HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 11/09/2015 - MINS 11 09 15 WS (Migrated from Optiview)Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday November 9 , 2015 at 6:00pm
Page I of20
This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff It is not the
intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim . Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice.
Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited
presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form . This is an official record of the Milton
City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded.
The Work Session of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on November 9, 2015
at 6:00PM.
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Bill Lusk, Councilmember Matt Kunz, Councilmember
Burt Hewitt, Councilmember Joe Longoria and Councilmember Rick Mohrig.
Councilmember Absent: Councilmember Thurman.
Mayor Joe Lockwood presided over the meeting.
• Work Sessions are an informal setting to update Council on business items.
• No votes will be taken during these sessions.
• There is one (1) item 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 1 0 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.
City Manager Lagerbloom
We need to add to the agenda tonight an Executive Session at the onset of the meeting. As soon as the
Mayor calls the meeting to order, I will ask you to add an Executive Session to discuss litigation onto
the agenda and we will adjourn into that. I anticipate that meeting to be no longer than ten minutes and
then we will back to take up the business of the evening. For the public 's benefit, I would ask that while
we are gone into the Executive Session, that anybody who intends to speak publicly tonight fill out a
Public Comment card and turn it in to the staff that will be here in the room. We have had a tendency to
accept late comment cards, in attempt to place the comments in an order potentially, so what I would
like to do tonight, is to ask that you put your cards in and those cards received , when we come back in
the room , will be the people who will speak in Public Comment tonight in the order they were received.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation at
6:03 p.m. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Councilmember Thurman was absent from the meeting.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6:00pm
Page 2 of20
RECONVENE
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to reconvene the Work Session Meeting at 6 :21 p .m.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Councilmember Thurman was absent from the meeting.
JOINT WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DISCUSS THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, RURAL DESIGN
ORDINANCE, AND ASSOCIATED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Scott Reese, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004
Tonight, I would hope you would consider all points on both CSO and changes to the development code
AG-1. The CSO , if you so desire , should be optional only and you take whatever steps necessary to
protect the city and its citizens from failure on the waste water , which I know there is an ability to
handle that but you need to be very careful on that process that adequate money is set aside by the
HOA's/Board to replace the system. Also, in changes to the AG-1 development, I think roughly 15% of
Milton is not developed , 85% is and I feel put upon that the 15% that has not been developed has been
left to create the rural view shed and the rural feel that is going through. So , I feel we will have two
levels: the newly developed property and the older developed property, with two sets of regulations. I
think we need to strive to adequately create equilibrium , so if you are going to take away from one side
on the setback on the existing road , any proposed roads need to come in with the difference there to
make up the two. I do not think it is fair to shoulder all of the rural view shed or the rural enhancements.
Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
This Work Session is a great opportunity for us to focus on starting the discussion on our AG-1
standards. We do not however rehash the CSO . The only new information relevant to the CSO tonight
is the emails I handed over to the Planning Commission at their last meeting. Those emails disclosed
the following:
• That the process was indeed flawed.
• There were numerous areas in which there are blatant , conflicts of interests which make me very
skeptical that the CSO is in the best interest of Milton.
• Great to have community involvement but not sidebar conversations , emails with a consultant
that is working for the city.
• This self-appointed committee was not transparent.
• In the emails, Don, Randall , Bruce, all the consultants agreed that Milton is a mismatch for the
CSO. They really tried hard to force a fit but it seems they all agreed in the end that is was a
difficult sale given that our city does not have sewer.
So , the best and most positive outcome for our city tonight is for the council to quickly conclude that the
CSO is not a good ordinance for Milton. Planning has already reached this conclusion, unanimously
three times . Thank you. Tonight we need to start talking about the process and the timeline to have our
Planning Commission look at AG-1 standards along with staff and the community, so we can put
together new language that will enhance and protect Milton and not put us at risk.
~~~~----------------~----------------------------------
Work Ses s ion of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9 , 2 015 at 6 :00 pm
Page 3 of 20
Joan Borzilleri, 540 Kings County Court, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am in support of CSO but do not wish to speak .
Jack Lindon, 14810 East Bluff Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am speaking in favor of both the CSO and the proposed changes to AG-1. I have been particularly
unimpressed with the process so far . It has been encumbered by far too much conflict and far too little
constructive dialogue , which reall y aggravates me . I like the fact that we are starting that constructive
dialog tonight and hope that is what happens with this meeting. I hope that we can figure out ways to
enhance both conventional subdi vision desi gns , as well as , allow for the possibility, and emphasized
what Scott has already said , the current draft calls it an option for the community. I hope we continue to
allow that discussion to occur because that is just one other way to preserve and enhance the rural nature
of this community. Previous comments about the consultants are incorrect. I know those consultants
well and I know what they have said. The y ha ve said it is difficult for Milton because we do not have
sewer system and without a sewer system , these kinds of conservation subdivisions can be difficult, but
at no time have an y of them said that it is inappropriate for the City of Milton.
Francia Lindon, 14810 East Bluff Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am speaking in fa vor of the CSO this evening . As a member of Milton Grows Green, I know this
organization has done a lot more than pay lip service to conservation. Our meetings are public. The
CSO has been on the agenda more times than I can remember. I believe the Planning Commission was
aware of our interest in the CSO for months. To say that we somehow sidestep the standards of
transparency is not true. To also call our requests to discuss our findings in a public meeting "11th hour
end run ", does not fit and is insulting . Perhaps the only thing you may not have known already is that
we were able to come up with some concrete suggestions on how to modify the CSO to address some of
the concerns the community has raised. With regards to the CSO , our process has always been to
examine public comments , objections , and multiple CSO drafts and to offer suggestions that achieve the
goals only a CSO has a potential to deliver. This process has in vol ved workshops , multiple discussions
with the city consultants , Community De velop Department and our own legal counsel. The purpose in
bringing our efforts before City Council and the Planning Commission tonight is precisely to make these
findings transparent and to offer what we think could be workable answers. Solutions only can come
when those with an expressed interest of people who have spent considerable time studying what works;
have an opportunity to a rational dialog without being shut down. The term "shut down " refers to what I
see as an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and political hype by those opposed to the ordinance
and whose sole purpose is to silence an y meaningful dialogue.
With regards to Milton not being a good candidate for a CSO , minimal land disturbance is what any
CSO should strive for. Having sewer at this point in time would be an advantage but it doesn 't mean
that CSOs across the country , where , like Milton , there isn 't any sewer, these communities haven 't been
successful in implementing one. In 2015 , the National Association of Home Builders awarded a CSO ,
Willowsford in PA , as "Best in American Li ving". Fifty percent of its open space has been preserved. I
have not heard one significant reason as to wh y Milton cannot do something significant going forward
with what little open space is left.
This is too important. It should be a reasoned dialogue and not dissolve into a political takedown.
Stacy O'Neill, 5566 Benton Woods Drive, Atlanta, Georgia, 30342
Jim andEs Wells, 330 Houze Way, Roswell, Ga 30076
I want to speak in fa vor of the CSO tonight. First of all , I would like to thank the Council , the Planning
Commission and all who have been involved to date with the process . We believe a conservation
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6:00pm
Page 4 of20
subdivision is very much in keeping with the beautiful rural look of the Milton area and forward
thinking in terms of preserving natural resources . There are several points I want to touch on:
1) Rights of land ownership -Possession, Control , Enjoyment , Exclusion, and Disposition. The idea
that buildable land should be acquiesced or "conserved " is contrary to our Bill of Rights. Land
cannot be taken from an owner without payment. Current owners do not have rights to make
dictates or requirements on the property of other land owners with regard to "viewable greenspace".
If it is suggested that vacant land be turned over to become deeded greenspace , consider the
suggestion of taking away 114 to 1/3 of every home 's property to become part of its neighborhood's
greenspace. Current residents do not have an inherent right to preserve a setting , where it impacts
another land owner's rights to use their property to its highest and best use, as long as it is without
detriment to their neighbor's rights of ownership.
2) Public Input -this concept has been on the table for almost a year. There have been numerous
public input sessions and work sessions. For every objection that has been laid out, there are
solutions. The council has heard from renowned experts in the field of conservation and from waste
water engineers. We cannot keep delaying the inevitable.
3) Density Neutral -the intent of the ordinance is not to bring more density. It is to preserve and
protect natural resources -to avoid mass clear cutting of land, and work more in tandem with
topography , allowing smaller lots , in some instances , so as to preserve mature trees , streams and
other bodies of water.
4) Percolation -It goes without saying that homes cannot be built without proper percolation. There
are already safeguards built into the zoning process to control the adequacy of a site for water and
waste.
5) Waste Water-Sewer and Shared Septic are better solutions for the environment. Right now, there is
no regulation of individual tanks and drain fields. Down the road , this could be very detrimental to
water quality in Milton. Shared septic is already in place in other municipalities. It operates no
differently than an HOA , as money for maintenance of the system is collected and allocated as
needed for repairs and maintenance . Perhaps the costs of shared septic are actually less than
individual ownership as shared systems are professionally managed and maintained.
6) Traffic -If an ordinance such as this is not created , developers will simply bypass the city of Milton
for areas further out , where it is easier and more cost effective to build . Rather than building our
own community and tax basin, we will just sacrifice our community to become a thoroughfare. We
will have more traffic , yet it won 't be because of our own constituents.
7) Cost of housing in Milton -Because of the lack of sewer in Milton, land prices have become very
costly , which is in direct correlation to housing prices. Milton is losing its middle class. If the intent
is to build a homogenous , wealthy area, with no diversity , we are on the road to that end result by
not giving developers options to the current zoning.
There are some that would like to thwart all growth at any cost. They are the naysayers and will look for
the kinks in every system. They will sit on the sidelines and criticize and incite rebellion at every step
rather than work in tandem and synchronicity with positive , smart growth.
In sum, we cannot allow the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater. For every objection that has
been put forth , there are solutions , as long as we remain reasonable and keep a mindset towards
sustainability, the environment and the current homeowner and community needs.
Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I have been a resident since 1997 before the City of Milton was formed. The CSO should be denied. It
is poorly drafted and is not right for our community. I do not know how many years have been spent
trying to get a workable draft. Fulton County will not issue permits that are required . Georgia EPD will
issue permits for subdivisions for more than 30 homes but we do not know if an individual permit would
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9 , 2015 at 6:00pm
Page 5 of20
be issued to allow conservation subdivisions with 10-33 homes. We have a consultant, as far as I know ,
that still has not been able to answer that question from the emails that were shared with us in the
discussions with the Georgia EPD. The ordinance is drafted with inclusion between at least one
landowner and a wastewater utility company. Other emails that were requested by the city attorney are
forth coming but we do not know what those emails will reveal. Sometimes you do not know what is
missing until you see the part that was removed. In the emails here between a utility company and a
landowner, they strike a requirement that the yield plan shall be governed by onsite sewage treatment
requirements. That is where the density neutral leaves the ordinance when you do not require the yield
plan to recognize restrictions of sanitary sewer requirements. For a number of technical and aesthetic
reasons this is not right for the City of Milton. I respectfully request that you deny this ordinance.
Matthew Mitchell, 1750 Providence Farms Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004
First, I do want to thank you all for the amount of work and time you have dedicated to this. It is really
remarkable. I love that. I love the fact that you all are this interested in how the future of Milton shakes
out. I completely understand if we do not do something that the property values we have will decline as
we start to look like Gwinnett or East Cobb. What we have is unique and that is what drives the
property values that all these owners are so eager to preserve. Given that I thoroughly believe it is
possible that there is a CSO that could be the solution. These are why I do not think this CSO is the
solution:
• First, it should be about conservation. This is more about greenspace. There has been a lot of
discussion how that is defined.
• Within the new CSO it talks about putting back in place one principal dwelling unit per acre
which is essentially what we have now .
• Within the new CSO it also talks about how this is an option or an available way to develop.
• Within the new CSO it states it needs a rural style entrance to the subdivision. I do not know
how that is conservation.
• Within the new CSO it references areas large enough for efficient farm operations, how is that
relevant to conservation?
• Within the new CSO it talks about connecting neighboring communities, schools and businesses
to reduce reliance on auto travel. That is a great pipe dream but as an architect and a planner, it
does not work.
• Adding community parks and community facilities that service focal points and public
gatherings that is not conservation . It says it is the preferred method . If it is preferred then it is
not required and does not do anybody any good.
• It requires estate design to have 1 0% of their buildable area for outdoor recreational use. Are
you kidding me?
There is a tremendous amount in here that needs to be looked at.
Lauren Holmes, 13900 Hagood Road, Milton, Georgia 3004
To make it a little shorter , first let me start off by saying , I agree with everything Laura Bentley has said.
This is in a response to the last Planning Commission and the last City Council meeting that I want to
speak about. Let 's start with the myth that the majority of people in Milton are in favor of a CSO. The
majority of landowners in the City of Milton have no idea what a CSO is and the impact it will have. If
the city really wanted to know what an open landowner was in favor of, they should have done a mail
out and asked them what they thought. What I really would like to know is why we have three paid
consultants who have said this CSO and the City of Milton is not viable and some City Councilmembers
want to move forward with this? This is a waste of taxpayer's dollars. As far as the change in the text
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9 , 2015 at 6:00pm
Page 6 of20
-------------------------------------
amendments, I oppose all of them. The city is abusing their power by the taking of land and changing
setbacks and making the land unbuildable is not acceptable. The things I am in favor of are subdivisions
that have the look and feel of being rural , no curves and gutters , narrower streets and larger lots. For
anyone to say a CSO or adding to the setbacks will raise property values is wrong. No one can make
that claim.
Lance Villard, 2900 Grassview Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am going to wave my opportunity to speak at this time because these issues are good. I am new to all
of these issues here so I just wanted to coming in and observe. I want to give some perspective to this. I
have lived all over Atlanta. I am from New York. Everywhere I have lived in Atlanta, I had to move
somewhere else. So one of the reasons I came to Milton is a product and outcome of something that did
not go right somewhere else. I have lived in south Atlanta, Buckhead , owned properties , rented
properties and what attracted me to Milton was the integrity. I want to hear what other speakers have to
say because if that is being compromised in some way, then you are just repeating the same mistakes
that everyone else is making. I think that is a real concern not only about the substance of the issue but I
am hearing issues about the integrity of the process. So , as a newcomer to this area, I hope that you do
not compromise the integrity of what you are doing. It has happened at too many other places. I do not
even see "Keep Milton Pure" signs anymore like I did when I first looked around to buy here. That is
just a thought for your consideration.
Heather Creran, 325 Taylor Glen Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
I want to keep this simple. I want to focus on my three main objectives tonight:
1. First and foremost is to kill this CSO. Immediately and once and for all. It is bad for Milton for
all of the reasons you have heard repeatedly. But the City Council continues to keep it on life
support even after the Planning Commission has denied it , rejected it unanimously three times. I
have struggled for months trying to understand why that is , which leads me to the next objective.
2. Based on the emails that were recently exposed , I am requesting that the City Attorney , Mayor
and City Council launch a full formal and independent investigation of the CSO process and the
consultants that the city hired to assist us . These emails are shocking. They are embarrassing.
They make some of the people in this room look bad. They make Milton look bad. At a
minimum , they raise huge questions about conflict of interests and lack of transparency in the
process and the motivations of many of the players involved. These emails suggest that our
consultant and other consultants determined nearly a year ago that this was not a fit for Milton .
These emails suggest that the consultant the city hired to draft the CSO was also consulting for a
major Milton landowner , who has a significant financial interest in getting this CSO passed.
There are serious questions and the y need to be answered.
3. Send the AG-1 modifications to the Planning Commission and let them work on coming up for
the right solutions for Milton. Having been involved in this process for the last several months
by coming to meetings, watching those on video that I could not attend , it is clear our Planning
Commission is terrific. They have great ideas about how to help Milton move forward while
retaining its unique rural beauty and character. I want to thank them all for what they have done
and commend them on how they have handled all of this.
Finally , in closing , I want to one last time reiterate Objective 1, which is to the City Council , kill this
CSO and do it now. Stop dragging it out. Let 's take care of this once and for all.
Tony Outeda, 325 Taylor Glen Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
I have been here for all of these meetings too . I am always puzzled as to why the City Council continues
to drag this along. I think these emails that have come out in conjunction with what the Planning
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6:00pm
Page 7 of20
Commission has recommended, really raises questions why you all have not killed this. Why you guys
have not even voted on this. Something here does not pass the smell test to me. I have a sneaky
suspicion that no matter what is said here today that you may very well pass this thing anyway. I want
to remind you that you have a judiciary responsibility to the citizens of Milton to do the right thing.
Kim Horne, 415 Wade Glen Court, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am not going to take up too much time because I wholeheartedly agree with the last two speakers,
Laura Bentley and Mr. Slater, that the CSO needs to be denied when it comes up for a vote. I would
hope the City Council would do the right thing as the Planning Commission has done three times before
them and deny the CSO. We have all believed that the CSO was not right for Milton but in light of
these recent emails , seeing what the experts have said, it is clearly not something that is a viable option
for Milton at this time or in the future. I am glad we are going to be able to talk once again about the
AG-1 standards and enhancing those. I would hope that it would come before the Planning Commission
to vet out all the issues before it goes through all the proper processes.
Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
Two things I would like to focus on:
1. The need to deny the CSO.
2. The need to send the proposed AG-1 standards back to the Planning Commission to allow them
to work thoroughly with staff and the community. The proposed changes for AG-1 have not
been vetted with the community.
As to the CSO here are the reasons I believe and many believe that this should be denied:
• The Planning Commission denied it after reviewing it thoroughly. They recommended denial
three times.
• Secondly, density neutrality in the yield plan. The CSO is not density neutral, it is not even
close. We all said at the very beginning if you are ever going to have a CSO it must be density
neutral. This is not. A true yield plan would be required and it is not.
• Waste Water Treatment System . This ordinance introduces large community septic systems into
areas of Milton where today they are not permitted. It is the introduction to private sewer.
Everybody that currently serves the City of Milton has said that we would not have private sewer
or sewer extension. This effectively would allow for sewer to be extended. That should not
happen.
• Financial Liability to the city and therefore to the citizens of Milton. Community septic systems
do fail. The EPD said so , the experts said so, the developers said so and the city said so. We
need to listen to all these folks. The City of Milton was supposed to be free of expanded sewer
and we also have a financial liability that will come with that. Please be financially responsible
and do not allow for this CSO to be passed.
• Greenspace within the CSO is not appropriately defined. There are inadequate buffers.
Landowners that would be impacted by the CSO were not protected.
• The public input process within the CSO was not appropriate.
• High density lots of roughly 10,000 square feet are hardly rural.
• The application for sites as small as 20 acres is inappropriate.
• Lot standards allow for houses to be to close.
• The trails could be in the buffer, etc. etc.
The CSO should be denied.
----------------------------------------------------
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9 , 2015 at 6 :00 pm
Page 8 of20
Now in regards to the AG-1 Enhancements:
There are a number of things within it that should not be there and there are a number of things that are
not in it that should be. Please allow the AG-1 standards to go back to the Planning Commission.
Respectfully , thank you.
Bill Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I obviously agree publicly with my wife . I looked up the conservation regulations other than what you
are looking at now and I spoke with Clint McNeal , Georgia Conservancy. He told me the out of pocket
cost for me to put my property on an easement would be $30 ,000. I think there is a couple of hundred
parcels in Milton that you are requiring them to do this . That would be $600 ,000 that would go to other
people, not helping the City of Milton. And I know this would damage my property financially. Under
the Constitution, private property should not be taken or damaged for public purposes. I believe taking
my land or requiring me to do so , damages my property. As far as the taking , I know you have
discussed that already and if you take a small percentage it is "legally not taking". But if I am required
to take a portion of my property , have it surveyed as a separate parcel and put into a conservation
easement , and then 1 00% of that parcel will be taken without compensation. I do not believe this whole
document has been thought out on a legal basis. Maybe we could get an opinion from the State Attorney
General of what taking is , if you have a separate piece of property that you are taking 1 00% of. Please
deny this CSO and send everything back to the Planning Commission on the modifications.
