HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 07/13/2015 - MINS 07 13 15 WS (Migrated from Optiview)--------. ------------------------~~~------------.......
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, Jul y 13 , 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page I of30
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 ar e audio and video recorded.
The Work Session of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on July 13, 2015 at
6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood, presiding.
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Bill Lusk,
Councilmember Matt Kunz, Councilmember Joe Longoria and Councilmember Rick Mohrig.
Councilmember Absent: Councilmember Burt Hewitt
Mayor Joe Lockwood:
• Work Sessions are an informal setting to update Council on business items.
• No votes will be taken during these sessions.
• There are four (4) items on our Agenda tonight.
• Public comment is allowed that is germane to an Agenda Item.
• If you wish to speak you are required to fill out a comment card and turn it into the City Clerk
staff.
• Public comment will be allowed for a total of 10 minutes per agenda item and no more than 2
minutes per person.
• Public comment will be heard at the beginning of each Item.
• Once the item is called , no other comment cards will be accepted.
Agenda Item #1 was read.
1. Discussion of Impact Fee Program -Methodology Report and Capital Improvement Element
(CIE).
(Kathleen Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Bill Ross is here tonight to review with you the Methodology Report and the Capital Improvement
Element. These reports will be reviewed tonight then we will seek your approval for transmittal of these
reports to the Department of Community Affairs as well as the Atlanta Regional Commission for their
review. These reports have already been reviewed by the Advisory Committee which is a state
mandated review group that we have formed to review all reports associated with impact fees .
Bill Ross, Ross Associates
The purpose of a Capital Improv ements Element (CIE) is to establish where and when certain new
capital facilities will be provided within a jurisdiction and the extent to which they may be financed
through an impact fee program. This Capital Improvements Element addresses parks & recreation ,
fire protection, law enforcement and road improvements .
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 ,2015 at 6:00pm
Page 2 of30
As required by the Development Impact Fee Act, and defined by the Department of Community Affairs
in its Development Impact Fee Compliance Requirements , the CIE must include the following
for each capital facility category for which an impact fee will be charged:
• a projection of needs for the twenty-year planning period to 2035 ;
• the designation of service areas-the geographic area in which a defined set of public facilities
provide service to development within the area;
• the designation of levels of service (LOS)-the service level that is being and will be provided;
• a schedule of improvements listing impact fee related projects and costs for the twenty year
planning period;
• a description of funding sources for the twenty-year planning period.
Additionally, in accordance with the state act and DCA 's Development Impact Fee Compliance
Requirements ,
a policy statement regarding potential impact fee exemptions is included in this CIE if
the City wishes to adopt or apply such exemptions in the future.
Impact Fees Authorized
Impact fees are authorized in Georgia under Code Section 3 7-71 , the Georgia Development Impact
Fee Act (DIF A), and are administered by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs under
Chapter 110-12-2 , Development Impact Fee Compliance Requirements . Under DIFA, the City can
collect money from new de velopment based on that development 's proportionate share-the 'fair
share '--Dfthe cost to provide the facilities needed specifically to serve new development. This includes
the categories of public safety and parks. Revenue for such facilities can be produced from
new development in two ways: through future taxes paid by the homes and businesses that growth
creates , and through an impact fee assessed as new development occurs.
Categories for Assessment oflmpact Fees
To assist in paying for the high costs of expanding public facilities and services to meet the needs
of projected growth and to ensure that new development pays a reasonable share of the costs of
public facilities , Milton is considering the establishment of impact fees for parks & recreation , fire
protection, law enforcement and road improvements. The chapters in this Capital Improvements
Element provide population and employment forecasts and detailed information regarding the inventory
of current facilities , the level of service , and detailed calculations of project costs and the
impact of new growth and development for the specific public facilities.
The following table shows the facility categories that are eligible for impact fee funding under
Georgia law and that are considered in this report . The service area for each public facility category-
that is , the geographical area served by the facility category-is also given, along with the what
the standard adopted as the level of service to be delivered for each facility category is based upon .
In order to accurately calculate the demand for future services in Milton, new growth and development
must be quantified in future projections. These projections include forecasts for population,
households , housing units , and employment to the year 2035. These projections provide the baseline
conditions from which the current Level of Service calculations are produced . Also , projections
are combined to produce what is known as 'day/night population.' This is a method that combines
resident population and employees in a service area to produce an accurate picture of the total
number of persons that rely on certain 24-hour services , such as fire protection. The projections
used for each public facility category are specified in each public facility chapter.
This chapter presents a summary of the forecasts that have been identified as the most appropriate
for Milton, based on a wide-ranging analysis of alternate approaches that were considered for
their reasonableness and correlation to the City 's growth policies contained in its 2030 Comprehensive
Plan, adopted in 2011.
--. ---·----------------------------------------------------------~
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 ,2015 at 6:00pm
Page 3 of30
Regional Setting
Continuing past trends , Milton is expected to continue to grow at a faster pace than its immediate
neighbors with regard to population, housing and jobs. Its neighbors-Alpharetta and John's
Creek-contain the preponderance of population and housing units in the 3-city N. Fulton Superdistrict,
but are expected to grow collectively at a slower pace than Milton (increasing 49% to Milton's
71% in population and 54% to Milton 's 71% in housing between 2014 and 2035). Over the
coming twenty years , the city is expected to increase its share of all residents among the three cities
from 20% to 22%, and grow from 18% to 20 % of all housing units. Numerically, Alpharetta and
Johns Creek will continue to dominate employment in the area, adding 21 ,704 new jobs by 2035
compared to Milton 's job increase of 5,500 , although this 'modest ' growth will increase Milton 's share
of area employment from 7% to almost 1 0%.
D Population and Housing Unit Forecasts
Table 1 presents the forecasts for population for each year from 2014 to 2035 and provides the
forecasts for households and housing units over the same period. The figures shown are , in essence ,
mid-year estimates reflecting Census Bureau practice. In other words , the increase in population
between 2014 and 2035 would actually be from July 1, 2014 to June 30 , 2035.
The population forecasts represent a projection of the annual population figures reported by the
Census Bureau through 2013 . The number of households is calculated based on the most recently
reported average household size in the city, and divided into the population forecasts. Since
households are synonymous with 'occupied housing units', the total number of housing units is
calculated
by applying an occupancy rate to account for vacant units. In essence , the city will be
'built-out' as to its capacity to accommodate future residential development under current land use
and conservation policies and zoning provisions.
Table 1 also shows the forecasts for employment growth in Milton, from 2014 to 2035. The employment
figures for Milton reflect an analysis of three approaches: One, a 'percentage share ' approach in which
the city's number of employees is based on a constant share of all employment in the immediate area
(which includes Alpharetta and John's Creek) that in 2010 was 4.56% of all jobs in the area. Another,
the 'averaged' approach calculates a middle ground between the lower 'percentage share' forecast and
the higher, recommended approach . The recommended approach assumes a correlation between
employment and the number ofhouseholds in the city. Although in 2010 ,59% of all people working in
Milton commuted in from outside the city , the 'internal ' ratio can be a valuable guideline in making
estimates. This forecast maintains the expectation that Milton will continue to increase its modest
employment base , will benefit from the Transfer of Development Rights program generated by the
Conservation Plan, and will actually increase its share of all employment among the three cities in the
immediate N. Fulton Superdistrict by several percentage points into the future.
Service Area Projections
In Table 2 the service area forecasts are presented for a single citywide service area measured in
two ways: citywide housing units (which quantifies Parks and Recreation service demands), and
citywide day/night population (for the public safety services categories, Fire Protection and Law
Enforcement).
The 'day/night ' population calculation is a combination of the population and future employment
projections. The use of day/night population in impact cost and impact fee calculations is based
upon the clear rational nexus between persons and services demanded on a 24-hour basis.
The day/night population is used to determine Level of Service standards for facilities that serve
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 , 2015 at 6:00pm
Page 4 of30
both the resident population and business employment. The fire department, for instance , protects
one's house from fire whether or not they are at home, and protects stores and offices whether or
not they are open for business. Thus, this 'day/night ' population is a measure of the total services
demanded of a 24-hour service provider facility and a fair way to allocate the costs of such a facility
among all of the beneficiaries. The figures on Table 2 are the figures that will be used in subsequent
public facility category chapters for Parks & Recreation, Fire Protection and Law Enforcement.
Impact fees for the Road Improvements category are not population based, but based on vehicle trip
generation data. As described in the Technical Appendix of this report , future growth and development
in the city will account for about 40% of all city-generated traffic on Milton's roads by 2035.
Parks and Recreation
Introduction
Public recreational opportunities are available in Milton through a number of parks facilities operated
by the City of Milton Parks and Recreation Department. Demand for recreational facilities is almost
exclusively related to the city's resident population. Businesses make some incidental use of
public parks for office events , company softball leagues , etc., but the use is minimal compared to
that of the families and individuals who live in the city. Thus, the parks and recreation impact fee is
limited to future residential growth.
Service Area
The parks and recreation facilities are operated as a citywide system. Facilities are provided equally
to all residents , and often used on the basis of the programs available , as opposed to proximity of
the facility. For instance , children active in lacrosse play games at various locations , based on
scheduling rather than geography. Other programs are located only at certain centralized facilities ,
to which any Milton resident can come. Thus , the entire city is considered a single service area for
parks and recreation.
Level of Service
Level of Service standards for park lands and for recreational components such as baseball fields ,
playgrounds , and recreation centers have been adopted by the City in the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan (20 12). Level of Service standards for preserved open space (conservation easements)
and land for trails have been adopted by the City in the Conservation Plan (2013).
Table 3 provides an inventory of the acreage under the control of the Parks and Recreation Department
in 2014 , or expected to come under its control when Providence Park is transferred.
Forecasts for Service Area
Existing and Future Demand
Table 5 shows the current and future demand in land and recreation components based on the LOS
standards adopted by the City and shown on Table 4.
Existing demand is calculated in order to determine if there are currently more than enough facilities
to serve the current (20 14) population or if there is a shortfall requiring future facilities to be
built to serve today 's population.
For the number of acres and facilities to meet future population needs , the increase in housing
units between now and 2035 is multiplied by each level of service standard to produce the future
demand.
Impact Fee Eligibility
New parks and recreation components are eligible for impact fee funding only to the extent that
the improvements are needed to specifically serve new growth and development, and only at the
level of service applicable citywide. Table 6 shows the number of new park acres and recreation
-----------------~--------------------------~~-------~-
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 5 of30
components that are needed to satisfy both current and future needs of the city's residents, and
the extent to which fulfillment of those needs will serve future growth demand. The table begins
with the current inventory of park lands and components , and the 'existing' demand for those
components to meet the needs of the current (20 14) population based on the adopted level of service
standards (from Table 5). The 'excess or (shortfall)' column compares the existing demand to the
current supply of park acres and recreation components.
