of38 EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to go into Executive Session to ongoing litigation at 8:26 p.m. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. RECONVENE Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to reconvene the Regular Meeting at 8:38 p.m. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting and Councilmember Mohrig was absent for the vote. ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 15-205) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 8:43 p.m. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent from the meeting. Date Approved: August 3 , 2015 Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk