Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 03/21/2016 - MINS 03 21 16 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 1 of39 This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice. Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form . This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded. The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on March 21, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION Pastor Jerry Dockery, Crabapple First Baptist Church -Milton, Georgia CALL TO ORDER Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Kunz , Councilmember Lusk, Councilmember Hewitt, Councilmember Longoria , and Councilmember Mohrig. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by Mayor Jo e Lockwood) APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Agenda Item No. 16-065) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following changes: • Add a Proclamation after Item #3 under Report s and Presentations. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Mond ay , March 21 , 2016 at 6 :00 pm Pag e 2 of39 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 Good Evening. Tonight, this evening , I am speaking on behalf of the Milton Coalition which was formed in November to oppose the CSO. The leadership team of the Milton Coalition met last night, 12 of us , our mission is to advocate for clean, confident, and courageous government. Behind me , in the audience , are 10-12 members from the Milton Coalition. We are ordinary citizens who are concerned about the current direction of our city. Most of us have never had any involvement in city government, however, the CSO and the process to draft it deeply troubled us and brought us together in opposition. We saw the CSO for what it was; a gift to developers, a profit maximization scheme , an avenue for introducing higher density housing in Milton. A way to open up marginal land to development and the opposite of conservation. We also saw a deeply flawed process ; an incompetent consultant, an unstructured and non-transparent process , disrespect for staff and the Planning Commission and meddling from some councilmembers. So , the Milton Coalition was started. We began from scratch. We had no money, no email list, no organization, yet, in three weeks we were able to rally 835 citizens to sign the petition. Over 100 supporters attended your September meeting with 35 stepping to the microphone. And , I would remind you that only 15 people spoke in support of the CSO and most ; 11 of the 15, were non- residents, special interests , including developers , building lobbyists , land owners , community septic vendors , and consultants. The image of citizens versus special interests could not have been more stark. Fortunately, enough of you realized the truth of the CSO and the forces behind it and the CSO was denied. Presumably, the CSO issue was put to bed, or so we thought , however, special interests and their agents were undeterred and are now using , in our opinion-misusing, our zoning , re-zoning , and variances to achieve the CSO's objectives. And , based on last week 's council meeting , there seems to be a lot of support for conservation subdivisions on council. So , my question to you tonight is , what has changed in the last three months to make you want to re- consider the CSO? Why are we going to drag citizens into another fight on this issue? How can you lament divisiveness on the one hand and support again raising this issue on the other hand ? The wisdom of this is lost on us. So , this evening , we are here to tell you that the Milton Coalition never went away. We are still here and we are not going away. We plan to vigorously oppose the Ebenezer development should council decide to reconsider conservation subdivisions. Last night , we met at my home to plan our campaign. Fortunately, we are smarter and better organized. We know how to mobilize citizens and that is precisely what we intend to do if we have to . This evening , we want to issue a challenge to council. Rather than accusing us of disseminating mis- information and using scare tactics, why not pick up the phone and call us? Why not invite us for coffee and meet with us? Why not talk to us instead of talking at us and down to us? Tell us why we are mistaken or what we are exaggerating. Better yet, we challenge council to hold a moderated town hall meeting where we can have a civil discussion or even debate about land use and conservation subdivisions. We invite you to come down to the dais and engage ordinary citizens without any special interests in the room . Let's work together to build a better Milton that starts with two-way communication . Thank you very much. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 3 of39 CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the March 7, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes . (Agenda Item No. 16-066) (Su di e Gordon, City Clerk) 2. Approval of the Financial Statements for the Period Ending February, 2016. (Agenda Item No. 16-067) (Bernadette Harvill, Finan ce Manager) 3. Approval of a Mutual Termination Agreement between the City of Milton and the City of Johns Creek for Information Technology Services. (Agenda Item No. 16-068) (Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager) 4 . Approval of a Parks and Recreation Department Agreement for Outside Providers between the City of Milton and Sperber Music. (Agenda Item No. 16-069) (Jim Cregge, Parks and Recreation Director) 5. Approval of a Parks and Recreation Department Facility Use Agreement and Addendum between the City of Milton and Hopewell Youth Association. (Agenda Item No. 16-070) (Ji m Cregge, Parks and Recreation Director) 6. Approval of a Parks and Recreation Department Facility Use Agreement and Addendum between the City of Milton and Eagle Stix Rec Inc. (Agenda Item No. 16-071) (Jim Cregge, Parks and Recreation Director) 7. Approval of a Parks and Recreation Department Facility Use Agreement and Addendums between the City of Milton and North Georgia Recreation. (Agenda Item No. 16-072) (Ji m Cregge, Parks and Recreation Director) 8. Approval of a Parks and Recreation Department Facility Use Agreement and Addendums between the City of Milton and Halftime Sports , LLC. (Agenda Item No. 16-073) (Ji m Cregge, Parks and Recreation Dir ector) 9. Approval of a Parks and Recreation Department Facility Use Agreement and Addendums between the City of Milton and FITT2U, Inc. (Agenda Item No. 16-074) (Ji m Cregge, Parks and Re creation Director) Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, M arch 21 , 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 4 of39 10. Approval of an Agreement between the City of Milton and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), Regarding a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and an Equipment Agreement Relating to the Startup of a Georgia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) in the City of Milton Police Department. (Agenda Item No. 16-075) (J ohn Hu ey, P olice Captain) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve all the Consent Agenda Items. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS I. Proclamation Recognizing Down Syndrome Awareness Month. (Pr ese nt ed by Mayor Jo e Lo ckwood) 2. Proclamation Recognizing March for Meals Awareness Month. (Pr esented by Mayor J oe Lockw o od) 3. Presentation -Awarding a Check for the Purchase of Police/Fire Department Bicycles by the Milton First Responders Foundation. (Pr esented by Manny Triantis, MFRF Memb er) FIRST PRESENTATION (No ne) PUBLIC HEARING ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION 1. Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Persis Atlanta Inc. -dba Persis Biryani Indian Grill, Located at 631 North Main St. Ste. 100, Milton, GA 30009. The Applicant is Sridhar Doddapaneni -Consumption on Premises -Wine, Malt Beverages, and Distilled Spirits. (Agenda Item No. 16-076) (Stacey Inglis , Assistant City Mana g er) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 16-076. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , March 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 5 of39 Zoning is transcribed verbatim ZONING AGENDA 1. Consideration of ZM16-01 -Southeast Comer of Birmingham Road and Birmingham Highway Containing 22.30 Acres Currently Zoned MIX (Mixed Use) and AG-1 (Agricultural) by Oak Hall Companies , LLC to Modify Condition 2.a. to Revise the Site Plan to Delete Retail Buildings Along Birmingham Highway and Replace with Townhomes (RZ04 -0l 16 and ZM14 -06). (Agenda Item No. 16-058) (Fi rst Pr esentation at March 7, 20 16 Regular City Council Meeting) (Kath leen Field, Community Developm ent Director) Mayor Lockwood And, Kathy, before you speak, if anyone is here that wants to speak on this , if you haven't already, please tum in your comment card and after we start we will not accept anymore. Kathleen Fi eld , C ommunity D evelopment D irector Mayor and members of the City Council. You have in front of you outlined in red the parcel in question. The current zoning for this parcel is a combination of MIX and AG-1. The future land use map shows this area to be mixed use and also equestrian agricultural. This is the current approved site plan. This is the revised site plan that was submitted on February 23 , 2016. The slide shows the elevations of the proposed townhomes for the project. The background of this parcel is as follows: The subject site was rezoned from C-1 (Community Business) and M-1 (Manufacturing) to MIX (Mixed Use) on November 3 , 2004 by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. This site is one comer of three comers of the Birmingham Crossroads that was zoned pursuant to RZ04-l l 6 (subject site) and RZ04-43 (northeast and southeast comers zoned C-1 Conditional). The final conditions approved for all three quadrants were derived from numerous meetings between the original developer, AG Armstrong and the community using the Birmingham Crossroads Plan (Amending the 2015 North Fulton Comprehensive Plan) which was approved by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners on March 3 , 2004 . In addition, the Birmingham Crossroads of the Northwest Fulton Overlay District was approved on March 3, 2004. This newly created overlay also guided the ultimate outcome of what was approved for the three quadrants of Birmingham Crossroads . The central premise of both the Plan and the Overlay was that the Birmingham Crossroads should be a neighborhood node consisting of 27 .1 acres which at that time recommended up to 100 ,000 Re gular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 6 of39 square feet of commercial uses , up to 100 ,000 square feet of office uses, and up to five (5) residential units per acre. Since the time of the rezoning in 2004 , the northeast and southwest quadrants have been developed as approved . The southeast quadrant has remained undeveloped other than the existing structures on the 22.3 acres. The applicant is requesting to modify Condition 2a. to revise the site plan dated June 17, 2014 with the revised site plan received on February 23, 2016 . To sort through the history of what has happened in terms of the various rezonings on this parcel is we have come up with this chart that I would like to go through with you which sort of outlines because there have been three actions already and this is the fourth on this parcel. The first one was in November 2004 and what was approved at that time was retail office of 46,000 square feet , a day care of 10 ,000 square feet , 33 townhomes, and a community septic park in the AG-1 area. On June 2014 , this was modified to the following: retail office of 22 ,250 square feet, deletion of the day care, and we changed the 33 townhomes to townhomes and single family so it could be a combination . We also added architectural requirements. Then in July 2014 , the community septic park in the AG-1 was deleted . And , now we are to this current one which is the March 2016 one and what is proposed is as follows: that the 16 ,950 square feet ofretail office in the three buildings on Birmingham Highway be deleted , that the retail office building that is located on Birmingham Road be reduced from 5,300 to 2.900 square feet, that there be an additional nine townhomes added on Birmingham Highway, and then they would keep 24 single family /townhomes in the interior. That , is essentially the breakdown of all the various procedures that are going on as it relates to this site. So , the current request is that staff include a letter from the operator of the community waste water facility located on the northeast comer of Birmingham Highway and Birmingham Road that indicates that there is sufficient capacity to serve the southeast comer with the proposed de velopment. And , the letter is shown here . So , the request from the applicant is to essentially revise the site plan. It is a revision from the June l 71h site plan to the one submitted on February 23rd of this year. The proposed elimination of three retail buildings cons1stmg of 16 ,950 square feet along Birmingham Hwy and the reduction of the retail building along Birmingham Road from 5,300 square feet to 2,900 square feet is not consistent with the Birmingham Crossroads Plan recommendation of providing a mix of uses including commercial/office and residential uses within the southeast quadrant. Although the reduction in retail/office is inconsistent with the mix of uses , the proposed townhomes are consistent with the following Birmingham Crossroads Plan policies 1) will develop in a village type pattern, 2) will be pedestrian oriented , and 3) will be contained within the 27 .1 acres. In addition , the form and mass of the townhomes are the same or similar as retail/office buildings would be if they were developed. Based upon the fact that the proposed reduction of retail/office is inconsistent with the overall plan for Birmingham Crossroads, Staff recommends D ENIAL of ZM16-0 1 . Regul ar Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 7 o f 39 If the Mayor and City Council recommends approval, a set of Recommended Conditions are as follows : Should the Mayor and City Council appro v e this petition, the recommended conditions (ZM14- 06) should be revised to read as follows: To the owner's agreement to abide by the following: • To the revised site plan dated February 23 , 2016 • To the owner's agreement to the following architectural requirements for residential structures: • Roofs shall be constructed of cedar shake for townhomes fronting Birmingham Hwy (SR 372). • Design and architecture of townhomes fronting Birmingham Hwy (SR 372) shall be consistent with the attached elev ations received on March 14 , 2016 by the Department of Community Development. I believe the developer has those new elev ations and can show them to you. Mayor Lockwood Kathy, before I open up the public comment and questions , can you confirm how many additional townhomes based on what you had on the screen, it didn 't look like any more than 33 . In the original , there were 33 townhomes or single family homes with deleting these commercial buildings but it was still showing 24 plus 9 equals 33 so are there actual additional , correct? Kathy Field The previous site plan in 2014, I believe it had 30 and so he didn't actually, he is approved for 33 and the site plan showed 30 so this time around rather than doing 30 he is doing 24 of those plus an additional 9 townhomes to equal 33 . Mayor Lockwood So , just to clarify that , is he asking for more than what he was originally approved for? Kathy Field He was originally approved for 33 and then the site plan showed 30 so he only had 30 and that was in 2014 . Is that right, Robyn? There were 30 residents on the 2014 plan and the new plan is showing 33 which is not an addition from the number ofresidents approved in 2014. Councilmember Lusk Kathy, on the last chart that you had up there , just for clarification, down at the bottom ZM14-06 July 2014, it was approved -delete community septics/park in AG-1. Could you explain that? Regular Meeting of th e Mi lton City Coun cil Monday, M arch 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 8 of39 Kathy Field Yes, the original plan had a community septic shown for that comer. Councilmember Lusk It was actually located in the southeast quadrant. Kathy Field Yes , it was located in there but it was determined that the community septic that was located in the northeast quadrant could serve that comer as well so the applicant did come back at that time to ask that the requirement be deleted off of the site plan. His intent was to use the existing patch ofland that is in the northeast quadrant that is why we have the letter showing that there is capacity there . Councilmember Lusk Sorry , I did not read through the letter. So , I guess the letter confirms that there is adequate capacity in that area. Councilmember Thurman The site plan that we have is dated March 21 st and it shows 24 single family and then it appears to be 7 others and if I am not really tired from busy season, 24 plus 7 is actually 31 . Kathy Field You are actually correct. The plan that was submitted to us had 9 townhomes but my belief is that the applicant tonight has submitted a revised site plan that only shows 7. Mayor Lockwood Yes , and I imagine the applicant when he makes his presentation will address that issue. Councilmember Thurman I just want to make sure we are discussing the same plan here. Mayor Lockwood Are there any other questions? Then , I will open it up for the hearing and start out with those in support of this application . PUBLIC COMMENT G. Douglas Dillard, 1230 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Mr. Mayor and members of the council. I represent the applicant. I am not going to go through the history of this. Kathy has done a very good job. I want to point out that the site plan that you see in front of you now is the site plan that we have asked to be adopted. The difference between this site plan and the February site plan that is being considered, as the Mayor pointed out , is now 7 units on Birmingham Highway which are triplexes and duplexes as opposed to townhouses. The type of material that is going to be used for the construction of the units is the same. It is not just Regul ar Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Mond ay, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 9 of39 cedar shake roofs , however, we would like for them to also include metal roofing which is consistent with the historic structures that were present in Milton back years ago. So , what we are asking that this be amended to reduce the retail of 2 ,900 square feet and that there be 7 duplexes plus the townhouses and single family detached as shown on the plan for a total of 31 units which is less than the total that was approved in 2014. I find myself in an unusual position tonight because most of the time I am coming before local governments asking for residential be converted to some non-residential use. That is not the situation tonight. The reason for that is that the market conditions that exist primarily because of the reduction of total residential development has caused this non-residential node not to be marketable. We are looking at over 14 years since this property was originally zoned as a mixed use node . The properties that have been developed across the highway from this property experience a 35 % vacancy. The issue relative to the capacity of sewer is also important. Mr. Braswell sent you a letter which we asked to be included in the record dated Friday, March 18 1h. It was written to Mr. Lusk but we hav e had copies given to each one of you. It is important to note that the 5,000 square foot restaurant will have approximately 86 employees , would take approximately 4 ,200 gallons per day which is almost half the capacity allocated to a private citizen. Based on that , all we could build on the site would be the 5,000 square foot restaurant and 18 homes which is significantly under what you have previously approved for this property. The commercial capacity was calculated anticipating approximately 18 ,000 square feet of commercial and retail at 100 gallons per 1,000 square feet. So , with the vacant space acro s s the street, there is no way any additional retail or office space could be financed and I would also say that they enjoy a 35 % vacancy rate . This is not about the preservation of an area for just mixed use. This is also a fairly fundamental issue relative to the rights that folks have to use their property for lawful purpose. While we can 't tum down zoning based on increased traffic any more than we can tum down someone due to lack of sewer capacity. It is important for the local government to work with the property owner, work with the applicant, not to necessarily achieve the highest and best use which was the situation in Flynn v ersus Dekalb County, but to look for a reasonable use. To look for a use that blends in that is not inconsistent with the total uses that are in the area. This property, while it does not eliminate all non-residential use, it increases the residential capacity at this particular activity -no , but I think we would help solve the vacancy rate of those across the street and it would also give this property owner an opportunity to use his property for a reasonable economic use. Had this property been suitable for non-residential use , believe me , it would hav e been developed years ago. I remember when this debate occurred before the Board of Commission of Fulton County and Mike Kent was very astute in asking , why is it that we want to make this a mixed use node? The reason for it was that we wanted to preserve the residential character of the area and this along with the Crabapple area were the two areas that should achie v e that. Well , they are not totally right and they are not totally wrong . It has seemed to work out okay. You hav e a successful Publix grocery store across the street, however, there is also a 35 % vacancy rate. So , we are asking that you approve this and I would like to preserve the remaining time for rebuttal. Mr. Tad Braswell is here and he represents the applicant. He will also be available to answer any questions. Regular M eeting of the Milton City Council Monday , March 21 , 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 10 of39 Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 I live about 1.5 miles from the Crossroads . I attended the Zoning Information Meeting about the Crossroads. I am in support of community development's recommendation to deny this re-zoning application for Birmingham Crossroads. I am opposed to the rezoning for three reasons. First, I believe that we need more retail at the crossroads to serve future needs of the area. Given all the building going in Milton and Cherokee , we will need a more convenient shopping area . A local option cuts down on traffic and pollution. Retail actually struggles at the Crossroads because there is a poor mix of retail options. For example, a hardware store and bread store. Denial of this re- zoning request will preserve the crossroads future retail capacity. We need to make the crossroads a single destination for most of one's shopping. Secondly, the denial ofre-zoning will likely mean that the southeast comer will remain undeveloped for a while. That is a good thing . The growth occurring in Milton today is already unmanageable. Delayed development will also give Milton time to develop a better vision for the crossroads which has a lot of unrealized potential. It could be a very special place. A viable and attractive crossroads will be important to the surrounding property values. Lastly, townhomes right on Birmingham Highway do not fit the rural specifications of the crossroads. Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I oppose the re-zoning of the Birmingham Crossroads specifically the seven extra units of townhomes that will sit on Birmingham Highway. The townhomes are going to further congest our homes . We have significant residential growth in this area and so the proximity of the crossroads, that capacity for commercial retail use needs to be saved and used for incoming residents . When demand is in place in an area, why would we shorten the list? I'm concerned about crossing the road with community septic . I don 't think that was ever intended . So , I support staffs recommendation to deny this application and I think you should too. Arnold Moore, 395 Canterbury Lake, Milton, Georgia 30004 I think that this proposed change in zoning is a very poor trade-off for the citizens of Milton and for the City of Milton. We are losing 19 ,000 square feet of opportunity for retail space which , I think, is going to be very important in the next five years. We are also trading off, I think, a very important tax base, potentially, in the years to come for very little gain in terms of the tax base you will get from any increased housing. I'm not quite sure since we were surprised tonight with the new plan whether there is any tax base whatsoever in the plan that is proposed tonight. I don 't know where everybody else has been , but I have been in a recession since 2008 . The housing in Milton is recovering from the recession, it has been recovering for a year and a half or two years , I don't think that commercial property has begun to recover yet. The housing has to come first and then the commercial opportunities will follow the housing. There is a great deal of development going on in the northwest comer of Milton and in Cherokee County which is very close to Birmingham Crossroads as well. I think if we wait a couple of years , we will find that there are much better bargains for the citizens of Milton than giving away 19 ,000 square feet of commercial property which is irreplaceable. So , I am strongly in favor of the mixed use in Milton and I am strongly in favor of it for economic reasons. I think it is better for the tax base of Milton Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 11 of39 in the long run to have 19 ,000 square feet of commercial property. I want to make one additional point, I have driven around the existing businesses in the Birmingham Crossroads area. All of those businesses are either small store fronts or small office facilities as best as I can tell. 19 ,000 square footage gives you an opportunity for some really v iable medium sized businesses; 5 ,000 or 6,000 square feet. You could build three of those and maybe a couple of smaller buildings. Right now, in the existing infrastructure at Birmingham Crossroads, there is no room for any medium sized businesses. The only medium sized business there right now is Publix, in my opinion. So , once more, in my opinion, I think both from the standpoint of citizens of Milton having a place to shop because there are no other shopping districts within a very large radius , five or six miles , of Birmingham Crossroads. From the standpoint of the future, the tax base of Milton, this proposal should be turned down. My final comment is that when somebody comes and surprises you with a brand new proposal at a meeting, the very least you need a contingent on this issue. Thank you very much. Carolyn Lauterbach, 649 Citation Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004 I live in the Triple Crown subdivision and rather than take up extra time, I will just ditto what everybody said here. I am in opposition to this zoning . Thank you. David Damiani, 935 Post Oak Close, Milton, Georgia 30004 I will just echo what everybody else has said . There is no reason to add any more to it. I too live in that neighborhood. We have a lot of development going on to the north in Forsyth County. We also have a lot of development going on in Cherokee County. We know what is going on in Milton. There is going to be tremendous demand for retail in this area. Let's not take it off the table. I sympathize with the folks who want to sell the property, but just because