Where an 'excess ' is identified , that means that more land or components (or portions of components)
exist than are needed to meet the recreation needs of the current population, and those
'excesses ' create capacity to meet the recreational needs of future growth. Conversely, a 'shortfall '
indicates that there are not enough facilities and more components (or portions of components) are
needed to meet the recreational needs of the current population based on the adopted LOS.
The next column on Table 6 shows the total demand in land and components specifically to meet
future growth needs , and the 'net total needed ' to meet all existing and future needs combined. A
current 'excess ' in facilities reduces the need for new facilities because the 'excess ' is already available
to serve new growth. A 'shortfall ', however, adds to new growth 's needs with facilities to bring
the current population up to the adopted level of service required to be available to all-both current
and future residents .
For example, the City has 7 football/soccer/lacrosse fields but the adopted level of service indicates
that only 5 fields and a portion of a 6th (0.151 or 15.1 %) are needed to serve the current population,
leaving the remainder of the 6th field and all of the 7th field available to serve future growth.
Future growth, however, will need a total of 3.645 fields to fully satisfy its needs , based on the
adopted LOS. Since 1.849 existing fields are currently available , only 1. 797 new field capacity will
be needed to meet future demand. This figure is rounded up to 2 new fields (since the Parks and
Recreation Department cannot construct only a portion of a new facility), of which the 1.797 portion
needed for new growth represents 89.8% of the total to be built.
On the other hand , the City has only 5 baseball fields where 7.212 in field capacity is needed to
serve current needs , leaving a 'shortfall ' in capacity of2.212 fields. New growth will need 5.104
fields for itself, to which is added the current population 's shortfall for a total of 7.316 to provide
for both current and future needs. Rounded to 8 new fields , new growth needs only 63.8% of the
total to satisfy its own demand.
Future Costs
Table 7 on the next page presents the estimated cost calculations for both the land acquisition and
recreation component projects proposed and the maximum extent to which the project costs are impact
fee eligible.
Fire Protection
Introduction
Fire protection is provided by the City through its Fire Department. The capital value of fire protection
is based upon fire stations , land , and apparatus. Emergency medical services are administered
by the Fire Department, but are provided under contract to a private vendor that provides and
maintains the ambulances. The Department provides space to house one of the ambulances in Fire
Station 43.
Service Area
The Fire Department operates as a coordinated system, with each station backing up the other stations
in the system. The backing up of another station is not a rare event; it is the essence of good
fire protection planning. All stations do not serve the same types of land uses , nor do they all have
the same apparatus . It is the strategic placement of personnel and equipment that is the backbone
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 ,2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 6 of30
of good fire protection. Any new station would relieve some of the demand on the other stations.
Since the stations would continue to operate as 'backups' to the other stations , everyone in the city
would benefit by the construction of a new station since it would reduce the 'backup' times the station
nearest to them would be less available. For these reasons the entire city is considered a single
service area for the provision of fire protection because all residents and employees within this area have
equal access to the benefits of the program.
Currently, fire protection is provided by facilities with a combined square footage of21,747, utilizing a
total of 16 vehicles (that is, vehicles having a service life of 10 years or more). Eight of the vehicles are
heavy vehicles providing fire and rescue services and 8 are general support vehicles. In addition, this
year the City has installed 1 0 emergency warning sirens throughout the city. Since the coverage of each
siren is related to geographical area (i.e., how far away can the siren be heard), it is estimated that all 10
will serve the entire city to 2035 at an expected life of20 years. Table 8 presents the current inventory of
Fire Department facilities , vehicles and sirens.
Level of Service
The level of service for fire protection in Milton is measured in terms of the number of heavy and
general vehicles, the number of square feet of fire station space and the number of emergency warning
sirens , per day/night population in the service area. Day/night population is used as a measure in that
fire protection is a 24-hour service provided continuously to both residences and businesses in the
service area. The level of service calculated for the Department's occupied floor area and vehicles are
based on the current day/night population. This level of service will be projected forward to 2035 to
determine future improvements needed to serve new growth while maintaining the current level of
service enjoyed citywide. The level of service for the sirens, however, is different. Since the current
complement of sirens is expected to serve the city for the next 20 years , the level of service is calculated
based on the 2035 day/night population. In essence working backwards, new growth's share of the total
expense can be determined.
Law Enforcement
Introduction
The Milton Police Department provides primary law enforcement throughout the city. Through a
variety of active law enforcement, community outreach and educational programs, the Police
Department
serves all ofthe population and employees within the city .
Service Area
The city is considered a single service area for the provision of primary law enforcement services
because all residents and employees in the city have equal access to the benefits of the program.
Level of Service
The Police Department currently occupies leased facility space , which includes square footage for
administration, operations, evidence storage, and general storage. The Police Department has outgrown
this space and is slated to relocate to a larger facility. Construction of the City of Milton Law
Enforcement Center is proposed in the near future , and will accommodate all City law enforcement staff
and functions.
Road Improvements
Introduction
The information in this chapter is derived from road project information contained in the Milton
Capital Improvement Plan 2015-2021 (the "CIP") and project data for future years based on the
City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 7 of30
Service Area
The service area for these road projects is defined as the entire city, in that these road projects are
recognized as providing primary access to all properties within the city as part of the citywide network
of principal streets and thoroughfares. All new development within the city will be served by
this citywide network, such that improvements to any part of this network to relieve congestion or
to otherwise improve capacity will positively affect capacity and reduce congestion throughout the
city .
Level of Service Standards
Level of Service for roadways and intersections is measured on a 'letter grade' system that rates a
road within a range of service from A to F. Level of Service A is the best rating , representing
unencumbered
travel; Level of Service F is the worst rating, representing heavy congestion and long
delays. This system is a means of relating the connection between speed and travel time, freedom
to maneuver, traffic interruption, comfort, convenience and safety to the capacity that exists in a
roadway. This refers to both a quantitative measure expressed as a service flow rate and an assigned
qualitative measure describing parameters. The Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report
209 , Transportation Research Board (1985), defines Level of Service A through F as having the
following
characteristics during peak hours at an intersection:
1. LOS A: free flow, excellent level of freedom and comfort;
2. LOS B: stable flow, decline in freedom to maneuver, desired speed is relatively unaffected;
3. LOS C: stable flow, but marks the beginning of users becoming affected by others, selection
of speed and maneuvering becomes difficult, comfort declines at this level;
4. LOS D: high density , but stable flow, speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted ,
poor level of comfort, small increases in traffic flow will cause operational problems;
5. LOSE: at or near capacity level, speeds reduced to low but uniform level, maneuvering is
extremely difficult, comfort level poor, frustration high , level unstable; and
6. LOS F: forced/breakdown of flow. The amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the
amount that can transverse the point. Queues form , stop & go. Arrival flow exceeds discharge
flow.
The traffic volume that produces different Level of Service grades differs according to road type,
size, signalization, topography, condition and access.
Level of Service
The City has set its Level of Service for road improvements at LOS "D" for peak hour intersection
operations, a level to which it will strive ultimately. However, interim road improvement projects
that do not result in a LOS of"D" will still provide traffic relief to current and future traffic alike,
and are thus eligible for impact fee funding.
All road improvement projects benefit existing and future traffic proportionally to the extent that
relief from over-capacity conditions eases traffic problems for everyone. For example, since new
Road Improvements
DRAFT-June 18 , 2015 23 Capital Improvements Element
growth by 2035 will represent a certain portion of all 2035 traffic , new growth would be responsible
for that portions ' cost of the road improvements.
It is noted that the cost-impact of non-Milton generated traffic on the roads traversing the city
(cross commutes) is off-set by state and federal assistance. The net cost ofthe road projects that
accrues to Milton reasonably represents (i.e., is 'roughly proportional ' to) the impact on the roads
by Milton residents and businesses.
The basis for the road impact fee would therefore be Milton's cost for the improvements divided by
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 , 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 8 of30
all traffic in 2035 (existing today plus new growth)-i.e., the cost per trip-times the traffic generated
by new growth alone. For an individual land use , the cost per trip (above) would be applied to
the number of trips that will be generated by the new development when a building permit is issued,
assuring that new growth would only pay its 'fair share ' of the road improvements that serve
it.
Forecasts for Service Area
Projects that provide road capacity that will serve new growth are shown on Table 18. This is not a
list of all City road projects in the CIP. These projects were selected for inclusion in the City's impact
fee program because the specific improvements proposed will increase traffic capacity and reduce
congestion to some extent, whether through road widening, improved intersection operations
or upgraded signalization.
The cost figures shown on Table 18 are in current dollars. These figures are calculated in Net Present
Value and shown on Table 19. The Net Present Value ofthe cost estimates for road improvements
are calculated by increasing the current (20 14) estimated construction costs using the Engineering
News Record 's 10-year average construction cost inflation (CCI) rate , and then discounting
this future amount back to 2014 dollars using the Net discount Rate.
Eligible Costs
As discussed thoroughly in the Methodology-Trip Generation section of the Technical Appendix,
new growth and development will represent 40.1% of the traffic on Milton's road network in 2035.
Exemption Policy
The Georgia Development Impact Fee Act provides that the City's "impact fee ordinance may exempt
all or part of particular development projects from development impact fees if:
(1) Such projects are determined to create extraordinary economic development and employment
growth or affordable housing;
(2) The public policy which supports the exemption is contained in the [city's] comprehensive
plan; and
(3) The exempt development project's proportionate share of the system improvement is funded
through a revenue source other than development impact fees."
The following Exemption Policy is included in this CIE and thus becomes part of the City 's
Comprehensive
Plan:
The City of Milton recognizes that certain office and retail trade development projects
provide extraordinary benefit in support of the economic advancement of the city's citizens
over and above the access to jobs, goods and services that such uses offer in general.
To encourage such development projects , the Mayor and City Council may consider
granting a reduction in the impact fee for such a development project upon the determination
and relative to the extent that the business or project represents extraordinary
economic development and employment growth of public benefit to Milton, in accordance
with exemption criteria the City may adopt. It is also recognized that the cost
of system improvements otherwise foregone through exemption of any impact fee must
be funded through revenue sources other than impact fees .
While this policy provides that exemption criteria may be approved by the City Council as part of its
Impact Fee Ordinance, the adoption of such criteria is elective on the part of the City Council and may
or may not be activated through inclusion in the ordinance.