Curtis Mills, 16355 Birmingham Hwy, Milton, Georgia 30004
I have about 40 acres and my place of business is the Birmingham Crossroads in the green building
behind the Wells Fargo branch, which used to be called the Old Birmingham Motel , built in 1860. I also
own the Northwest comer of crossroads where Wilbur and Rudy 's is located. I liked the concept of the
CSO a lot and was hopeful that it might develop into something that would be useable but watching all
the iterations of the CSO as it has developed , I have some issues with it. I have some pictures to pass
around with this. Some of my issues are:
• Fundamentally the way the yield plan is determined , I do not think it gets to the original density
neutrality intention for subdivisions. I will give you an example. On my land , I bought a piece
of adjoining property from David Chatham who had it perc tested a long time ago. The front 10
acres will only perc for six houses. There are no steep slopes or water in those 10 acres so it
should be 1 0 houses . You all would have to decide if it would be ok to add more cars to
Milton 's traffic and roads. I do not think it will matter given how many round-a-bouts have been
put in.
• My main issue is this buffer. That is a 60 foot rural view shed buffer implemented by
Community Development and we are talking about allowing as little as 50. It would be funny
but I have to look at that every day when I have to pull out of my driveway .
Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlett Oak Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004
On the CSO, I am not in favor of it. I think I would be if we were a sewer community. I think I have
taken a couple of Councilmember and Planning Commission members to a development , in which we
won an award for Best Design and Planned Subdivision in the nation , and hoped that many of the
attributes of this subdivision Milton could implement. Looking at what we are trying to do , I just do not
see those things being implemented . Again , trying to go with some type of master sewer system after
being with septic is not a good solution. I do not see that is something we want to get into. I do not
think we want to get into a sewer extension and I really believe the people that move into Milton are
looking for larger lots . I do not think they are looking for smaller lots. They are looking at 5,000 sq.
foot lots. They are seeking to be on one acre lots. I think we are trying to force people into this and I
0 ---------------------------------------'=---"'i!
Work Se ssion of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 9 of20
think if people want to be in a small home they are probably going to end up with a larger lot. Back to
the AG-1 , if you are looking at changing it and going back to taking the land , let 's stop taking people's
land. Let's really look at what makes a community look great. Look at street trees , berms, other things
that make architectural sense from the standpoint of landscaping. We cannot keep on saying that we are
going to take things. Just by saying we are taking land it makes it look better. You make things look
better by landscaping and planting.
The following Public Comments were emailed only but not read into Public Record.
Barbara Slate, 13545 Providence Rd, Milton, Georgia 30009
I have been a resident of Milton for five years , and I have always felt proud to say , "I live in Milton". I
always tell people Milton is one of the few remaining suburbs of Atlanta where you can still fmd houses
on large lots. I mention the beautiful horse farms , and the open spaces with houses far enough apart to
have some distance between you and your neighbors.
If you allow the conservation subdivision ordinance to pass , the look and feel of Milton will change
forever. The look and feel of Milton will no longer be rural. You will see houses on Y4 acre lots , and the
structures will be very close to one another. I understand the ordinance will allow interior lines as tight
as lOft, and rear setbacks as close as 20ft. You are proposing to allow a cluster ofhomes to be put in a
small space , and this is unacceptable for existing landowners who will have to see the cluster of homes
every day. There is not enough of a buffer protecting adjacent landowners , and you are proposing trails
can be in the buffer. Nothing should be allowed in the buffer. Otherwise, you have NO buffer. I don 't
want high density housing onl y 50 ft. from my property line , or a trail lining the boundaries of my
property.
The reason we moved to Milton, is for the wide open spaces and we didn 't expect to ever see a cluster of
homes anywhere in Milton. The Planning Commission has denied the CSO idea three times , and I
applaud them for looking out for the citizens of Milton.
The proposed changes to the AG-1 are also disturbing . One example of a concern -the proposed
standards would require AG-1 landowners to donate land via a permanent conservation easement to the
City , including having to pay for the initial legal fees , as well as the annual fees to keep an easement in
perpetuity via a formal land trust. It is unreasonable and unacceptable to force this on landowners. This
alone will force many people to move out of Milton, and will discourage anyone from moving into
Milton .
I am very disappointed the City of Milton is proposing the CSO and changes to AG-1 standards , and it
will be a very sad day for Milton residents if these changes are allowed to happen .
Barbara Taylor (via email---no home address given)
I am strongly opposed to the CSO ordinance . This ordinance is government overreach. I can see no
benefit for pushing this through except that the City hopes it will be passed before most residents
understand what is happening to their land and the land surrounding them.
According to the local newspaper, this ordinance was on hold. However, I understand that this is being
fast tracked. It does not appear that this ordinance has anything to do with preserving green space at
all. Perhaps "Milton Goes Green" is about the Green bucks the city will collect from this ordinance
rather than the rural community it will preserve . The current landowners should NOT be required to
donate a portion of their land , have to pay legal fees for it and annual assessment fees. This is
outrageous. The homeowners have already paid for their land and pay taxes on it each year. This CSO
--------
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9 , 2015 at 6 :00 pm
Page 10 of20
ordinance will increase density , rather than saving our beautiful land . The proper soil tests are not set in
place to pass this ordinance . I am opposed to the CSO as it reads.
Laura Rencher, 1060 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
Preserve Rural Milton has been and continues to support conservation subdivisions as one of many tools
needed in the city to preserve the rural character of the city as well as to help address the environmental
problems associated with increased number of homes in the area. Many other communities across the
country have used this tool successfully to address loss of open space in their cities. These communities
decided that loss of open land and land conservation are priorities for their city.
Our survey in the spring of this year of 500 residents indicated that a strong majority also want the city
to prioritize land conservation. There are not just a few loud people who want the city to make changes
in development patterns. We had over 1600 people sign our first petition in January of2014 which
addressed the need for change in zoning and development regulations . At this point, we hav e over 1500
followers now on Facebook in comparison the City of Milton which has 3900 followers.
We receive financial donations regularly to support our efforts. The majority of the community does not
understand the concept of a conservation subdivision or why it is part of the conservation tools that the
mayor is supporting through his Legacy Milton Program. However, I am confident they recognize there
are huge problems with the lack of action and planning on the city 's behalf. I also would like to point
out that in every zoning question that comes before the council; the majority of residents who show up
are a loud minority of opponents of the vote . The fact is the remainder of the community is passively
supportive. It is up to the council to make wise judgments on the big picture understanding of what is
best for the City.
For too long, the politicians and community have believed that retaining AG-1 zoning with no public
sewer has protected us from loss of rural character. Using the AG-1 zoning has protected Milton
somewhat from high density and even medium density housing, but it has NOT helped us retain the
mission of the charter which is "to preserve the rural character and small town lifestyle." It has also not
helped us maintain an y sort of balance between development and retention of rural character as stated in
the City Comprehensive Land use Plan. The predictable outcome of retaining AG-1 zoning with little
additional development regulations to land use is one acre lots throughout the city . We are headed very
quickly toward becoming a large HOA consisting of one acre lots . Subdivision and infill development
are eating up land at the rate of hundreds of acres a year. I do not believe that when the city was formed
ANYONE had this goal in mind, but this is what we are headed toward at a rapid pace. We are literally
living the unintended consequences of the fallacy that AG 1 zoning will help us meet the mission of the
preservation of rural character and small town atmosphere . The problem has been and continues to be
far too much emphasis has been placed on density of homes instead of how to preserve our small town
lifestyle , pastoral v iews , and horse farms. Without open land conservation, these goals are not possible.
The city losses due to development are immense : loss of open land, tree canopy, increased traffic,
crowded schools , loss of wildlife habitat, horses , the equestrian community , quality of life and the
identity of the city as a beautiful and special place . A city full of one lot residences is nothing special.
A conservation subdivision option is the only way to allow development to continue and have at least
the ability to retain open land and have greater respect for the environment. There are other land
conservation methods to reduce the number of homes such as purchasing conservation easements on
property and utilizing a TDR bank program. These reduce the number of homes and promote open
space. However, over the past two years , the city has been extremely slow to develop ANY plan or to
effectively utilize these methods. In the meantime we have 65 new subdivisions , with hundreds if not
thousands of new homes in the planning stages. Once land is developed, it is GONE. FOREVER.
Fear has kept our community from embracing the tools that are available and have been used effectively
by many other communities. Conservation subdivisions are one of the tools that are available to us. As
--~ ----~-------------------------------~--;j
Work Ses sion of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9 , 2 015 at 6 :00 pm
Page II of20
in every action taken, the passing of a legislation means we have to take risks and that there may be
unintended consequences. However, that does not mean we should be paralyzed from proactive planning
or active intervention if it is needed. Leading business and government leaders know that every decision
requires taking calculated risks and risk mitigation.
As Franklin Roosevelt stated so wisely, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Telaryn May, 16315 Laconia Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004
I strongly oppose the CSO! As currently proposed , I think it would be a loophole for developers to
destroy our rural farm community. I love dri v ing down our roads on my way home from work, passing
horses grazing in open fields , surrounded by forest and spotting just a single home in the distance. That
is the image of Milton we all love and should strive to preserve. We do not want to see apartments or
condos springing up along our roads, and we do not want more traffic! I think we should go even further
and require no more than 1 single family home per 5 or even 10 acres! And (jokingly), ifwe could
require them to own a horse, that would be just perfect! There are some areas that are already densely
developed , and those are sufficient to allow diversity in housing types. Leave the AG 1 land alone!
Agenda Item # 1 was read.
1. Joint Work Session of the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss the Conservation
Subdivision Ordinance , Rural Design Ordinance , and Associated Zoning Text Amendments.
Mayor Lockwood
We had this meeting to put some things out on the table, so not sure where this meeting will go. The
CSO , as the one you all have looked at and was presented to us , is scheduled to be heard at the First
Presentation next week and voted on December 7 , 2015 , which is the direction the Council gave at our
last meeting. Is that still the intent ofthe Council? Looks like all of you are good with that. That being
said , I am not sure if there is any discussion on this. If anyone wants to say something on it, you are
welcome to do so.
Councilmember Lusk
Just one point, it is presented as an optional method of dev elopment and I think that is one thing that has
been overlooked or misrepresented. Just want to make that clear. It is the preferred method but it is
optional.
Councilmember Longoria
I think you need to be clearer with that, Bill , because when you say preferred method that implies
something to me. My understanding and the way I was looking at the ordinance was that it was
optional. Meaning that the person who was selling their property had to agree that was something they
wanted to do or their property would be used for the developer, who would have a voice in that as well.
These are things that we are not forcing anyone to do . These are things that are on the table and part of
the regular way of doing business and development, so I would agree.
Mayor Lockwood
Are there any comments from the Planning Commission?
Peyton Jamison, Planning Commission Chairman
I would say if you look at the yield plan on the current document that you have before you, which was
emailed before, you can call it an option, etc., but if you look at the details of what homes could be
r---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9, 2 015 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of20
yielded based on the soil , there is quite a big bonus for it to happen. I know you all sent an email in June
summarizing our comments and we sent an email in September with the same problems that we have
had from the very beginning. I was hoping tonight we were going to talk more about the AG-1 Rural
Design Standards and reach some middle ground on a lot of that stuff, but the CSO we have done that
over the last 18 months and we do not think it is a fit , even if it is an option or not there are still a lot of
issues involved in it.
Paul Moore, Planning Commission Vice Chairman
To present it as an option , that means it is on the books as a useable tool for the City of Milton , the
development community and the landowners and that contains , for me , the biggest issue is the fact you
are prepared to accept the liability for a waste management solution. To date , the City of Milton has not
been in the waste management business. Our own City Attorney probably will attest to the fact that in
his experience with a nearby county in some additional work he does , that Forsyth County has taken on
some liability that I think we should be frightened by. There has been failures with Forsyth 's experience
with it and for us to suggest that we are prepared to take that on that is a question that should go to the
tax payers or the community because ultimately that cost of a waste management failure will be incurred
by them . So to suggest it is an option without taking into measure that we would take on that potential
liability, I think is irresponsible.
Councilmember Longoria
I think you are assuming we did not take that into consideration .
Paul Moore
No , I am just saying that is the Planning Commission 's position or my position on that. I am just
encouraging you to consider that as well.
Mayor Lockwood
Anyone else have anything to say ?