the timing is not right , right now to develop it to its retail capacity, that doesn 't mean we need to change the rules. Let's oppose this and move on. Thank you. John Stone, 1087 Bream Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 Tonight, we are in the same position that we were just a few months ago when the CSO was up for a vote . There was an extreme amount of opposition to this type of development, and yet they continued to try to move forward with a similar type of development. I am here today to strongly oppose the approval of the re-zoning of the southeast comer of the Birmingham Crossroads. To further express my dissatisfaction , the city did not listen to their constituents regarding CSO type developments. And, to add to the record , opposition to any changes to the AG-1 zoning developments for any other areas in the City of Milton. Furthermore, I am opposed to any development that requires a community septic system with the expansion of sewer to any portion of the city. The current AG-1 zoning of the majority of the city is the primary reason I moved to the City of Milton. I knew that the topography of the city would limit development based on the septic perk testing requirements. This is the reason we are able to live in a community where the developments require large lots and some areas cannot be developed. The current AG-1 zoning protects home values and prevents high density. I am opposed to this development and any type of development like this. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 12 of39 Pamela Campbell, 16645 Quayside Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am here today to oppose the approval of re-zoning of the southeast corner of Birmingham Highway and Birmingham Road ; the B irmingham Crossroads. It appears as though the City Council is not listening to their constituents regarding the community septic type developments. I also wish to record my opposition to any changes to AG-1 deve lopment in any other areas of Milton as well . Curtis Mills, 16355 Birmingham Highway, Milton, Georgia 30004 My place of business is 15800 Birmingham Highway. That is the southwest corner of the Birmingham Crossroads. I am in the building that used to be called the Old Birmingham Hotel built in 1860 and I own the northwest corner where Wilbur and Rudy is located now; where the Bice store used to be. So , I am an adjacent property owner. If you saw the email from Joe Whitley, he sort of piggybacked on the note that I sent for the record and I can speak on his behalf. He owns the old Mickler House which is on the southwest corner facing Hickory Flat Road . I will also say that Jim Vienderale and Leonard Jacklett who owned three of the other buildings on the corner, have asked me to speak on their behalf. Essentially, we believe that the reduction of retail will cause an out of balance situation with homeowners . I think that the most vibrant long term solution is four corners of retail. And, I think, that we saw in Crabapple, Wieland got a lot of the commercial at the last minute before Fulton turned over to Milton. A lot of the property owners on the other corners were not happy with how much he got; claiming that it was out of balance and unhealthy. That is the way I feel about it. I bought my building when there was nothing on the southwest corner except for the Wells Fargo branch. It was vacant; completely vacant. I moved in five years ago. Since that time , it is fully bought out, fully occupied and fully rented out. Clearly, a movement and right along with the economy. In the last couple of years , at least several hundred new homes have been built and purchased within a couple of miles of the crossroads; mainly north but some to the west. There is more demand and more buyers . The corner with Wilbur and Rudy's has no demand problems whatsoever and I am convinced that if we built something else on that corner; the right type of facility , that it would do well. I think the economy is rising the tide and lifting all boats and it is just a matter of time. I don't want to see short term decisions on the southeast corner drive a long term impact. Thank you very much. Kim Horne, 415 Wade Glen Court, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am here to ask that you uphold staffs recommendation to deny case number ZM16-01; the southeast corner of Birmingham Crossroads. It is inconsistent with the Birmingham Crossroads plan and the overall plan for the area. The developer has not shown any hardship as to why he needs this change so, therefore, I request that you deny this zoning modification. Thank you . Regular Meeting of th e Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 13 of39 Catherine Smith, 608 Easy G oer Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004 I live in a new cul-de-sac in the Triple Crown subdivision. I moved here in August so I am a newbie. I come from Massachusetts where I am used to having retail development close by to me. I find that where I live in Milton, I do not have that option. I have to go all the way through the traffic in Crabapple to go to Kroger and the larger Publix. There is a small Publix closer but I wish there was a drug store or retail establishments close by to me. This type of development would allow that. The builder representative said that at this time , it is not economically feasible to build a retail establishment there and he mentioned that across the street from it is a 35 % vacancy. Well , one of the unique opportunities that we have here is first of all , "build to suit". I would much prefer a CVS even with all the opposition that CVS has had trying to go into neighborhoods , than trying to put townhomes in an area that is already congested with homes. We have so much building going on. Luckily, when I chose Milton , over other places like Johns Creek, my understanding was that homes that were built in Milton were going to be on one acre lots. I knew about the Crabapple Subdivision and I was fine with that. Now , I find out that property that was originally slated for mixed-use; which honestly back in 2004 probably got re-zoned because it was mixed-use because it was not retail ; just retail or just homes. Now, that the builder is proposing to reduce the retail component, I don 't know if back then it would have gone through. I would much prefer a warm type of environment like Crabapple in my neck of the woods versus just adding townhomes to the development. Richard Velloff, 15750 Canterbu ry Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 I just wanted to state that I am opposed to the rezoning of the southeast comer of Birmingham Crossroads for the many reasons that everyone else has already spoken about. I would like to add a couple of things. I don't think the infrastructure is really suited to put multiplexes , duplexes , town homes on that particular piece of property. I don 't know if anyone has done a traffic study, but if you have ever been out to Birmingham Crossroads either in the morning or the evening , you will see traffic lined up all the way to Freemanville Road and then however far south and however far east or west , regardless with the schools and the traffic , I don 't think it flows . I doubt a traffic engineering study has been done but I doubt the area can handle townhomes regardless. It is something that needs to be worked on. Additionally, throwing a new wrench in the system here , but triplexes and duplexes definitely do not fit in with the rural character of Milton. I think that has kind of been a big issue that this place has visited a few times. Honestly, those being at the frontage of Birmingham Highway would obviously go against Milton 's character. Lastly , we have been visiting this a lot of times , but as some of my neighbors have stated, if you look at the commerce in that area, you see the new Wilbur and Rudy's , in my experience has been quite vibrant, and is probably going to be the case with additional development out there . The last thing we need to do is put in duplexes , triplexes , cluster housing into an area where you can put restaurants or small shops which would be much appreciated. The biggest issue is traffic and if anyone wants to do a case study on the traffic during school hours in the morning or rush hour in the evening they would see the issue. Thank you . Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, M arch 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 14 of39 Arlene Salmon, 14155 Seabiscuit, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am not as eloquent of a speaker as my daughter so I would just like to say that I am in opposition. I am actually in support of the recommendation to deny the rezoning of that area. I do not think it is consistent with what the plan for Milton should be. I hope you will take that into consideration. Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am asking this evening that you deny this zoning modification, specifically, ZM16-0l. I support staffs recommendation for denial and I ask that you consider denying it as well. This zoning modification is in conflict with the Birmingham Crossroads overlay. It is in conflict with the original zoning that has already taken place on this quadrant dating back to November 3, 2004. It is in conflict with several zoning modifications that have taken place which were done earlier as a matter of record by staff. This is in conflict with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which was originally presented by Fulton County and then adopted by the City of Milton. As noted , staff has recommended denial for all the appropriate reasons. There is no hardship. The Birmingham Crossroads needs a balanced four-comer retail solution for all the reasons originally contemplated; not more townhomes. Yes, the Birmingham Crossroads is confined and is intended to be confined with a total of 27.1 acres forever. Again, this was a forever solution not an immediate solution. It was one that was meant to grow with the community. One that the community could live with forever. The fact that the economy is coming back and the fact that there is increased housing development in the area , it will bring appropriate demand for the appropriate use. Often times, the reason an area has vacancies is because the appropriate use of the commercial aptitude for the community has not been met yet. So , as noted , there are some great additions that have come and more terrific additions forthcoming. But, we need to keep the original plan; we need to keep that in place. The zoning modification would introduce additional residential traffic as just noted. This proposed new increased townhome density, right on Birmingham Highway would change the look and feel of the area. It has no historic basis. They didn't have townhomes, or was mentioned tonight , triplexes or duplexes that would be right there along the roadway. It was not contemplated and we ask that you please deny this for all the legally denoted reasons. Thank you so much. Tad Braswell, 5256 Peachtree Road, Suite 195, Atlanta, Georgia 30341 We are trying to work hard to come up with a plan that works with the original intent I feel is what is going to happen here under the zoning cases . This is the elevations you are looking at that we are working with the City Architect to get approved . They are very close to getting approve but we were talking about a roof change from all wood to wood and metal which is across the street. I developed Crabapple Station down the road. We worked very hard to get the right balance for that community. The retail there struggled for many years until all of Crabapple got built out. That has less than 100,000 sq . feet of retail space in it. You already have over 100,000 sq. feet space in this intersection . You have no single family within walking distance of this retail. You have probably have 300 residents within the walking distance of Crabapple Station. These two communities are night and day. They are not in any way the same type of development. Crabapple is a true mixed-use development with a walkable community. This would be walkable for the 40 homes we are proposing if you include the estate lots but outside of that , it would be probably a Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Pag e 15 of39 good mile and a half to get there. It is not what you really call a walkable community. We have worked really hard on the architecture. What we did to Crabapple was to design buildings that look like homes that have been converted to commercial space. That was the reason we met with people and changed the site plans, had the triplex and duplexes match with what was on the original plan of one larger building with two smaller buildings. The balance of the development and retail commercial piece of this is you already have way too much retail in this node . You can tell that by the vacancies that have been there for over 12 years. Most would like little mom and pops restaurants on this property. Sewage for this property is already planned and constructed private treatment plant. It has a certain amount of capacity to it. The capacity will only take what we were proposing . The original plan with all the retail space in there, you cannot put a restaurant there. Restaurants take up a huge amount of sewage capacity. That is part of the problem with the development across the street. It has all the restaurant space but the septic system cannot take. It has to be all commercial retail and office uses. If you look at the uses that are currently in there , there is not a shop in the space that sells items . It is all service related. It is not a retail node. This space is over designed probably around 10 ,000 sq. feet. If you took the second floor off of one of the two-story building, you probably would have a capacity that would be full and vibrant. Back to the architecture , if we put shop spaces in these buildings , it would look very much like this except for the retail would have more glass frontage and the doors would be different. I am positive that the City Architect would make us make these buildings look the same . The look and feel as you drive down Birmingham Highway will be very much the same if this is residential or if its retail. To say these types of businesses or buildings were not there 100 years ago , we also did not have the cell tower or power station that are around the corner back 100 years ago either. We need to make it look and feel the way we want it to be but also need to put the correct uses there . Traffic would be much higher with retail and commercial uses than it will be with residential uses we have currently. We are not asking for increase with density, we are just asking to spread it out over the property. Where it was 30 units , it is now 24 units that are larger. There is a huge need in the community for this type of home . If you want to downsize and stay in Milton, you have no options. So this is one option. It was determined in 2004 that we were going to put some density somewhere , this was the node it was going to be put at. All we are asking to do is to spread it out. I have not gone back and looked but I know the original zoning called for up to a certain amount of zoning over the three corners. I think what you have is plenty of commercial retail space already and you have no residential. You have a mix-use development with no residential attached to it. So to balance it out , we need to build a product that is desired today. There is a large market for small , down sizeable residential homes. There is no market for additional office retail space. G. Douglas Dillard, 1230 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Thank you , Tad . In closing, Mr. Mayor and City Council , several of those in opposition have talked about there is no hardship. Well that is not the standard that you have in this situation. Hardship is when you looking for a variance and you have to show certain hardships . Here , the issue is whether or not the property has any reasonable , economic value as currently zoned. The way you determine that is what is going on in close proximity to the subject site , what has been developed over the past several years , what is currently being de veloped now and what are the prospects of what is going to be developed in the future. We simply submit to you that the commercial indication by the comprehensive plan on this property, based on what has already been de veloped over the last years and given the fact that this property has been vacant over 12 years Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 16 of39 since it was zoned, and the idea we are going to bring townhouses for the first time into this intersection is not true because it has been zoned for townhouses since 20004. Why hasn 't it been developed? There has not been a market for it. Now the residential market is coming back but the commercial market is not coming back until the residential market is revived. So the way to deal with that is to look at the residential component at this intersection in light of what is already there as far as commercial is concerned, and determine whether or not this property owner is being held hostage by this comprehensive plan. You know he has been down here several times over the years trying to figure it out. We think what we are asking for is reasonable . We do not think there is any purpose being served by keeping the property zoned commercial. Matter of fact, based on what is currently there , it is a taking of a valuable property right to require that they keep 22 ,000 sq. feet of commercial on this property that they cannot use , cannot sell and cannot develop. What we are asking for is for a different use. We are going to save some of it. The comer there for the 2900 sq. feet which might be good for a wine shop. But when you look what is across the street and you look at what Tad is proposing for this property and the look and feel it has , you got to say , is this not a better alternative for the city than to have it vacant and undeveloped. When we talk about the tax base , these units are going to sell $350 ,000 -$500,000. You are going to put 22,000 sq. feet of office on this property or retail on this property sometime in the next 10 years , what kind of return is that for the city? At the same time , what kind of penalty is then being created for this property? It is a taking. A taking of a valuable property, without paying for it. What you have to decide , based on what the legal standards are , is to what extinct is the public health safety and welfare being protected by keeping it zoned commercial versus zoning it for another seven years ofresidential. Yo