Methodology-Population Forecasts
The purpose of this analysis is to develop population forecasts for use in establishing Level of Service
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, Jul y I 3 , 20 I 5 at 6 :00 pm
Page 9 of30
calculations for the City 's impact fee program. The population forecasts will subsequently influence
the housing unit and employment forecasts that will also be used in the Level of Service
calculations.
To accomplish this , a variety of projection approaches were prepared for consideration. Data from
both the US Bureau of the Census and the Atlanta Regional Commission were considered, as well
as countywide forecasts prepared by Woods & Poole Economics , Inc.
The various approaches presented in the attached Analysis are :
• 2000-2013 Census population data projected to 2040 on a "straight line" basis for each city
in North Fulton County-called the Linear Trend approach.
• 2000-2013 Census population data projected to 2040 for each North Fulton city assuming
that the ARC Plan 2040 North Fulton projections are incorrect by the same increment as
"straight line" determined for 2016 (ARC 's first "base" year)--called the Linear Shift approach.
• 2000-2013 Census population data projected to 2040 on a "curved line " basis for each city
in North Fulton County as 2nd-order regression-called the Growth Trend.
• 2000-2013 Census population data projected to 2040 assuming that the ARC Plan 2040
North Fulton projections are incorrect by the same increment as determined for 2016 using
the growth trend figure-called the Growth Shift.
• The percentage share of countywide population projected for each North Fulton city taken
against the ARC Plan 2040 forecasts and those of Woods & Poole Economics, Inc .
• Finally, the capacity of the city to accommodate future development was considered , based
on policies in place regarding residential densities and land conservation initiatives.
Note that, in order to maintain data consistency with available data sources , the period 2000-2040
is used in preparing the forecasts . However, for the impact fee program, the 20-year period 2014-2035
will be used.
Historic Trends
Since 2000 , the city 's population growth has far exceeded its North Fulton neighbors. During these past
13 years , (ifthe Census Bureau 's 2000 estimate is accurate) Milton 's population has more than doubled
(increasing 124%) at an average annual rate of a little over 9.5%. During this same period, Alpharetta
and John 's Creek kept pace with North Fulton as a whole with percentage increases in the low-mid 30s,
while Roswell and Mt. Park notabl y lagged with 16 % and 11% increases , respectively (yielding average
annual growth rates around 1 %). During this same period, Milton 's share ofthe North Fulton population
grew almost 68%, from 7 .76 % in 2000 to 13.03 % in 2013 (increasing its share at an average annual rate
of a little over 5.2%). Two of its ne ighbors-Mt. Park and Roswell-saw their share of North Fulton
notably reduced , while Alpharetta and John 's Creek barel y held their own. Given the limitations on
developable land resources in its neighboring North Fulton cities, continuing market pressures for
residential growth, quality public services both existing and planned , and the ambience clearly
established in Milton 's many fine neighborhoods , growth-at least managed growth-is expected to
continue throughout the projection period.
While there is considerable divergence among the various approaches considered in the attached
Analysis , we have focused on the Build-out Capacity, the Linear Trend, and the County Share approach
using the Woods & Poole countywide figures , for further consideration. The table and graph
below show these three scenarios, while the Analysis that follows provides a detailed description of
the many and various approaches that were prepared and the methodologies and data used
Bottom line : the Build-out Capacity approach is recommended as the basis for the City 's Impact
Fee Program because it full y recognizes the limited amount of available land for development when
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, Jul y 13,2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 10 of30
the City 's land conservation policies are taken into consideration, as well as City policies regarding
future development densities and the potential for TDRs.
The reasons for our recommendation are:
The Linear Trend and the County Share approaches reflect residential growth potential that could
only be achieved if City policies change in the future , and therefore should be viewed more as
'market demand' potential than most likely growth outcomes. Between the two , the Linear Trend
forecast is more favored because it directly relies on historic city population data and trends (as
estimated by the Census Bureau) and is somewhat more defensible than tying the city 's future
growth to that of the whole county.
The Linear Trend and the County Share approaches are both unconstrained by land availability and
would rely on rezoning approvals not contemplated in the City 's Comprehensive Plan. In contrast,
the Build-out Capacity approach recognizes the limited amount of available land for development
when the City 's land conservation policies are taken into consideration, along with the potential for
transfers of development rights recommended in the Conservation Plan, as well as the City 's policies
regarding future development densities within areas that are currently provided with sanitary
sewer service and within areas that are not , and will not, be sewered.
In our view, the Build-out Capacity forecasts are the most consistent with current planning policies
incorporated into the City 's Comprehensive Plan, including de velopment policies regarding future
residential densities , which are summarized in the Plan 's vision statement:
Milton is a distinctive community embracing small town life and
heritage while preserving and enhancing our rural character.
Further support for the Build-out Capacity approach is that it reflects the City's emerging policies
for land conservation embodied in the Conservation Plan, which limits the amount of land available
for development , and further being considered in the creation of a conservation subdivision alternative
for residential development.
Agenda Item #2 was read.
2. Discussion of Conservation Subdivision Ordinance.
(Kathleen Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Director)
Public Comment
Don Willis, 13475 Alpharetta Highway, Alpharetta, Georgia 30201
We have owned 7.72 acres on Birmingham Highway for 46 years. My question under the new CSO if
adopted , would we be able to subdivide that 7.72 acres into at least 7 one acre lots to give to our 7
children and grandchildren so if they wanted to in the future they could build a home on it. Under the
CSO is that possible?
Joan Borzilleri, 540 Kings County Court, Milton, Georgia 30004
I speaking tonight as a private citizen but I want to address this ordinance from the perspective of a long
time and current member of Milton 's Historic Preservation Commission. As someone who has actively
worked to document and bring attention to local history , I am disappointed in how little has been done in
the city to address the preservation of the heritage of the area. I firmly believe that understanding and
recognizing local history is essential to building and sustaining a sense of community. The rural
heritage of agrarian culture is critical to what makes the city special. The conservation subdiv ision
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 ,2015 at 6 :00pm
Page II of30
ordinance is an important step toward creating greater recognition and preservation of historical places.
Up until now, family cemeteries , old homes , barns , and century old trees have had little recognition or
protection within the city . Certainl y, these are essential parts of the rural character we say we cherish.
And , yet , the city has done little to protect these treasured sites allowing rampant development to destroy
them at an alarming pace. This ordinance has the potential to change this trend by requiring that these
places be identified and protected before home sites and infrastructure are planned. It will prioritize the
preservation of the city 's heritage . While much more needs to be done to address recognition of
historical structures and sites in the city , this ordinance is an important step in the right direction. This is
why I strongly believe that a conservation subdivision ordinance will bring positive change to the
community.
Jack Lindon, 14810 East Bluff Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am speaking tonight as the Chairman of the Milton Grows Green Committee. This past meeting we
adopted a policy statement regarding the conservation subdivision ordinance and my plan was to read it
tonight but it takes 3 ~ minutes to read it so I will shorten it and read the first and last paragraphs
instead .
Milton Grows Green fully agrees that development in Milton cannot and should not be stopped ,
however, open space , view sheds , and natural resources must be saved through smart land use planning ,
appropriate zoning ordinances and the use of a conservation subdivision ordinance. The goal of a
conservation subdi vision ordinance is the permanent protection of open spaces, greenways and natural
resources and the appropriate management of new construction design. If Milton does not adopt a
conservation subdivision ordinance and continue to employ only conventional subdivision design , the
AG-1 sprawl that characterizes our recent development with minimal effort to preserve Milton 's rural
character, will continue unabated. Conservation Subdi v ision design is a creative land use technique that
accommodates growth while preserving a significant portion of the developed land as meaningful open
space. Adoption of a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance would support the city 's comprehensive plan
and provide a valuable tool for preserving our rural character. For these reasons , Milton Grows Green is
strongly in favor of pursuing the adoption of this ordinance.
Joe Lamp'l, 2330 Saddlesprings Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am in support of a conservation subdivision ordinance. Since moving to Milton three years ago, I have
been involved with Milton Grows Green and helped with the National Wildlife Federation designation
for the city. When my famil y and I moved here from North Carolina, just prior to that we lived in
Marietta for many years and we loved East Cobb but when we chose Milton upon our return , we did so
for three reasons: its rural character and abundance of green space , the quality of schools , and its
proximity to other amenities. We found Milton to be a great place for me to produce my television show
on PBS called "Growing a Greener World", the perfect fixer upper farm and convenient local access to
other local green space and beautiful settings for filming and inclusion in many of our episodes. A CSO
protects ecologicall y significant open space. Urban and suburban land development affects biodiversity
with habitat loss and many native species wiped out in the process. With conventional development ,
wildlife habitats become fragmented and degraded. CVO gives wildlife a much better chance to survive
in undisturbed natural open space. A growing trend around the country and in Georgia is the popularity
of homegrown or locally sourced organic food and community gardens . The open space in conservation
subdivisions would be a perfect place for such amenities. In our show, we have featured conservation
subdivisions around the country with these types of amenities. Interestingly, it is the most sought after
amenity even more than swim and tennis.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 ,2015 at 6:00pm
Page 12 of30
Wesley Randall, 410 Powers Court Avenue, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am in support of the CSO. I have lived in Milton my whole life and the CSO will support what makes
Milton special.
Brian Smith, 1060 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I would like to talk to you about the profitability of Conservation Subdivisions . There is ample research
and written literature that is widely available on this topic. Evidence clearly shows that if it is done
properly with at least 50% of the buildable land set aside for conservation, there are lower infrastructure
costs, increased property values , and increased property value appreciation. Lower infrastructure costs
come primarily through reduced necessity and cost of grading as extensively as compared to
conventional subdivisions. In conventional subdivisions , grading is usually done on the entire plat while
in a conservation subdivision area design it can be reduced as much as 50%. In our city, the use of
technologicall y advanced cluster septic systems will also reduce grading costs significantly because the
large deep trenches and land disturbance needed for traditional individual septic tanks will be replaced
with very small and shallow drainage pipes in a cluster system. These pipes can be placed to
accommodate trees and do not need the same topographical grade as the less sophisticated systems now
in use in our community. Storm water management will require less grading due to the elimination of
curbs which are a typically less impervious surface and through less disturbance of natural topography.
These savings are shown to reduce infrastructure costs anywhere from 20-35%. The National
Association of Homebuilders estimates that conservation subdivisions can reduce total infrastructure
costs during development by as much as 34%. In addition, conservation subdivisions increase property
values and property appreciation. People pay more for homes near green space be it near golf courses ,
parks , the Alpharetta Greenway , the Atlanta Beltline , and Central Park in New York. Homes in
conservation subdivisions appreciate 3-5 % more annually than homes in conventional subdivisions on
significantly larger lots. The same trend has been shown in regards to time on the market. These homes
simply sell faster. There are numerous studies providing supporting evidence for each of these points
and there is no reason to think that there would be any difference here in Milton. In conclusion, there is
ample evidence to support conservation subdivisions which are a viable and profitable design to
develop. We need conservation subdi vision designs to offer to new and existing residents and not be
complacent with the status quo .