Councilmember Kunz
We got to this point in a lot of ways because of what I call the AG-1 sprawl that is hitting our
community . The spirit of AG-1 design is agricultural design but as Paul Moore , Planning Commission,
mentioned the city has lost its way in regards to current development. To emphasize, the exact
subdivision on Birmingham Highway that came in has the curb gutters and the sidewalks and that is the
zoning we have now . The challenge is that a lot of the development that is happening , especially in the
northern end of the city, is taking away those beautiful areas of our community and conservation is
disappearing by houses that are being sprawled out because of the zoning allows for it. Not everyone
wants that, so we are looking for options that come to that conclusion. So while we want to make sure
that what we do is right , we still want to make sure there is an economic viability and options for what it
is we are trying to do. Looking at those options , we only have things that we currently do have. I hear
the point on the Forsyth County issue. I think there were processes in place by Forsyth County that the y
did not manage up front that led them to those failures . There are plenty of other places that have not
had those failures , so we need to look at those places and see how they managed things rather than how
Forsyth County did. We have a lot of people in this community that can find a way to have an option
but does not mean they necessaril y have to do it. And at the same time if you want to reach the goal of
trying to preserve those things that are valuable to us like our green space, fields , horse pastures , etc., the
AG-1 as it currently stands , does not provide that. We are trying to come together as a community that is
open to new ideas but not adopt ideas that cause us challenges. It is a hard place to be. This is a very
Work Sess ion of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9 , 2 015 at 6 :00 pm
Page 13 of 20
difficult decision. I think the spirit of our community is that we all want the same thing , which is good.
I think we all want to see the conservation we came here for but the challenge we are facing is
economics. The real question is whether or not we make sure we do not become Dunwoody. Are we
going to come together to find a solution? Growth is a challenging position to be in but if we do not
consider new ideas , I worry we will lose that which is best for us. We have no way as of now to
preserve our circle landscapes and structures . This is why I am in favor of it. I have seen pastures
disappear and I am tired of it.
Mayor Lockwood
Is there anyone else on CSO ? Again , everyone will have time to make more public comments until we
hear it on December ih , email , come to meetings , etc. if you would like to be heard.
Councilmember Lusk
I like to restate something that is in the proposed ordinance. It is the purpose:
The purpose of this article is to provide additional flexibility in subdivision design to ensure
preservation of green space and to promote and protect the rural character of Milton in those areas and
districts so designated in the comprehensive plan and the zoning regulations . The purpose and intent of
the Conservation Subdivision regulations also includes the following:
• Comprehensive Use Plan, Conservation Plan
• Prevent flooding and erosion
• Provide green space suitable for agricultural purposes
• Conserve scenic terrain
• Encourage street designs that promote public safety by reducing traffic speeds
• Preserve native vegetation , aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
• Conserve sites of historic , cultural , architectural , or archeological value
• Promote less sprawling form of development within the tract proposed for subdivision that
encourages a sense of community by providing parks and community facilities that serve as
certain focal points and public gatherings places in the neighborhood.
I think that is important to read that and to understand what our goal is here. I think we all are serving in
the best interest of the city. We all have not agreed on the path on how to get there but I think the
overriding document that has guided us thus far is our Comprehensi ve Land Use Plan . Next year we are
going to review it again and I think these initiatives we are proposing here for the CSO and the rural
design are an attempt to validate and reinforce the commitment that we made almost nine years ago in
developing this Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Mayor Lockwood
Is there anyone else on CSO ? I just want to make a statement before we move into our next item here.
It is has been nine years now that we have been a city . Everyone has pretty much the same concern.
They love the way things are and the way everything looks now, that is what made them move here in
the first place. Ironically , everyone 's perspective is different. For example how different one 's
perspective is if the y moved here 20 years ago versus just five years ago. Everyone tends to want the
same thing but it is all different perspectives. That being said , I think what we all want to do is to have a
win/win situation. There is a balance between property owner 's rights and what the citizens want.
Interestingly , if you go back to when we became a city , to keep our AG-1 zoning 85% of Milton did not
have sewer, so everyone 's concern was to keep sewer out and keep the AG-1 zoning , one acre lots in.
Everyone wanted that. Now what has happened the economy has come around and Milton is a very
desirable place where people want to mo ve so it pushes people to sell their land and build one acre
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6 :00 pm
Page 14 of20
homes sites and people are concerned seeing all the one acre home sites going up. It is all different
perspectives. We have to continue to look at. I compiled a list of all the tools that the council and staff
came up with that we can use to try to meet those goals that are reasonable and work for everyone .
These discussions are a good way to help us move in that direction and come up with a happy balance.
My whole point is to make sure everyone realizes that everybody has different position and perspective
on it which we appreciate. Whatever decision we do ultimately make , no one is going to agree 100%
but hopefully we can come up with something that is best for our community.
Now let's talk about the Rural Design Ordinance.
City Manager Lagerbloom
Do you want staff to make the presentation or the Planning Commission? We could start with staff
hearing what the Rural Design Ordinance is then have the Planning Commission say what the
recommendation is after they there discussions. Or you can hear from Planning Commission first and
we can supplement any of their feedback? What is your preference?
Mayor Lockwood
I would like staff to go ahead and present in an abbreviated form and also have Planning Commission 's
recommendations , then go from there.
Kathleen Field, Director of Community Development
Let me just give you some background to start. We originally looked at making some changes to the
AG-1 zoning ordinance by making amendments to the zoning texts. Then on advice from council , a
suggestion/recommendation was made that we move those recommended changes from the zoning
ordinance into the subdivision ordinance . So what I am going to be talking about is Section 50-162
Rural Design. The idea is this will lie within the subdivision ordinance as opposed to the zoning. A
little technicality but just wanted to set the stage here in terms of what we are talking about and where it
is going to lie. It is changes to the subdivision regulations.
Here are the highlights of what we are proposing:
First of all, it is based on the AG-1 development standards to which we have made some changes.
Secondly , it excludes minor plats , and as you know, a minor plat is three parcels or less so that this rural
design would apply to anything over three parcels which are essentially four acres. So , there are three
major parts to this. Part 1 is that we have changed the rural view shed. Currently , the rural view shed ,
and this is for exterior streets , for lots that are along exterior streets of subdivisions, the current
requirements are a 60 foot setback. Forty (40) feet is undisturbed and the other 20 feet can be disturbed
in that you could put your septic system in it for instance. So , it is currently 60 feet. We have proposed
changing it to 100 feet and of those 100 feet , 75 feet would be undisturbed and there would be 25 feet
that would be allowed to be disturbed but all buildings would have to be out of that last 25 feet but you
could put your underground septic . We moved the front setback on interior streets from 60 to 20 so ,
what that means is that if there is a parcel that is on an exterior street of a subdivision and we are
requiring that structure to be back 100 feet from the exterior street , the current setback on the frontage of
an interior street is 60 ; we are reducing that to 20 so , in essence , you have moved that house from the
exterior house from the rear up closer to the interior street. You never change the size of the lot ; you are
just changing setbacks rather than a 60 and a 60 ; it is 100 and a 20. So , it is still the same amount of
setback but moved up closer to the interior street as opposed to the exterior street.