u already have 3 3 units approved there. We are asking for 31 and refuse the retail. So the overall impact on infrastructure , traffic, sewer, etc. is less based on what we are asking for and is within the capacity that is available versus the commercial use that does not have the capacity for sewer and is going to generate more traffic. I submit to you that is not in the best interest of the public's health and safety welfare. What you need to do is create a balance between my right as a property owner plus tpe protection of the public 's health safety and welfare by leaving it under its current classification. We submit to you that the comprehensive plan that calls for commercial on this property is not in the best interest of the public 's health and safety welfare. It might have been a good idea 12 years ago but not now. Our request is reasonable. We have no reasonable economical use of the property as currently zoned. It is not in the best interest of the public's safety and welfare to keep this property zoned as is. We ask that you approve this rezoning request. It is seven units . It is not that much over what has been approved already , yet it is significant. So the total units is 31 over previously approved 33. We are going to keep a little bit of retail there but for the most part it needs to be a residential node. The retail guy across the street will appreciate it. It will help their business a lot. We think then you are not taking this property without paying this property owner fair and just compensation. Tad Braswell, 5256 Peachtree Road, Suite 195, Atlanta, Georgia 30341 One other thing is the parking ratios . If you look it up , you cannot really park as many square feet that is on there. So you really can't fit another 18 ,000 sq. feet ofretail space there where we propose putting the subdivision. And with the sewage you cannot put restaurants there because we do not have the sewage capacity. Part of the deal when he bought the property was he had to use the sewage access capacity they had across the street because their plant was designed to have this property developed for 30 units and some retail , so it is not functioning correctly today. Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 17 of39 They need additional capacity to make that plant function correctly. If we need more time to study the balance of how much exactly retail space there is on that comer and what the balance of residential should be, we would be glad to take a deferral and work with the staff and anybody from the community. Mayor Lockwood Let me open up to questions and comments from council and applicant. I would like to address one thing, Ken, legally is there any taking or hardship with this case ? Ken Jarrard, City Attorney I concur with Mr. Dillard that the hardship is not the same . Do I think this is a constitutional taking? That would be to say do I think it is unconstitutional to allow the property to stay as zoned. I will tell you this before I share my attorney opinion with you, my request for the City Council is to take action based on what you think is sound public policy. I will interrupt you if I think there is a problem with where you are going. I feel very comfortable with you making the decision based on public policy. Councilmember Hewitt Just to clarify because I think there is some confusion, total number of proposed residential lots on this 321 plan as I see is 9 -one acre type lots , enumerated 24 smaller, detached residences and seven that are marked A(2),B(2),and C(3) duplex and triplex for a total of 40 units. Do you agree with me on that? Robyn MacDonald, Zoning Manager I would exclude anything AG-1. Just work apples to apples. Don 't speak to the AG-1 lots because that is what the density is based on. What was approved was 33 lots in the MIX. Mayor Lockwood That is what I would like to clarify too. So , Robyn , are the 33 lots , does that exclude the AG-1 one acre lots? Robyn MacDonald Correct. Mayor Lockwood So, are we saying that right now on this revised plan we are showing 33 homes? Robyn MacDonald I think he has less than 33 in the MIX. Mayor Lockwood Well, 24 plus 7 equals 31 . Re gul ar Me eting of th e Milton City Council Mo nday, M arch 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 18 of39 Robyn MacDonald Right , 31 . Mayor Lockwood And , apples to apples , if you go back to the 2014 , was there allowed 33 residential units? Robyn MacDonald Originally, it was 33 from 2004 and I believe even in 2016 he didn 't use the full 33. Mayor Lockwood Do you mean 2014? Robyn MacDonald Yes , 2014. He used around 30-31. I can double-check on that so , I guess , the point is that he was approved for 33 and he is not adding any additional units . He is just using what was already granted in 2004. Mayor Lockwood So , really what the decision here , or the issue is not that we are necessarily adding residential units but basically trading the commercial property for some residential units , right? So , it is not necessarily, he is removing some commercial and adding additional units than they weren 't already approved for. Is that correct? Robyn MacDonald Right, he really is just removing the non-residential and redistributing the residential 33 lots minus a couple . Mayor Lockwood Okay, I am not leading the conv ersation anymore , I am just asking for clarification. Robyn MacDonald So , they are not presenting anything larger than what was already approved. It is a little bit less , what they are presenting, than what was approved in the 2004 Re-Zoning in Fulton County. Mayor Lockwood Okay, because I am actually more of a fan to have the commercial there to balance it out because I believe at some point it will be needed , we don 't have much , but I did want to clarify the fact that they are not actually asking for more units than what was originally approved . Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 19 of 39 Robyn MacDonald And, they can still preserve those 33 units on the interior if it turns out that you preserve the commercial on the exterior so that doesn't take away from their allotted residential lots. Councilmember Thurman We have heard several people say that this would be introducing townhomes but townhomes were actually approved in the 2004 zoning so this is not anything that we would be introducing, this would be ... Robyn MacDonald Re-distributing . Councilmember Thurman Okay. And, the other question I had is that one thing we have seen other places is retail on the bottom with residential above it. Is that something that has been considered? Tad Braswell One of the problems with forcing residential over retail on this site is that the cost of building today, especially building residential over retail , the rent rates that we would have to charge to make that financeable; it could not be financed . I could not get a bank or investor to give me a loan to build retail space at this price in any time in the foreseeable future. But, residential over retail also becomes very complex. The real problem here is that, everyone talks about commercial but no one has said what type of commercial they want. This is never going to be a shopping node. We can't put the restaurants in that people want because there is not sewer capacity or parking . If we had to build retail there assuming we could get it financed , we could put one 8,000 square foot building then the other two building pads would become parking lots so you could get enough parking to carry that one building. And , then, again our rent would be somewhere between $32- 36 per foot. Across the street, their rent is around $12 per foot. So , there is no way we could be competitive if we build new product at today 's construction costs. In the near future , I do not see that changing. There is not, in this node, for the retail , and I will be glad if you want me to get a retail expert to write an opinion on this . But, you don't have enough roof tops within a certain distance of this property to make it viable. People don't shop on their way home from work if there is not a shop they want or a restaurant they want. You don 't have the critical mass of residential for restaurants because you don 't get the lunch traffic and the dinner traffic . You have to have both. You cannot generate enough money to pay rent in a newly constructed building . Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 20 of39 Co uncilmember K unz How much are we short of roof tops? I keep hearing that we don't have enough . How much are we short? Ta d Braswell You know , I would have to do a study on that , I'm not sure but I know with the patterns that you have growth outside of this is all one-acre homes so I can look into it and get you a better answer. I just know that ifthere was a real retail demand there with the rent rates of $12 a foot next door, you would have retailers moving into those empty spaces , but you don't have that. That is why it is State Farm Agents or insurance agents in that space . That is the type of usage that you have there because in order to get the shop space to work you have to get enough people there . And , the problem too with the property across the street is that the signage is very poor. You have to drive in there and get in front of the building before you can see what is in there. It is a two story retail with one story on the back side. It doesn 't function very well and it is very short of parking . They built a Publix and put enough sewage for office space but not for restaurants. Also , the parking is available for a bunch of restaurants. Everyone said that property was so well thought out but it wasn't. You cannot put a restaurant into an area that was designed for office space. It is very difficult to do that. You need dumpster space and adequate parking . I can't sell residential with future commercial space just sitting there because people won't know what type of retail will go in that space, where the dumpster is going to be , etc. I can either not build them or sell them for less money and in the long run that doesn't help anybody. If you look at the three comers as it is today, you have a good enough balance of retail. If you were short of retail space and the area was bustling and the rent had gone up, you could argue that there was a balance there but to try to make the argument that one day this need for commercial space is going to be there; the space has been there for twelve years and is still 35% empty. It just doesn't make sense . The vision for that node, I know is the same vision you had for Crabapple . Crabapple when it was built had the density around it and then finally that commercial space is getting where it is leveling off. It is now stabilized and thriving because for a good mixed use development you need to be a seven minute walk to retail which is a three-quarter mi le walk. I know that is the dream that everybody has had for that area. The area can still have the look and feel that everyone wants with the concept of a barn, etc. but it is never going to be that bustling mixed use because you have sewage problems, parking problems and you just don't have the demand. C ou ncilmember Lo n goria You actually answered the question that I was going to ask but a couple of comments that were made. The first one was that apparently there is some type of benefit to granting this in terms of the businesses across the street and on the other three comers . My question would be, how come those businesses aren't here in support of your request. I would have thought that somebody would have said , "Hey, we need the extra roofs, as Matt is stating, and we want them to do this because Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 2 1 of39 this is going to be good for all four comers not just their comer. So , I would have thought that. .. the only business owner from this area that I heard is in opposition to this so it is very confusing to me . Tad Braswell I really did not expect to have the tum out that we have tonight. Councilmember Longoria I wasn't trying to put you on the spot , that's okay. The other observation I would make , and I don 't want to use Mr. Dillard's words against him , but it is not that much. We are only talking about seven units. What we are talking about is taking away another big chunk of the retail that we have already taken away from on one other occasion and replacing it with se ven homes. And , it is not that much. I would agree with you 100 %. So , I don't see how that is going to make the big difference here and I am a little bit confused. I am not a developer so you can probably educate me on that but you don't have to do that right now . What I would say is that I would agree with you , it is not that much. And , the other thing I would say is that we went through some, I wouldn 't say agony, but every single time someone wanted to rezone anything in Milton, it seems like agony and we went through that in July 2014. That was less than two years ago and if anything we have seen the economy improve over that time. So , why are we punting on second down? It doesn 't seem like we have given our change that we made either enough time to figure it out or we haven 't let what the real demand is in this area catch up with what is going on so I would agree with some of the folks that had comments along those lines. But, zoning can 't be like the second hand on a watch . It has to be like the hour hand. You change it very slowly. You don 't change it every single time we get a new idea and say , now we want to do this then now we want to do that. So , to me , less than two years seems like we are being more like a second hand than the hour hand and I have a problem with that. Tad Braswell And , that makes sense to me too. But, when it was purchased in 2014 , it was rezoned to what he thought the market was. I am not doing this speculatively. We are going to develop it. We are going to build it. I have three partners. One of my partner's is Dav id Smith who has built several very successful mixed use developments and he knows the mix of retail v ersus residential that you need to have. If you look at downtown Woodstock and the amount of residential you have around that it is walkable. My partners and I have done lots of these type of developments. We have studied this market. We know what the market is. To say that you have 20 ,000 square feet more than what is already vacant across the street and the space has been vacant for a long time , I don 't think anyone has looked at this as hard as we have looked at it. What we are proposing would be a successful development. If we get approval , we are going to build retail , townhomes, etc. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 22 of39 Councilmember Longoria I appreciate that. I don 't think that you guys would be proposing something that wouldn't be successful. I just know that in these types of equations there is more than one solution. So, it is not like the solution that you are proposing is the only solution that will work. It is just one that you have a lot of faith will work. Tad Braswell If you look at the design that was approved last time. Thirty (30) units on part of it was the commercial piece up front , I think that side is 18,000 square feet, but it never parked correctly. It was never designed correctly; that would not have worked. Councilmember Longoria Okay, if I go back to the statement that it is not that much. The real difference that we are talking about are the seven multi-duplex units that are on the frontage there. Tad Braswell The 31 units that were there , we had to re-design that and change those lots. The lots are bigger, it is more of a marketable product. .. Councilmember Longoria That is not where I was going with this. Where I was going with this is that those units that are on Birmingham Highway is the key to success. In other words, if those were built two years from now with the whole thing being in limbo until those were built, it would. Tad Braswell I would not do the development ifl had to do retail space there. I can't finance it. I can't sell the homes that are across the street from it. Would you buy a home that had empty space between you and the road and the builder told you it could be retail , could be a restaurant ... Councilmember Longoria I am not a good guy to ask that question because I am a visionary; I look way down the road. Tad Braswell I would rather build it knowing what the whole thing is going to look like in the end. If you really study, do a market study on the three comers or four comers and you look at how much retail space is there , I think that you have to look at the four comers as the balance. There is no residential on the other three comers. Should there have been some over there? Are you going to say, you don't have enough retail residential on this comer, you can't build that retail so are you going to also force the fourth comer that is not full y developed to put some residential on it at the same ratio residential to commercial? Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monda y, March 21 , 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 23 of39 Councilmember Longoria I was not around in 2004 when they made those decisions . Tad Braswell If you look at the four comers , there is a hole. I think that the balance that you have; commercial to residential, with the 31 units that we are proposing is a good balance with mixed use development. The look and feel is going to be the same. So , it boils down to the city and another 18 ,000 square feet of retail space . I don't think that generates a tax base that the single family homes do or the townhomes. It doesn't really increase your services. If you look at the four comers , there is a whole mixed use development. You have a big hole there; you have no residential de velopment. And , if you look at the balance that we are proposing, that you already have empty retail , and with the hopes that one day ten years from now maybe , you will have a need for more retail space there , you still won 't have enough parking or sewage capacity. The same problems are not going to go away . Another 18 ,000 square feet of retail is never going to happen; so what could happen? If I put one 5,000 square foot building there then I could park that and make a whole other side of parking and I don't think that is the look and feel you want. Then I have a parking lot and 18 homes because I can't sewer 30 to be there . Some people might say that is a good thing but to get back to the balance of what you want there ; do you want all commercial space or do you want commercial office restaurant residential; the original vision for the