Laura Rencher, 1060 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am here tonight to speak on behalf of Preserve Rural Milton. When our organization was founded , we
made a commitment to find the best and most applicable method to help our city with rural character
preservation and conservation. This is because we are looking for real answers to address the lack of
balance between development and land conservation in our city ; real answers that other communities
have used successfully. For the past eighteen months , we have gathered research, consulted with
planning and conservation professionals and as a result , we can confidently say that we support a
conservation subdivision ordinance for the city. As we see it, one of the largest problems is the AG-1
zoning category that is being used for residential development. As the property values in the city have
gone up , optimal profit comes through optimal density. As it is now, the options for layout are very
limited by AG-1 one acre lot zoning. As a result, most subdivisions look like cookie cutters of each
other with no creativity and complete grading and removal of trees leaving no natural land or green
space or a place for wildlife to live. All these aspects that make Milton special are being lost in the
process. This problem with one acre lot zoning is widely documented in planning smart growth and
sustainability in sustainable community literature. The fact is that our community 's rigid focus on AG-1
as a preservation tool has been a fallacy and the unintended consequences have resulted in the AG-1 one
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 ,2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 13 of30
acre lot sprawl and rapid loss of green space and rural views that we are witnessing today. The current
AG-1 zoning in the city 's Comprehensive Plan for the future will result in all the remaining land be
subdivided into one acre lots. We are heading very rapidly toward this by devouring more than 400
acres or more every year. This ordinance will affect only 3,200 acres if the ordinance is applied to 20
acre plats or more. This is only 7% of the total acreage in the city. 7%----that is all the large plats we
have left. The AG-1 zoning category has little in it to protect the rural character and green space in the
city and legally changing it is a nightmare. If we continue to as we are , we are going to be one huge
HOA and become another example of suburban planning gone wrong. Milton prides itself on rural
character. The primary parts of this are the rural vistas , horse farms , and reminisce of life based on
agriculture. According to Preserve Rural Milton 's recent survey , the rural character is the number one
reason the majority of people choose to live here. It keeps our property values high and retains our
quality of life. This is what gives Milton its sense of place. The retention of the unique sense of place is
what makes cities thrive with a greater sense of community , better quality of life , and retention of
desirability as a resident. These , in turn , result in increasing property values. The conservation
subdivision ordinance is an important part of being able to retain these elements that create our sense of
place. CSO's are considered a forward thinking zoning method that addresses the need for organized
and thoughtful presentation of green space to aid in changing ever expanding development and loss of
natural and agricultural land . This ordinance does not stop anyone from making maximum return on
their land. It does not require changes on the part of any stakeholder other than the developers. It does
not stop development but it does help Milton retain the small amount of scenic views , trees, and wildlife
habitat that we have left. More importantly , it creates a balance. The city was formed for this very
reason; to assert control over development. The city has the power to do this provided by the Georgia
Supreme Court. Our Comprehensive Plan and mission justifies these actions instituting a strong
ordinance guiding development is a city 's legal right.
Francia Lindon, 14810 East Bluff Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I have been a resident since 1993 . I live on about 3 \12 acres ofland in which about 2/3 of it is kept in its
natural state and it has been a joy. I routinely see boxed turtles , deer, rabbits ; we have two varieties of
wild orchids on our property , native azaleas , and a number of plants I can 't even mention. I have
studied for a long time the conservation subdivision ordinance and looked at possibilities that are being
done across the country and I really think that looking into this would be a good step forward for Milton
because it would give the city the ability to acquire , without purchase , undisturbed land that would be
kept permanently green. It would give a wildlife corridor for wildlife that wouldn 't be preserved under
conventional development. Drafting a CSO also represents a major challenge for Community
Development and City Council to codify an ordinance that accomplishes the benefits of all that is
available through a conservation subdivision without compromising its intent. It has to be well written
and well researched. I appreciate the city 's efforts to reach out to professionals in this area and get their
expertise so you make a decision that is based on good , solid , scientific evidence. I have met a number
of residents who own large tracts of land who are very interested in developing them according to a
conservation subdivision. I think they deserve that opportunity . They have lived here for a long time
and in one case more than two generations and they are really interested in doing the right thing. They
understand what this concept offers and they are enthusiastic about it. I think City Council has a
responsibility to respond to that element in our community.
The possibility of enacting a Conservation Subdivision ordinance is perhaps one of the most significant
steps Milton can take in addressing the current problems associated with continued use of AG-1 to
protect our "rural " character. As most of us have witnessed , AG-1 is not working. The overwhelming
advantage to a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance is its ability to give the City permanently protected
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 ,2015 at 6:00pm
Page 14 of30
open land without creating a legal taking from landowners or developers. It represents a way to balance
two competing interests , profits vs. preservation. Drafting a CSO also represents a major challenge for
Community Development and City Council to codify an ordinance that accomplishes the potential
benefits without compromising its intent. I full y appreciate all your efforts to understand the issues and
to analyze all aspects before something is finalized . Education is the best antidote for unintended
consequences. There should be no artificial deadline imposed on this effort. I also appreciate the City's
willingness to bring in outside experts and professionals to help in getting to the best ordinance possible.
Continued efforts in this direction will show meaningful leadership in determining Milton 's Legacy. I
should be clear -current zoning laws are not working at preserving what Milton is now . All anyone has
to do is drive around to see blatant examples of the destruction of our rural view-shed , clear-cutting of
woods, even removal of a hill , all in the name of maximizing development potential. If the City doesn 't
enact a CSO and /or make major changes to AG-1 , and adhere to enforcement, there is little hope of
anything changing for the better. And there is absolutely no hope the City will acquire or be able to
protect large segments of contiguous open space , a main element essential to our "rural " character. Over
the course of this conversation, a few long-time residents , who are also large parcel landowners have
stepped forward . The dialogue over a conservation design has given them a renewed sense of
enthusiasm , a path forward. These residents deserve a CSO , as an option, which would allow them to
develop according to their values and the vision they have for their land. In the face of increasing taxes
and development pressures , they deserve the choice to develop in a way they see as environmentally
sensitive and sustainable. They get it. More than developers with offices in another city , people who live
here and will remain here deserve a CSO to develop something they and their children can live with
knowing they did the right thing.
Kathleen Johnson, 385 Taylor Glen Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am in support of the CSO. I think the whole reason we are here is because we all know that Milton is a
special place because of its character and rural feel which is different than the surrounding areas;
Alpharetta, Roswell , East Cobb. We realize development is coming and it is coming fast so we need to
do something about it. I think the CSO is a great tool. It still allows the same amount of houses so for
people who are selling their land there will be the same amount of density but it gives the open space
which helps our rural character. Some people speak of the AG-1 and say that we can enhance it. AG-1
with one acre lots equal suburban sprawl ; enhanced AG-1 equals upscale suburban sprawl. It is upscale
suburbia it is not the rural feel. The Georgia constitution gives local governments broad zoning powers.
In addition , you can add to the CVO ordinance that only community septic is only allowed in
conservation subdivisions. Community septic can be limited to onl y conservation subdivisions. In
addition , you can make conservation subdivisions density neutral. You don 't have to give developers
bonuses . However , what you can do is give them credits. If they conserve land and make it a
conservation easement, you can give them credits . Open space and green space can be limited to non-
active uses such as drainage fields , horse farms , trails , etc. This needs to be mandatory and not optional
with very few exceptions. Also , if community septic systems fail , then the HOA has capital funds that
can be used to repair it. If people complain about houses on small lots , just look at the Crabapple
community. There are many houses on small lots and they are selling very fast.
Margaret Lootens, 3515 Peacock Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I live just about one mile away from city hall right around the comer. I was drawn to Milton because of
the natural beauty of the area. I agree with all the comments that have been made tonight about the
wonderful wildlife and nature that surrounds us as well as the quality of the water and air. I would have
loved to have moved into a conservation subdi vision that would have given my husband and I the
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 , 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 15 of30
opportunity to live on a smaller piece of land and have a beautiful park setting to go out and walk our
dog and enjoy the outdoors without having to get in a car. We did not find that available here in Milton
except for parts of Crabapple. It would be nice for people to have that option, especially older
individuals, who are not interested in maintaining a huge house. We do not have children to fill a big
house and we don't have the energy to maintain a big yard. We would rather devote our time, energy,
and financial resources to pursuing charitable causes that are important to us like preserving wildlife,
ensuring abandoned pets have homes, etc. I just read the other day that it is expected that Baby
Boomers will turn 65 years old at about the rate of 8,000 per day for the next 18 years. That is a lot of
people who are turning retirement age and thinking about their next stage in life. One of the things they
recommend to this age group is to downsize. Shed the burden of home upkeep, obtain a lifestyle
upgrade , and live the motto that "less stuff is more life." This is an opportunity for the city to embrace
an option for many citizens.
Scott Reece, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004
I have attended all the meetings for the CSO. I think it has many good qualities but I think those
qualities are tied to only large scale development. The smaller properties; I know everyone seems to
gloss over the septic problem, but I have not seen definitive answers for projects less than 50 units.
When the group from the Environmental Protection Department came in, they limited their oversite on
the general permit to 67 bedroom developments equal to somewhere around 20 home neighborhoods. If
we are going to do the CSO, we really need to address the septic problem on the front end. We need to
get the answers before the ordinance is passed. As a large tract landowner, if a CSO is created then it
needs to be an option not mandatory. It needs to have incentives.
Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlet Oak Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004
Unlike many of the people who have spoken tonight , I actually build subdivisions. I have won national
awards for building conservation subdivisions. In fact , I have had the privilege of taking some of the
councilmembers to those subdivisions. I want to make sure that everyone understands that those were
built on sewered land. They were not on septic . Conservation Subdivisions are fine for sewered land.
They are very dangerous if they are on septic and if they are small projects. These are not examples that
you want to put on five acre projects. This is not something you want to have in your community. You
do not want to have decentralized systems all over the community. I am on the committee for the North
Georgia Water Planning District which represents the Oconee and Etowah River. Again, septic is not
always the cleanest way to treat water. If you want to have conservation subdivisions, you need to
extend sewer. I saw in Sandy Springs how those septic systems failed and Long Island Creek, etc. are
essentially cesspools. We need to be very careful. A CSO is not going to magically make everything
great. One acre lot subdivisions have been wonderful for the community. So , now you want to throw
all that away and say no more one acre lot subdivisions. That is crazy. Make it a zoning classification.