Councilmember Kunz
Kathy , right now if you have 120 total for the setbacks currently , the new one is going to be 120 total as
well?
Work Sess ion of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9 , 2 015 at 6 :00 pm
Page 15 of20
Kathleen Field
Correct. Robin is going to pass out a handout that shows that exactly. The rural view shed also provides
language that allows for pasture. This is something that we felt strongly about, if someone had a
pasture , we would not require them to landscape and put it in undisturbed buffer. The pasture is really
part of the rural landscape and therefore should be allowed. We also require 360 Architecture. It is an
architectural practice that would require the city architect to look at any buildings that are along exterior
streets to make sure that the architecture is something we feel is appropriate. Those are the highlights
for the expansion of the rural view shed.
Moving on to the next issue we addressed is subdivision entrances in terms of their design. First, we
would require more simple design for entrance signs . We would allow only knee walls where
topography is problematic . We would require all gated houses to be setback 100 feet. And we would
not allow any water features as part of the entrance design . The intent here is to create a much more
simplistic entrance from the exterior street into the subdivision and keep that rural type design.
Lastly , we are under the topic of conservation areas. We would propose that a minimum of 10% of a
subdivision 's gross acreage be preserved as a conservation area. These conservation areas must be
protected with a permanent conservation easement held by a third party , whether that is a land
conservation trust or the city. So , essentially those are the highlights of what we have included under
Section 50-162 Rural Design. We are prepared to get into the specifics.
Mayor Lockwood
Are there any questions or comments from Council before we get into specifics ?
Councilmember Lusk
On your last point there regarding the 1 0% conserve area ; have you considered allocating some of that
percentage as a buffer on the main road in the front of the subdivision?
Kathleen Field
You mean defined rural view shed to use that as part of the 10% requirement?
Councilmember Lusk
Yes.
Kathleen Field
It is not in here but certainly we could look at that.
Councilmember Lusk
Perhaps it would persuade some of those that would consider the 1 0 % a taking and would also enhance
the frontage along any subdivision.
Kathleen Field
That is a point well made .
Councilmember Lusk
Also , what was the reason for mo v ing all of these requirements from Chapter 64 (Zoning) to Chapter 50
(Subdivision), perhaps the city attorney can address this ?
........................ ...__.. ............ .._... ________________________ ~----------
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 16 of20
City Attorney Ken Jarrard
That is on me. The reason for that is because Milton, as of right now, does not have a unified
development code. You typically have your zoning land use code and then you have your development
regulations . They are two different constructs. This was blending the two concepts together and I did
not want that. I want us to have a land use code that defines and dictates land use that is govern by the
zoning procedure laws of the State of Georgia. I also want us to have conservation regulations.
Conservation regulations are different and are more streamlined and do not have the procedural protocol
to adopt. I wanted to keep those concepts separate , at least until we have a unified development code
which may be in the works.
Councilmember Lusk
Going back to my first question with regards to the ten percent conservation area set aside, can you
comment on that point and whether it constitutes a taking and give us a definition of what a "taking" is
as it relates to state code?
Ken Jarrard
First of all, to the extent that individuals get frustrated with the use of their power or the use of their land
based upon land development regulations, all land development regulations affect the use of land and
therefore affects the value of land . We have all sorts of buffers ... the ones that got the most play were
riparian buffers .. .literally 75 feet in some instances ... setbacks near streams and waterways. Have those
been upheld legal and constitutional? Yes. Do they constitute a taking? Not always but they can. They
can if a buffer imposes a restriction on property that renders unavailable for any viable economic use.
But which of course is why we also have another construct in Georgia Law called a variance. That is
one of the mechanism of a variance is intended to ameliorate against the taking. So , the point here is to
the extent there is any sort of buffer imposed it is likely going to be upheld as legal and constitutional , I
would of course want there to be a variance provision in there to the extent it does in fact render a piece
of property devoid of any economic use. It is likely going to be upheld as constitutional and legal. It
also does not really work that you can take a piece of property that is a whole and divide it up based
upon the regulation , take one little piece and say that you have deprived me of economic use in that one
little piece. There is case law directly on point. That is not the way land use works. It would be the
whole property then divided up pursuant to the regulation and then we will see if there was , in fact , a
taking of that property . If this was a construct that I felt we were about to adopt something
unconstitutional then I think you should expect I would say so. I am comfortable with this.
Councilmember Kunz
We were looking at this as all of these things working together with what is before us. We have the
rural design as one portion of the subdivision ordinance with the CSO . The setbacks of the CSO are less
stringent: 30 feet for large lots , 20 feet for rear buffer or 40 feet rear buffer depending on tradition or
large lots. These are much more lenient. By providing those options with the two contexts, will that
still give us lead way from considered being taken if someone has an option?
Ken Jarrard
Again , that is another factor. Presumably , if there is an option that you have exercised your option to
pursue it. So obviously that is one factor in favor but at the end of the day my analysis is always going
to be the same. I am going to look and see whether or not the buffer is such that it renders the property
deprived of all economic viable or beneficial use of the property. And I am going to make sure the
government has a rational basis for imposing it. What is the rational basis here? I assume it is
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6:00pm
Page 17 of20
aesthetics and to preserve the look and feel of the City of Milton but the council has not spoken on this
so that will be your issue.
Councilmember Lusk
In regards to the duty or the charge of a governing body , such as City Council or County Commission,
what authority do we have as far as changing development standards?
Ken Jarrard
With respect to de ve lopment regulations you have significant authority. The only thing I would say that
would be a check on your power would be constitutional considerations and making sure it is within the
scope of your charter.
Councilmember Lusk
There are quite a few long standing property owners in Milton and now have the opportunity to sell their
property but in the meantime development standards have changed, is there any legal recourse for a
property owner?
Ken Jarrard
What that pattern triggers in my mind is the concept called grandfathering or vesting. That is a very
complex, factual driven analysis whether someone has a vested right to do something with land. There
are a lot of triggers with vesting. For instance, one trigger with respect to vesting is: I have pulled
permits from the government and therefore, I have a right to develop my property consistent with those
permits and you do not have the right, in the meantime , to change regulations to thwart my ability to do
so. This is a very generic example of vesting but absent a vested right, development regulations do
change. The public policy in Georgia is that those members of the governing authority in office have
the right to do that otherwise, if it wasn't that way, then property would simply be locked.
Councilmember Mohrig
Kathy, can you give some more clarification when you said no water features are permitted at entrances
of subdivisions? What actually were you talking about there?