Allow people to build it if they want to but do not make it mandatory. Also , don't make it mandatory
for anyone but especially the landowner who owns five acres. Make it for at least a 30-40 acre tract of
land. In addition , it is unheard of to make 60% of the property be in conservation. Most of the
conservation laws I have seen are at 30%. Even the project that I built and received a national award for
only required 30% of the property to be in conservation. Also, the ordinance in question doesn't allow
cui-de-sacs. How do you require all subdivisions to be looped streets? There are a lot of problems with
the ordinance. If we really want to get serious about this, sit down with developers, environmental
groups , etc. and we will hash this out. I do not think it is going to work the way it is written today.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, Jul y 13 ,2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 16 of30
Laurel Florio, 790 Gates Mill Way, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am here tonight to show my support for continuing to refine and ultimately implement a CSO. For the
last 18 months, the city has done a lot of talking about conservation and the desire to save the rural
community of Milton and the life that makes it unique. Many taxpayer dollars have been spent to that
endeavor but to no avail. Currently , we are seeing increased and continuous development all over the
city with no programs in place to minimize the destruction to the rural view shed as well as the wildlife
habitat that once graced our roadways. Yet , within our grasp is the CSO that, although not perfect ,
could halt some of the destruction of the dwindling green space within our city. The conservation
subdivision concept , albeit a planning tool rather than a preservation tool , has been used in various parts
of the country successfull y for years. Although a planning tool , it successfully utilizes the concept of
conservation easements to preserve those very fine and distinct conservation values within those areas to
be protected . That is one of the reasons it has been such a success as coupling with development as well
as preservation makes it a special place. Leadership in many communities that have experienced similar
growth like Milton chose to utilize this tool to accomplish two goals ; to continue development and to
preserve the land. It has been a win-win for those de velopers and citizens. Conservation Subdivisions
have been used in Louisville , Kentucky near the Ohio River with great success. I ask that you continue
to refine the CSO drafts that are circulating and request that the Planning Commission revisit the
concept. What other choices do we have ? What other viable conservation programs are in place right
now to protect the open land and spaces and curtail development? It is up to you to request that the
administration put aside the pro-development stance and take into consideration the desires of the true
stakeholders of the city-the citizens. The city 's existing zoning regulations and setbacks have not been
effective at preserving the city 's rural character. We either look at redefining the current AG-1
classification of zoning , like they did successfull y in Athens , GA , or we look at a CSO to help curtail the
growth.
Carl Jones, 730 Richmond Glen Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
I have been a member of this community for 13 years. We are presently developing on Birmingham
Highway 68 acres consisting of 51 homes. We also have another track of land directly across the street
which is another 68 acres and hope to put 43 homes on it. I'm opposed to the CSO. We are talking
• about someone else 's property. This is wrong and it constitutes a taking of the property without just
payment. A well-known soil scientist met with Tom Cousins of Cousins Properties and he told a group
of us that it is almost impossible to get anything approved by the EPA. In addition , the trust indenture is
a problem. You are talking about a minimum of $300 ,000. It would break most HOA 's. It has to be a
third party and then you are paying that individual if that individual is willing to finance it. The trust
indenture is not a proven concept. Blaylock has been through this process without success. CSO is the
detriment to long term property owners who want to leave their land to their children , sell it , or
whatever. I implore you to either not create a CSO or if you do , make it an option , not mandatory.
Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am a strong proponent of preserving the rural character of our community. There are many tools that
the city is using to preserve the rural nature such as impact fees , bond for green space , conservation
easements , enhancing the AG-1 standards , etc. I am very concerned , however , with the most recent
draft of the CSO. It does have many community issues and risks. We need to examine those and not
just assume that the general concept of a CSO is appropriate for Milton. The risks are real. The
Planning Commission spent a great deal of time and effort. They had multiple meetings and discussions
and met with experts. They then voted unanimously not to recommend pursuing a CSO based on the
risks that various citizens have identified. I think it is important to realize that we can all be for
preservation and perhaps still be concerned with this CSO. The issue regarding density needs to be
·---------------------~-~---------------------.... 1
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 , 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 17 of30
addressed. Community septic systems have risks specifically the costs associated with them and health
issues if they fail. The City Manager recognized the financial risks associated with community septic
systems and the Planning Commission sited it as one of their reasons for voting against the CSO. The
language regarding community septic systems is too vague. The high density issues need to be
addressed. According to the expert, a CSO does not guarantee density neutrality. The CSO includes
many things that are clearly not green space preservation such as 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. Again, these items do not
constitute green space. Unfortunately , the current CSO draft allows these areas to be considered green
space. In addition , a 50 foot buffer is not sufficient. Buffers should be at least 150 feet. It also states
that buffers can be disturbed but replanted. A disturbed buffer is not an undisturbed buffer. In addition ,
it also has a very limited public input process. It states that site visits do not require adjacent landowners
to be included. Notice in the local newspapers only requires 15 days prior to a hearing of the Planning
Commission. Posted signs are only required to be up 10 days prior to a hearing of the Planning
Commission. There is no mention of the previously required Community Zoning Information Meeting
and developers are not required to send letters of notice to nearby landowners as has been historically
required of other zonings. Density bonuses are being offered to developers up to 10% at the discretion
of the Community Development Department. No such density bonuses should be permitted. Setbacks
are too minimal as well. Minimal separation is not rural nor is it in keeping with the current rural
environment. Landowners do not want high density subdivisions in their backyard. Conservation
subdivisions on 5 acres or less are not acceptable due to the high density and community septic systems.
I support a green Milton but we cannot just look at a CSO without looking at the risks and the specific
language that this proposed CSO contains. The current CSO draft that is up for consideration is not
density neutral and does not do the things that many people seem to think it will do. It is not acceptable.
As Laurel Florio mentioned , there can be changes made to the current AG-1 zoning regulations that can
help preserve the rural character such as keeping undisturbed buffers undisturbed , increasing the
setbacks , require a certain percentage of native ground co ver and trees to remain undisturbed , enhance
the tree save requirements and enhance the tree ordinance itself, allow for more narrow streets , eliminate
curb and gutter requirements , require certain lighting , minimize the amount of night sky that is being
negated , etc. All of these options can be addressed .
The following names and addresses were read into the record only. Comments were emailed to the
City Clerk and incorporated into the minutes.
Andrea Bartels, 410 Sablewood Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am writing to urge you to approve a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for our City. It will be a
welcome change to the AG-1 zoning that has done little to protect the rural character of Milton. We
have plenty of one acre subdivision homes , it is time to achieve a balance in housing options. The urban
sprawl that has occurred in Milton over especially the last couple of years , has affected bio-diversity and
many wildlife habitats have been lost, tree canop y reduced and native species of plants are being lost to
development. Over the last year while the City has been working on these Conservation Subdivision
drafts , we have witnessed an alarming change in the rural character and beauty of the City. It's time to
put closure on this! I am in favor of a CS design ordinance that integrates both development interests
and open space protection and determines how the property will be developed based on ecological
features of a site. Our famil y moved to Milton largely because of the rural look and feel of the
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, Jul y I 3, 20 I 5 at 6:00pm
Page 18 of30
community and to think that Milton will lose that character the way our AG-1 zoning allows
development is very upsetting to us . We realize that conservation subdivisions won't be the only way to
protect the green space, scenic and rural views , but with the limited land we have remaining , CS should
be the preferred method of development. A Conservation Subdivision Ordinance will achieve a balance
between development pressures and land conservation and , it won't cost the taxpayers. I strongly support
the approval of a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for Milton.
Debbie & Gregg Beauchamp, 500 Hickory Mill Lane, Milton, GA 30004
We are writing to urge you to approve a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for our City. It will be a
welcome change to the AG1 zoning that has done little to protect the rural character of Milton. We have
plenty of one acre subdivision homes , it is time to achieve a balance in housing options. The urban
sprawl that has occurred in Milton over especially the last couple of years has affected biodiversity and
many wildlife habitats have been lost , tree canopy reduced and native species of plants are being lost to
development. Over the last year while the City has been working on these Conservation Subdivision
drafts , we have witnessed an alarming change in the rural character and beauty of the City. It's time to
put closure on this! We are in favor of a CS design ordinance that integrates both development interests
and open space protection and determines how the property will be developed based on ecological
features of a site . We moved to Milton last year largely because of the rural look and feel of the
community and to think that Milton will lose that character the way our AG 1 zoning allows
development is very upsetting to us. We realize that conservation subdivisions won't be the only way to
protect the green space , scenic and rural views , but with the limited land we have remaining , CS should
be the preferred method of development. A Conservation Subdivision Ordinance will achieve a balance
between development pressures and land conservation and , it won't cost the taxpayers. We strongly
support the approval of a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for Milton.
Jim Bell, 1150 Birmingham Rd, Milton, Georgia 30004
I would like to voice my support for a MANDATORY conservation subdivision ordinance. Our rural
character and charm is being quickly gobbled up by one acre lot subdivisions. We need to do something
NOW and TDR's or bonds In My Honest Opinion will be too little too late.
Lindsey M. Birt, 13545 Blakmaral Lane, Milton Georgia 30004
In the almost ten years we have lived in Milton , we have seen it change so much . Some for the good ,
and some not so good. We tried to do our part by selling our house in 2013 , and searching far and wide
for as much land as we could afford. Unfortunately , no one wanted to play ball with us . We had a
healthy budget , and a great plan of a smaller (3500 sq ft) farmhouse designed by Tim Bryan. Capstone
building had agreed to build our home , and we were li ving in my in-laws basement READY to buy a
large parcel in Milton and farm it (we had dreams of cows ... think Rooster Ridge farm on Dorris Road).
We were even willing to add an apartment over our "planned" garage and ONLY build that (1000 sq ft),
and live in it for a few years ... to allow us to increase our land budget. However, NO ONE (not even the
banks) wanted to play ball with that. So sadly we had to come to terms that our "dream" was NOT
going to come true in Milton. We did end up finding a great compromise , and bought a friend 's house
down the road from our old house (the one we just sold). It's not a farm with cows , but it is AG-1 , on a
quiet dead-end road , with 4 acres , lots of privacy and a creek. So we feel happy and pleased to have it. I
tell you all of this , because this "development" issue it truly out of the citizens hands. Do you know how
many families I know that have TRIED to do what we did , right here in Milton?!? One moved , and
bought in Cherokee , because Milton land pricing was not working for them. Another took their local
boarded horses , sold their house in WCC , and moved to land in North Florida ... because Milton and
close-in Cherokee was "too expensive , and everyone wants developer pricing" .... another moved to
--·------~~--~---------------~--~-
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 ,2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 19 of30
Watkinsville, because "our purse-strings are too strapped here, when it comes to buying a homestead".
Lastly, the others reluctantly had to buy in neighborhoods ... and keep doing the same old thing ... "well, at
least if we have to sell in the future , it should be market ready". Something has to be done to keep the
rural character of Milton , because frankly the citizens who TRULY care about this area (want to raise
their families here long-term , not just a temporary stop on the map) have their hands tied! Implementing
the "Conservative Subdivision Ordinance" is a HUGE step in the right direction. Why not take the land ,
and work with it, keeping its charm, and disturbing it as little as possible. It not only will be great for
wildlife , pollution, and the community ... but has to be a win for those looking to purchase those homes as
well. The developers will STILL make money, and we all are left with something MUCH
nicer. ... seriously , why wouldn't we do this ... ? I will sign-off on that note. Many thanks for all you, and
the other city council members do , to keep Milton ... Milton.
Amy Christiansen
I would like it read into the record that as a 12 year resident of Milton, living on acreage , that I am in
support of the conservation subdivision ordinance as a way to preserve the rapidly disappearing
character of our city.
David Damiani, 935 Post Oak Close, Milton GA 30004
I am following-up on my June 24th email expressing my opposition to the CSO in its current form. I
urge each of you to follow the Planning Commission 's unanimous vote to deny this ordinance. There
appear to be a couple of viable alternatives to the current plan, and therefore no immediate need to
approve this proposal. I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting on July 20th due to travel
conflicts and ask that my viewpoint be noted for the record .
Dottie Head, 800 Colonial Lane, Milton, GA 30004
Our family moved to the White Columns area of Milton four years ago from Johns Creek because of the
excellent schools in Milton as well as the rural and scenic beauty of the City. My husband was born and
raised in Cherokee County , but we chose Milton over Cherokee specifically because Fulton provided
high quality schools and a rural community feel. In the 12 years we lived in Johns Creek, we saw
development explode and all of the downsides associated with that growth ..... overcrowded school,
horrific traffic congestion, and loss of wild spaces for animals and people. Over the past year, we have
been following the Preserve Rural Milton initiative with great interest. We very much appreciate the
work PRM has been doing in trying to find solutions to conserve land while continuing to allow
responsible development. We totally understand that Milton can't just close its doors and not allow
anyone else to move here. However, I strongly believe the City of Milton has the right , as directed by
the Comprehensive plan, to shape how and where that development occurs. I think you have heard loud
and clear from the community that residents want to preserve the rural character of the City and are not
happy at the way the rampant development is occurring with little or no preservation of green space,
rural views or wildlife habitats. Nearly every time I drive around Milton, I am shocked by how fast
property is being purchased and developed. The most recent example is along New Providence Road
across from Gates Mill subdivision. I drive that route daily , and , as we speak, bulldozers are leveling
the trees in that beautiful wildlife habitat. It is clear to me that the AG 1 zoning that is in place is NOT
doing the job of preserving the rural look and feel of the community. It is only doing the job of making
Milton look like one subdivision after another, with pretty homes from the $700's and up. At the rate we
are going , we'll be back to the same scenario we left in Johns Creek within a few years ...... overcrowded
schools and roads ill equipped to handle the volume of neighborhoods that have been built along them.
Again, we chose to move to Milton because of the unique sense of place in the community. No other
city in North Fulton has the opportunity that Milton has to preserve some of the beautiful land that is
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 , 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 20 of30
left , along with the rural views , wildlife areas , and trees. Please don't allow the urban sprawl to
consume Milton like it has Johns Creek and many other cities in metro Atlanta. Milton's unique charm
will disappear. The City needs a conservation subdi vision ordinance. It was recommended by the
Conservation expert in the City's conservation plan. It is listed in Mayor Lockwood's legacy project,
and I believe it is an excellent tool that can some of Milton's green space , and offer residents , including
new residents-a housing/lifestyle choice that we currently don't have in Milton. I understand that there
are some details that need to be ironed out, but if this can be done then Milton can be viewed as a
statewide leader in responsible development and set a clear roadmap for how our remaining land is
developed. I urge you to pass a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance as soon as possible , so that we can
begin treating this beautiful land in Milton with the respect and dignity that it deserves in a thoughtful ,
,well-planned development approach that will prevent our beautiful city from turning into just another
overcrowded , under-planned suburb. Thank you for your consideration.
Chad and Donna Johnson, 115 Canongate Kirk Circle, Milton, GA 30004
We only have one chance to get this right and save the wonderful , special character of our City.
I am writing to urge you to approve a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for our City. It will be a
welcome change to the AGl zoning that has done little to protect the rural character of Milton. We have
plenty of one acre subdivision homes , it is time to achieve a balance in housing options. The urban
sprawl that has occurred in Milton over especially the last couple of years , has affected biodiversity and
many wildlife habitats have been lost, tree canopy reduced and native species of plants are being lost to
development. Over the last year while the City has been working on these Conservation Subdivision
drafts , we have witnessed an alarming change in the rural character and beauty of the City. It's time to
put closure on this! I am in favor of a CS design ordinance that integrates both development interests
and open space protection and determines how the property will be developed based on ecological
features of a site. Our family moved to Milton largely because of the rural look and feel of the
community and to think that Milton will lose that character the way our AG 1 zoning allows
development is very upsetting to us. We realize that conservation subdivisions won't be the only way to
protect the green space , scenic and rural views , but with the limited land we have remaining , CS should
be the preferred method of development. A Conservation Subdivision Ordinance will achieve a balance
between development pressures and land conservation and , it won't cost the taxpayers.
I strongly support the approval of a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for Milton .
Nancy Chloe Lewis, 2835 Mountain Road, Milton, GA 30004
Since I am unable to attend the next two city council meetings , I am writing this email to be read into the
record expressing my full support of the Milton Conservation Subdivision Ordinance . As Milton
residents for the last seven years , my husband and I have watched in disbelief at the recent upturn in
wholesale destruction of large swaths of lovely rural areas , forests and pastures in the Milton area. The
Conservation Subdivision idea seems to be the best solution I've seen in getting a handle on this difficult
and complex issue. Please endorse and pass this ordinance before rural Milton is lost beyond repair.
Thank you for your attention.
Liz Parks, 1770 Providence Farms Lane, Milton, GA 30009
I am writing to urge you to approve a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for our City. It will be a
welcome change to the AGl zoning that has done little to protect the rural character ofMilton. We have
plenty of one acre subdivision homes , it is time to achieve a balance in housing options. The urban
sprawl that has occurred in Milton over especially the last couple of years , has affected biodiversity and
many wildlife habitats have been lost , tree canopy reduced and native species of plants are being lost to
development. Over the last year while the City has been working on these Conservation Subdivision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, Jul y 13 ,2015 at 6:00pm
Page 21 of30
drafts , we have witnessed an alarming change in the rural character and beauty of the City. It's time to
put closure on this! I am in favor of a CS design ordinance that integrates both development interests
and open space protection and determines how the property will be developed based on ecological
features of a site. Our family moved to Milton largely because of the rural look and feel of the
community and to think that Milton will lose that character the way our AG 1 zoning allows
development is very upsetting to us. We realize that conservation subdivisions won't be the only way to
protect the green space , scenic and rural views , but with the limited land we have remaining , CS should
be the preferred method of development. A Conservation Subdivision Ordinance will achieve a balance
between development pressures and land conservation and , it won't cost the taxpayers. Our family lived
for 10 years in a Conservation Subdivision called Rivermoore Park, in Suwanee. Rivermoore Park is an
award winning subdivision and an example of how development can work hand in hand with
conservation. I strongly support the approval of a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for Milton.
Bill Quillen, 115 Liberty Grove Pass, Milton, GA 30004
I would like to voice my strong opposition to the flawed proposed CSO ordinance. It is a terrible idea
for Milton and a poor choice of zoning. My wife and our family of four live in Blue Valley , and none
of our neighbors support the CSO . Conservation subdivisions are a tired old idea full of pitfalls , they
have been used in California and Florida for over 20 years and have disastrous side effects. The staff at
preserve rural Milton, some of which do not even live in Milton , are basing their support for the CSO on
insufficient internet research and speculation. To my knowledge , they have never actually visited a
CSO , interviewed CSO homeowners or potential de velopers , or done the necessary due diligence to
propose such a drastic change to our zoning. Sadly , PRM staff attempts to bully anyone that disagrees
with their opinion. They consistently fail to present both sides of the CSO argument and leave out
important facts that document the many shortcomings and negative side effects of the CSO. It is this
lack of transparenc y on behalf of PRM and the proposed CSO that is deceptive and misleading. There
are many legitimate and documented reasons why CSOs are not being implemented more frequently and
they center around the many negative side effects the CSO promotes through unintended consequences.
Many recent studies have proven that CSO green space often goes unmaintained by the HOA , and
becomes a fire hazard as it is adjacent to high density housing on 1/Sth of an acre lot that CSOs
encourage. In almost every CSO constructed , developers are given bonuses which allow greater density
and variance that reduce the green space as witnessed in South Florida. Developers often use
unbuildable poor quality land for the green space which reduces its value as a green space . Large scale
sewage treatment plants must be built on the green space , which are extremely expensive to construct
and maintain on a monthly basis. When these sewage treatment plants fail , which they often do , the
responsibility to rebuild them will fall on the city or county. The green space inside the CSO due to
liability issues , is almost always private land which negates much of the benefit of having it in the first
place. Se veral recent studies by leading universities have shown that bio-diversity does not thrive in the
fractured green space of CSO 's as the green space is segmented and too close to high density housing
CSOs promote. Lastly , do we really want to encourage development on 1/Sth acre lots the houses will
be on patio lots and practically on top of one another. If we were to try this type of zoning why does
PRM and CSO supporters not bring a developer and suggest a test case prior to a major and potentially
fatal change to zoning that may not even work. In the business world we must present both sides of the
argument on a test case , which the proponents of the CSO have not done. Our city deserves better, we
would be much better served with current one acre lot residential zoning and increasing the percentage
of green space through lark acquisitions , TDRs , and floating a green space bond. Please do not let a
small minority of misinformed activists with little to no zoning or development experience make such a
major and flawed large scale change to our zoning. I am on vacation this week and will be unable to
attend tonight's meeting , requesting that my letter be read aloud in the meeting.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, Jul y 13 , 2015 at 6 :00pm
Pa ge 22 of 30
Juan & Katie Salas, 125 Roxbury Row, Milton, GA 30004
I am writing to urge you to approve a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for our City. It will be a
welcome change to the AG 1 zoning that has done little to protect the rural character of Milton. We have
plenty of one acre subdivision homes , it is time to achieve a balance in housing options . The urban
sprawl that has occurred in Milton over especiall y the last couple of years , has affected biodiversity and
many wildlife habitats have been lost , tree canopy reduced and native species of plants are being lost to
development. Over the last year while the City has been working on these Conservation Subdivision
drafts , we have witnessed an alarming change in the rural character and beauty of the City. It's time to
put closure on this! I am in favor of a CS design ordinance that integrates both development interests
and open space protection and determines how the property will be developed based on ecological
features of a site. Our family moved to Milton largely because of the rural look and feel of the
community and to think that Milton will lose that character the way our AG-1 zoning allows
development is very upsetting to us . We realize that conservation subdivisions won't be the only way to
protect the green space , scenic and rural views , but with the limited land we have remaining, CS should
be the preferred method of development. A Conservation Subdivision Ordinance will achieve a balance
between development pressures and land conservation and , it won't cost the taxpayers. I strongl y
support the approval of a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance for Milton.