Kathleen Field
We wanted to keep a more rural entrance so we thought something less was better instead of large signs ,
monuments , waterfalls , etc. The idea is to minimize the entrance way. The best example is Six Hills
entrance.
Councilmember Mohrig
So you are not talking about if there was a pond that was located at the front of the subdivision? You
are just talking about anything you were going to build out should not include a water feature at the
entrance?
Kathleen Field
Correct. Keep it simple.
Councilmember Kunz
If someone had an idea that they wanted to present could they come forward with it?
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9, 2015 at 6:00pm
Page 18 of20
Kathy Field
Yes.
Mayor Lockwood
As we all know, everyone 's idea of rural is different. My idea of rural is gravel driveway , small two-
lane road , barbed wire fence and cows , pastures with old barns by the street. So , it is ironic that we are
talking about subdivisions having a rural entrance.
Peyton Jamison, Planning Commission
We started the process of the CSO eighteen months ago . With all the meetings we have had with the
community and all the experts , we thought the community could really come up with some changes to
the AG-1 aspect , not necessarily the CSO. Some ofthe things that were mentioned were density neutral ,
curb and gutters should be optional , narrower streets , the design process can be closely reviewed ,
incentive for larger lots , gravel roads , entrances , etc. So , we wanted to brainstorm with the council as
far as what is your idea of rural? What is your vision? What is your goal? And maybe we can meet in the
middle. We had procedural issues with subdivision regulations , text amendments , etc.
Mayor Lockwood
So , are you saying that council can work through the CSO and come back at the beginning of the year
with recommendations and changes ?
Councilmember Longoria
Originally , we had planned to vote on the CSO and then as our City Attorne y pointed out that there were
serious pieces of the ordinance that shouldn 't have been part of it and had lives of their own. It is
apparent that the city is divided over the CSO. I appreciate the feedback that the Planning Commission
has given but it is our job as city councilmembers to make the final decision on the CSO.
Peyton Jamison, Planning Commission
We felt like the rural design was rushed because we did not see those documents until the meeting. We
needed more time on the rural design.
City Manager Lagerbloom
I have heard that the City Council would like for the CSO to come forward in First Presentation on
November 16th and then again on December ih in which a final action will be taken. I have also heard
that there is a desire to work with the Planning Commission to enhance the Rural Design Standards.
Because the Planning Commission took action , we believe the correct way to proceed is to bring it back
to the council in the form of a meeting and then have the council officially remand it back to the
Planning Commission.
Mayor Lockwood
This afternoon , Peyton and I met with Jack Lindon from Milton Grows Green. Jack , I would like for
you to approach the microphone and just give everyone an overview of the plan that MGG has outlined.
You indicated that you would like to submit this plan to the City Council and Planning Commission to
review and possibl y work on together on it.
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9 , 2015 at 6 :00 pm
Page 19 of20
Jack Lindon, Milton Grows Green
Milton Grows Green has a land use and planning subcommittee which is comprised of myself, my wife-
Francia Lindon, Kathy Johnson , Charlie Fisher , Laura Rencher, and Cindy Eade. We have made some
changes to the draft that is currently online. Some are significant changes and some are minor wording
changes. We looked at the suggestions that the Planning Commission made to the City Council and
decided which ones were valid and then we went ahead and made the changes. That forms the basis of
what we have done with the 22 page document. The other piece that was significant was that we felt
that it was important that all of the rather extensive review processes that have occurred with the CSO
which was five different sections in the middle of the document. Beginning with Plan to Submit and the
way the Community Development Department reviews the plans , the Site Visits that are done based on
the plans , the actual planning process that the developers has to go through in terms of identifying the
primary conservation areas and trying to fit the houses into that space. And , then finally, we reviewed
the review process by both the Planning Commission and the City Council which ends with the final
vote by the City Council. We felt that all of those things were reall y important and that they should be
used not just for the CSO but for any new subdivision that comes before the council for review.
Mayor Lockwood
Would the Planning Commission and the Council like to look at the proposal that MGG has put
together? I would suggest that a copy of it be made to all of us here and we can look at it and get ideas .
City Manager Lagerbloom
Unless directed by the council , I do not feel comfortable having staff re view a competing document to
one that is already before council. I believe that you would need to take action on the one that is in front
of you tonight that has been through the process until we do a thorough review of a different document.
It would be good to also discuss at some point what the elements are that the council supports and what
elements the council does not support.
Mayor Lockwood
I would like the public to have access to the MGG documents as well but we must clarify that this is a
document that is from a committee and not from staff and that it is not endorsed by council. It is just
ideas that the MGG committee has put together.
Councilmember Longoria
I have great respect for Jack and his team who have spent a great deal of time putting together this
document. However , I am concerned that if we take anything out of another document and try to
introduce it into what is alread y in motion , we will get confused and not understand where the
information and discrepancies have originated . I'm sure MGG has some good ideas but I think we
already have a document in motion and it needs to be left as it is and we need to debate it as we would
discuss anything that comes before us and then we need to vote on it. It is passes then it passes. If it
doesn 't pass then we get another round if we think it is worthy of another round of discussion. We are
not discounting the MGG document but the proper placement of that in the process is very critical to
follow the rules that we have established.
Mayor Lockwood
I would tend to agree with that. We need to finish this process and then depending on the outcome of
that if council would like to look at something else then that would be okay.
.-------------------------------------------
Work Session of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 9 , 2015 at 6 :00 pm
Page 20 of20
Councilmember Lusk
I think that any time we can get community input , I think it is valuable. Anyone who knows Jack 's
credentials knows that he has been embedded in conservation preservation for many years. I don 't think
that MGG 's suggestions are that different than what we have already been talking about for the past 18
months. We have taken everyone 's public comments throughout this process and MGG may have
information that would be beneficial to the decision making process.
City Manager Lagerbloom
I believe the direction that has been given by the council tonight is to bring the CSO forward on
November 16th and December ih. We will also bring the Rural Design forward as well. I will work
with the City Attorney on whether or not we can get a disclaimer that would allow the MGG documents
to post on the city's website.
City Attorney Jarrard
I will not allow anyone to vet or discuss any document that has just been put up on our website for
courtesy review by the public . On December ih , the only document that will be discussed and be
allowed to vote on will be the one that is in front of you tonight , the CSO.
Mayor Lockwood
Why don 't we just say that anyone who would like a copy of the MGG document can request it instead
of putting it on our website with a disclaimer.
City Manager Lagerbloom
That sounds like the best case scenario for this situation. In summary , we will move forward with the
CSO on November 161h and bring forward the Rural Design and the MGG documents will be available
by request.
Date Approved: December 21, 2015
Sudie AM Gordon , City Clerk