Julie Snyder, 565 Oakleaf Way, Milton, GA 30004
I am writing to urge you to adopt new guidelines for Subdivision development in Milton. The current
AG 1 zoning has done little to protect the rural character of Milton. Every day I see another subdivision
popping up in Milton. The y start out clearing the land behind a buffer at the road and then all of a
sudden the front of the property is cleared and there it is , another plain subdivision, lacking an y
character. I am not totall y opposed to a Conservation subdivision but I do feel it shouldn 't be the onl y
choice. As it is currently spelled out , I am very concerned about the density . I think the current zoning
should be amended to address some of the residents ' concerns. I grew up in a city that did not allow
curbs and sidewalks with huge entrances. All of the streets were blacktop which made them understated.
It helped retain the rural feel of an area. And I should mention that it is a very exclusive area with the
best schools in the state. When I look down an y existing street or new sub going up in Milton all I see
is concrete. I thought Milton was going down the path to remain rural , but now I am not so sure.
I know we cannot stop indi viduals selling their land but we can influence how it is developed. I am in
favor of subdivisions design that integrates open space protection and determines how the property will
be developed based on ecological features of a site. We moved to Milton largely because of the rural
look and I hope that Milton will not lose its character and become a Roswell or Alpharetta.
Rob and Katie Spee, 14748 Taylor Valley Way, Milton, GA 30004
As a resident of Milton for the past six years , we share your concern and desire to maintain the rural
character of Milton. Reading over the proposed CSO , we have numerous concerns , most importantly:
• The allowance of higher density , up to 5 homes per acre , from the current 1 acre zoning . This is
a complete contradiction to the stated purpose of the CSO "to maintain the low-density and rural
character of those areas so designated in those policy documents ".
• The inclusion of easements , storm and wastewater systems , detention ponds, tennis courts and
other areas as "green spaces ". These types of spaces , exchanged for higher density
development, will not preserve our rural character.
• The ability of developers to potentially build more homes on a property than without the CSO .
We urge you to reject the proposed CSO. If passed , it will lead to more development, higher density ,
more traffic , and do nothing to preserve our rural character. We urge you instead to modify our AG-1
~------------------------------------------------------------------.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, Jul y 13 , 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of30
zoning with enhancements that will go much further in achieving our objectives of preserving our rural
character. Here are 3 suggestions that would have a major impact on how properties are developed ,
while protecting the rights of the property owners:
• Increase zoning from 1 acre to 2 acres.
• Increase the setbacks and buffers .
• Enforce tree save requirements to stop the clear-cutting going on now.
Thank you for your time and efforts in preserving the character of this great town.
David & Michelle Strauss, 1835 Highgrove Club Drive, Milton, GA 30004
With regard to future land use in Milton , and more specifically The Conservation Subdivision
Ordinance , we ask for your support and consideration of the following . Like so many of the families
who reside in Milton we moved to the area almost twenty years ago to avoid the sprawl of Dunwoody.
Unincorporated Fulton County represented a beautiful and tranquil alternative to over development ,
increasing traffic and noise. Today, more commercial use, and acres of trees unnecessarily being
cleared for new sub-divisions are erasing the original vision for our city. We recognize that progress is
inevitable , and support growth now and in the future. Nonetheless , our observation is that reasonable
changes to land use policies , that would be supported by the vast majority of Milton residents , are being
subverted by a small group of land owners and developers for their benefit only. By every measure
The Conservation Subdivision Ordinance now under consideration balances the needs of current
residents , land owners , and developers. It allows for development, but with an eye toward keeping
Milton, Milton. Setting aside at least half of the land as unbuildable establishes the boundary for
progress while maintaining the natural amenities we cherish. WE URGE THE COUNCIL TO
SUPPORT CSO so that current and future residents continue to call Milton home with pride.
End of Public Comment
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
As you know, staff has been working on this item for several months. As part of this initiative we have
hired Don Broussard and Bruce MacGregor as our consultants assisting us with this effort. I would like
to bring Don up to present his draft ordinance that is before you this evening.
Don Broussard, Town Planning and Design, LLC
Let me do a quick review on conservation subdi vision and then will take questions.
I think the public meetings , 1 0 in all , we have been very productive. The public has had a lot of
opportunity to engage and express their thoughts on the matter. I feel most understand the concept but if
there are those · who do not , I will say conservation subdivisions are simply golf course subdivisions ,
without the golf course. In place of a golf course you could have a working farm , a natural forest ,
wetlands , equestrian uses , just a whole variety of options. This has been a concept that has been around
for 25 -30 years. It was pioneered and popularized by Randall Arendt.
The key elements of the ordinance draft are:
• 60% open space would be required of the gross track area.
• Conservation subdi visions would be re viewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
• Conventional subdivisions in AG-1 zoning must obtain a Use Permit after a public hearing from
the Mayor and Council.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 , 2015 at 6:00pm
Page 24 of30
• Yield Plan is based on zoning density standards . AG-1 should become the basis of the yield plan
by which density is determined for the conservation subdivision. It should not be the Fulton
County Health Department's regulations about septic tanks. No septic tanks will be built on the
lots. No septic tank permits will be obtained . It does not make sense to require septic tank
requirements and compliance if no septic tanks are going to be put in place.
• Sets a minimum lot size of 8,000 sq. feet and sets a limit on the percentage of lots that can be
that size. The intention again is to provide for a variety of lot sizes in the conservation
subdivision. There will be lots bigger and smaller than the minimum lot size of 8,000 sq. feet.
• Buffer standards are treated in this draft . AG-1 requires 40 foot minimum.
The required plans that are in the ordinance are :
• Context Map which shows the location of the proposed subdivision in relation to the surrounding
roadways and developments .
• Existing Resource Map which is a map that dives deep into the forest , dwellings , resources ,
historic structures that are all currently on one 's property.
• Yield Plan is basically a sketch plan that designs a street system and a lot pattern, as if it was a
conventional development. This sets the density for the track and applies the AG-1 principles to
the lots.
• Site Elevation Plan will show what the development will look like from the adjoining public
roadways . This will give a realistic view of how the conservation subdivision will look with the
remaining trees and building frontage applied.
• Sketch Plan is a rough drawing showing what the conservation subdivision really may look like.
Hand drawn and easy to overlay on top of the existing resources map.
• Concept Plan is the basically the preliminary plat which is defined in the subdivision regulations
ofthe City of Milton. Once it is filed it has 30 days to be approved.
• Site visit is extremely important to this whole process. The ability to walk the land and discuss
the issues with his staff and designer , as well as neighbors , has real value that will tum into better
quality development.
Next , we have a chart from the publications of the North Georgia Water Planning Districts and their
study on how problematic conventional septic tanks are and how often they fail. When you get into this
discussion of the pros and cons of waste systems , it is not really fair to point the finger at one particular
type of waste system without looking at the know flaws and shortcomings of the conventional septic
tank systems . There is no consistency within the counties of Georgia in regards to acreage with septic
tanks .
Street systems. Street systems can add or detract from the rural natural look. We proposed road
standards that would minimize cul-de-sacs and embrace the loop street as an alternative, downsizing the
width of the street. Also allows the Public Works director to wave curb and gutter for any street that
serves less than 50 units per acre. We should consider a more rural and a slower speed roadway that can
accommodate people on horseback or children on bikes. Less paving equals less storm water runoff,
less taxes , less costs to home buyer and repairs.
Conservation subdivisions may be pushing the envelope in metropolitan Atlanta but they have been
going on since the mid 80 's. This national survey shows that over 177 ,000 acres of green space has
been preserved because of conservation subdivisions. The average size of the conservation subdivisions
is 80 acres . Conservation subdivisions have been very popular in Colorado and the fast growing states
of the west. Half the counties in North Carolina have adopted conservation subdivision ordinances.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 , 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 25 of30
Wast e w a ter t r eatment systems and water wells may be placed in suitable locations within secondary
conservation areas. The locations shall be established in conformity with plans and permits from the
Georgia Environmental Protection Division or the Fulton County Health Department as appropriate.
Conventional septic tanks will not be an option if you are trying to have 60% open space , you must
reduce the lot sizes and go with a non-conventional waste water treatment system.
Reducing the lot sizes will not in effect take away any property from anyone. Ownership and
maintenance of individual septic tank systems shall be the responsibility of the individual lot owner.
Community wastewater system ownership and maintenance rest with the developer, HOA or
owner/operator licensed by the State of Georgia to operate such a system. The City of Milton is
authorized to serve as a trustee for a community wastewater system. The trustee is the third line of
defense. The postage stamp lot idea has been thrown out there and considered a danger to the City of
Milton. Those lots must not be much of a danger if they are selling from $400,000 -$700,000 in
Vickery on lots below half an acre. The market seems to speak loudly. The Crabapple area here is a
good example and it is a good , high quality designed and constructed homes.
There is 5,000 AG-1 acres left in Milton. There is another 5,000 acres of agricultural , equestrian , estate
parcels. These parcels or parts of these parcels could conceivably evolve into conservation subdivisions.
The conservation study that was done last year forecasted over the next 16 years new residential
development would use about 5,000 acres. If your conservation ordinance was in place at a 60 %
requirement level , that is 3 ,000 acres of green space that would be protected at zero cost to the tax
payers for the City of Milton. There is another objective we need to keep in mind with conservation
subdivisions and that is conservation subdivisions provide the best tool to achieve historic preservation.
It allows your planning staff to use the historic preservation inventories that have been completed and
protect those lands by telling the developers to place those into a non-buildable green space area.
What we have learned from these meetings:
• Community waste systems are not an obstacle to conservation design.
• Lot sizes under a half an acre are not a problem.
• Conservation subdivisions may be a barrier for some developers. If conventional one acre
subdivisions have an easier path , then conservation subdivision will not be embraced by most
developers. The playing field needs to be leveled somehow.
• Higher profitability and faster sales will come with conservation subdivisions.
• Milton's rural character will be protected with conservation subdivisions. The 3,000 acres
would be permanent green space and protected by private conservational easements.
• Our best local example is in South Fulton County and it is called Serenbe. The quality of the
development and homes is outstanding. It truly is an agricultural , rural themed development
that would translate here.
C ouncilmember T hurman
I still believe that conservation subdivisions should be a tool we use but I think we need the Planning
Commissions help with figuring out the details with it all.
I have 11 details that I think we need to make decisions on are the following:
• Whether or not things are optional vs. mandatory and at what acres they become optional or
mandatory
• The size of parcels effected
• Lot sizes and house sizes allowed
• Percent of land to be preserved
• Is there a density bonus
• Number of lots allowed
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 ,2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 26 of30
• Setback and buffers. We want to make sure it is not just the unbuildable land that is preserved .
• Permitted uses in green space
• Look at the layout of the subdivisions , cul-de-sac , loop roads , streams , wetlands , infrastructure ,
historical structures
• Wastewater issues -community or septic -who is going to own it
• Maintenance of the property preserve -who is responsible for it
• Notifications to the community so they know and have input what is going to be put in their
neighborhood.
These 11 issues I believe we should address but I still believe that conservation subdivision would be a
good tool for Milton.
Mayor Lockwood
Based on public comment and emails there seems to be a divided decision, but in reality we all are
looking for the same thing and that is preserving land. There may be some middle ground that can work
for both sides . I personally love the concept. Serenbe is a good example but I don't know if that really
fits Milton, because as you said, there is not that much open land.
Councilmember Mohrig
I agree with a number of things Karen pointed out. I think we have spent a lot of time on so far and I
think we need to refine it further. One question I have is as a Staff have we looked at any changes to
what we consider today AG-1 that would protect and conserve the land ?
Chris Lagerbloom
Yes , that is something we have looked at from a Staffs perspective. As the Planning Commission
worked through their three meeting review there was some concepts that came out of that that we could
consider in regards to AG-1. We can talk about some of these concepts ifthe Council would like?
Councilmember Mohrig
Don, can you address some of the concerns that came forward from the Planning Commission?
Don Broussard
Mr. Moore expressed an uncertainty about waste water but did not propose a solution or an alternative.
He had some valid questions that had not, for some reason , been addressed. Mr. Carpenter made a
suggestion that we look and fix AG-1 , which is a broad statement but it got my wheels turning.
Some ideas that surfaced were:
• Apply the same kind of rural road standards that I mentioned to all of AG-1.
• Increase the lot size to accommodate the individual septic tank systems.
• Tone down the signage at the front of AG-1 subdivisions, less grand of an entrance.
Councilmember Lusk
Last year when Mr. Arendt presented this concept, it appeared that a lot of people were buying into it , I
don 't know where or when that has turned around or maybe the people against were not here during his
presentation. Most recently from the Planning Commission meeting it was revealed that we did not
have enough specific information on the performance of these subdivisions , as well as , the waste
treatment element. You pointed out in your statistics the number of conservation subdivisions there
were nation-wide, so obviously there are engineers and contractors who have installed and monitored
these systems. So there has to be some specific data out there on the success and performance of these
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 , 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 27 of30
systems that I would like to see us research further so we can obtain as much information to make an
informed decision. Certainly , if Serenbe can do it , I think we have the where with all , intelligence,
competence and experience in Milton to do something equally as well if not better. I respect the
Planning Commission 's decision but I do not think they had enough information to address different
aspects to this whole concept that need to be answered. I think we need to get on with this and see if it
fits what our plan is for Milton, I believe it does. I would like Staff to purse the waste treatment aspect
of it.
Mayor Lockwood
Council needs to decide on a direction and what the ultimate goal is. Before we dive into the waste
treatment issues , I believe we need to decide on the global issue first then look at the items that make it
practical to work.
Councilmember Lusk
It seems to me that the waste issue was the major reason the Planning Commission turned it down along
with the liability of who is going to maintain it. I think this is a key point in the discussion of this whole
concept and is a big fear factor related to it.
Don Broussard
It was not part of our scope to do a deep research into community waste technology. Georgia EPD has a
very detailed set of regulations and they do the deep research in this area. In the North Georgia Water
Planning District, you can find the conservation subdivision ordinance because they recommend it.
They do not emphasize they have to be on public municipal waste utilities nor do they recommend
septic only or community waste water , the y are silent about it and allow it to be on any of those systems.
The key is for the system to work and be maintained properly. The way to find a track record of the
performance of community waste systems , we didn 't get the information we needed from the EPD ,
because they are not doing a very good job oftracking the systems they are permitting. However, there
are local governments that have pursued this and have more of an interest in keeping track of the
statistics. The example I can give is the City ofNewnan. The Newnan Water and Sewer Authority have
taken a very active role in community waste water systems and will actually build the system with the
developer. You may want to look into how the City of Newnan handles community septic systems.
However, I don't know if these systems are located in conservation subdivisions.
Councilmember Lusk
My point was that we have spent a great amount of time discussing this issue, specifically 18 months ,
but recently we have identified a handful of issues that people have a problem with and I see the
community septic as one ofthe major issues.
Mayor Lockwood
I am looking at this conservation subdivision issue as the overall intent of the people which is what they
will see when they drive through the streets of Milton. Let 's look at the ultimate goal rather than
explore every different type of system. Once the council has made a decision about whether or not to
create a conservation subdivision ordinance , and if so , how many acres it will entail , whether or not it is
mandatory , etc . then we can work through all the details.
Councilmember Kunz
I agree with Karen 's list of issues , specifically, researching the minimum acreage that can be used with a
conservation subdivision and community septic. Perhaps , anything five acres or less would remain AG-
1 and there is the possibility of creating an AG-3 or AG-4 for larger estate tracts. Also , we need to
Work Se ssion of the Milton City Council
Monday, Jul y 13 , 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 28 of30
answer the question of whether it would be mandatory or not. I would like for staff to give us some
comparable risks that we could possibly face with community septic. In addition, would any
landowners be unable to sell their land because of a conservation subdivision ordinance?
Don Broussard
No , in fact , if you need to sell large tracts of land , you are exempt from it. If you 've got 20 acres and
you want to sell a 4 or 5 acre tract, you are not subject to the conservation subdivision ordinance. I
don 't believe you are subject to the subdivision ordinance at all . Large tracts that are being conveyed
not for development are usually exempt as long as you are not building a street or roadway for public
utilities.
Councilmember Kunz
Also , we do not want to increase density as opposed to the current AG-1 zoning and in the revised
ordinance if something could be put in the yield plan that maybe stipulates an AG-1 process to
determine density and then have that stipulated in the conservation subdivision ordinance for illegal
ramifications so that zoning is protected under Fulton County Superior Court. I am not necessarily in
favor of AG-1 as it is today but maybe if there is a way that someone really had to have it they could
come before council in a variance process.
Mayor Lockwood
I have a problem with "one size fits all." I think you have to have enough land to have buffers all the
way around it then have a free market for people to choose. This is just one tool to use. I have a
problem with it being mandatory and across the board.
Councilmember Mohrig
I think we can all agree that we want the uniqueness of Milton preserved. The question is how do we do
that? I think a CSO is a tool but what is the minimum size and will it be mandatory or not. One thing
we don 't have is responsible subdivision development. There is a lot of latitude today. As we go
forward , what changes do we want to make to preserve the uniqueness of Milton?
City Manager Lagerbloom
There are several questions that are still unanswered. I think at some point we need to focus on what
those questions are and who answers them. Some of the questions will need to be answered by the
council such as whether conservation subdivisions will be mandatory or not. I have Karen 's list of
eleven or so items to be answered. Would the rest of the council be willing to take those items and see if
they can answer them and then staff can answer some of the questions as well? I need to know whether
the council wants to continue on the path of creating a CSO or if they want to modify the current AG-1
zoning. Just for your information, based on current zoning laws and regulations , it would take about 90
days to make any kind of change to our current zoning laws .
Councilmember Lusk
I would like some answers to several questions before we go any further.
Councilmember Thurman
I think we need to have a work session with just this item on the agenda so we can work out the details .
City Manager Lagerbloom
Please email me dates that you would be available to meet.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, Jul y 13 , 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 2 9 of30
Agenda Item #3 was read.
3. Update on Milton Sign Code.
(Ken Jarrar d, C ity Att orn ey)
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney
This is a brief update with respect to the Milton Sign Code. In the wake of the Reed vs. Gilbert
decision , the city placed a moratorium on its sign code allowing only limited exceptions. I have passed
out a synopsis for your review. Your code is good; however, we do see some areas that need cleaning
up. I have proposed to have this placed on the next regularly scheduled meeting. At that time , I will
bring a resolution that will lift the moratorium but then place a moratorium on our enforcement of a
couple of provisions of the sign code which are problematic. It will allow your businesses to continue to
apply for sign permits while we then refrain ourselves from enforcing certain areas that have some
constitutional issues . We will then move forward with revising the ex isting sign code.
Agenda Item #4 was read.
4. Update on Legacy Milton Initiati ve.
(Mayo r J oe Lockwood)
Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager
We have added a few items to the Legac y Milton Initiati ves since the last meeting. We have added a
historical preservation aspect to it based on the comments that Norman Broadwell made regarding the
education and preservation of history . We consolidated a few items that pertained to the sense of
community. I am seeking your feedback and guidance so please let me know your thoughts. In
addition, I have also passed out for your review a very rough draft of a Conservation Project Manager
job description. This position does not exist today but you have the authority to create and approve this
position if you wish to do so. I would also like to update you on the information we have gathered
regarding the greenspace bond. I have spoken to representatives at the Trust Republic Land group who
handle conservation finance. I have received a proposal from them which includes a feasibility survey , a
public opinion survey , etc. The y can also facilitate the bond referendum campaign which is one area
that you know we have to stay out of. In addition , I asked if we had to have to have a green print first
before we move toward the bond. The answer depended upon different situations. Some cities that do
not have citizen enthusiasm regarding a greenspace bond can use the greenprint to generate public
energy. Some cities already have citizen enthusiasm and the y go ahead and move forward with the
finance piece of the plan. So , the green print and the greens pace bond can be implemented in many
different ways . However, I do need to let you know that a greenprint can cost anywhere between
$100 ,000 and $200 ,000. They indicated that the best time to ask these bond questions is when voter
turnout is high such as a presidential election.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, July 13 , 2015 at 6 :00pm
Page 30 of30
Date Approved: July 20, 2015