property. Councilmember Longoria Yes , and I am just saying that if we were out of balance when we rezoned it the last time ; the last time we made the concessions that we made last time , we should have , somebody decided that was the formula that was going to work back then. So , now we are just being told , oh yea, we forgot X , Y , and Zin the equation and take that into consideration as well. And , I don't know now if we vote on this tonight if it is not going to happen another six months from now or another twelve months from now . So , like I said , I wished we could have figured it out the right way the last time we made this decision and if it hadn't been so close to today; if it had been four or five years ago , then there would be an argument there. Tad Braswell If you look at the market, it has been coming back for more than two years . The market is not necessarily going to get a lot better in two or three more years. You really don't have that much additional residential building; everyone says they don't want anymore , there is enough traffic , so you aren 't going to get a significant amount of roof tops to make it work. I don 't know how we got to where we are today but the balance that we are proposing is the correct balance for those four comers. You have over 20 ,000 square feet of retail space across the street that has been sitting vacant for twel ve years. You have had restaurants that have come and gone over the years. To think that we need to save another 18 ,000 square feet of commercial space for the future in the hopes that the market will eventually demand it does not make sense. You have other areas in Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 24 of39 Milton that have commercial potential. This development would not hurt anyone's property value. We are proposing less traffic, less impact on the infrastructure, it all comes down to if you build the units we are proposing is it going to have retail or residential because the look is going to be the same. The demand is on the architecture which makes the retail very expensive to build. There is a huge demand for smaller scale family homes in Milton. You have divorcees that want to stay in the area , people who are downsizing that want to stay in the area, the units we are selling would be mostly occupied by people who currently live in Milton and want to move to something smaller. We have talked to every realtor in the area. There is a huge demand for what we are proposing. There is no demand for commercial now and not in the foreseeable future . Councilmember Hewitt Robyn , is it the plan that is not any of these proposed plans , are there townhouses on the site plan that was modified in 2014? What is the zoning right now? Is it all single family detached ? Robyn MacDonald o , it is not. Councilmember Hewitt So , it might not be introducing townhomes from 2004 but it is reintroducing them from 2014; this plan right here. There are not any on the site plan that is in place right now , are there? Robyn MacDonald There are some townhomes on the 2014. That was one of the conditions that was changed to go from 33 townhomes from 2004 in Fulton County; and they said we don 't want to do all townhomes , we want to have a mix oftownhomes and single family. So , now apparently this goes to what they said. Councilmember Hewitt Okay, so that answers that question for me . The sewer capacity issue; in July 2014 the owner at that time asked to not have any type of septic system for his comer, correct? Robyn MacDonald Correct, the community asked to remove it in July on the second modification during that summer, it was a condition. Councilmember Hewitt So, if that had not been changed, they could potentially have a restaurant there. Robyn MacDonald Correct. Regul ar Meeting of the Milton City Council Mond ay, March 21 , 201 6 at 6 :00 pm P age 25 of39 Councilmember Hewitt That answers everything I need to know about this. Councilmember Thurman I just have one quick question because we keep talking about four comers and this development doesn't actually go to the comer. What is that comer zoned ? Robyn MacDonald That actual comer at the intersection is zoned C-1 unconditional. It is a part of the 27.1 Birmingham Crossroads plan. Whatever C-1 unconditional in the zoning ordinance allows it can be done. It does have to conform to the Birmingham Crossroads overlay. You have to have the building toward the front , etc. Councilmember Thurman Even if this got approved , you are not getting rid of all the commercial in this comer. I guess that is where I am going. Obviously, I would much rather have the retail , I would much rather have restaurants there than the townhomes but it doesn't sound like that is even an alternative. Robyn MacDonald So , we still preserve that comer of unconditional C-1 zoning because that was never a part of the rezoning in 2014. Councilmember Thurman And , is that part of the same sewage treatment center as across the street? Robyn MacDonald I don 't know ifthat was planned for that unconditional C-1; I can 't answer that question. Mayor Lockwood In going back to your comment, Tad, about your comment that you couldn 't sell the homes because of the unbuilt commercial , I guess you kind of have that issue on the side lot there. Tad Braswell Well, we think we can overcome the cell tower and the commercial on the side with landscaping and it only touches a corner of it. Mayor Lockwood Crabapple is a good example. At Vintage Pizza there are homes that are backed up to the parking lot behind retail. Typically with the market , commercial follows residential. There are lots of cars coming from Cherokee and Forsyth so I think there will be a need for commercial there . Our city is different from most because we do not have as much commercial. It may be 15 % of our land Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 26 of39 mass and probably 10 % of our total where most cities to be viable are 40% -50 % commercial. I do have some heart bum over that. If you look at Crabapple, where my wife has a store, three or four years ago she signed a lease that was very favorable to the tenant but now when she has to resign the lease the rent has gone way up . I think at some point we need this. You said you would not do the development without the introduction of the townhomes , if you did not do anything at this point would this be a viable development as currently zoned? Tad Braswell We have been trying to sell it for two years and have not found anyone to do it. After the recession there are very few small custom builders left and national builders are not going to do something they have to design a product for. It is very hard to find a small custom builder who will do it. Mayor Lockwood On the flip side for people to consider, this plan versus the 2014 has a lot more single family than townhomes. Tad Braswell And actually the duplexes that we are proposing is really a 39 foot lot with master on the main product which we can build that on a single family home detached . They are big units. It is not like a small townhome. It will sell in the high $400 ,000 . The product you are getting is a two- story product not a three-story townhome. The original plan had two-story townhomes over retail. It would not have fit in any way you would have looked at it. I think the area there is only viable for 8,000 sq. feet of retail. If you think that 8,000 sq. feet of retail space is that important there, then that is your decision. If you all want us to study the three comers and look at it harder, we would be glad to do whatever you all want. Mayor Lockwood Robyn, is there a way if this is kept commercial to park in and are there other options for sewer capacity with what is existing there now? Robyn MacDonald You mean the previous from 2014, where it would park? Mayor Lockwood With the 2014 plan, how did that sewer and park with commercial there? Robyn MacDonald I can figure parking but I cannot speak to the sewer at all. The now owner had provided through his engineer a letter as well as the operator of the sewer plant saying that there was capacity for the commercial. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 27 of39 Tad Braswell There is capacity for it to be office /retail. Robyn MacDonald Yes , capacity for office/retail but not restaurant. And I would agree there would not be enough parking for restaurant either because you have to have 10 parks /thousand. I would have to continue to analyze to see if there is enough parking for office use. The other idea between this zoning and the other zoning which was done concurrently in 2004 , was shared parking. The idea was you would walk from the southwest comer across the street to the southeast comer. One would argue that we would have plenty of parking in that respect. Mayor Lockwood Would the city be allowed to put a viable restaurant in that could deal with the parking issue? But we still do not have sewer resolved. Robyn MacDonald It is just a little more difficult when you go up to the restaurant. I think most restaurants would like to have parking near to their site. Mayor Lockwood Again , I really have heart bum over changing it specifically for Milton because of the commercial aspect. Five years down the road it may be so prime that we wish we had it. Looking at the big picture, this plan has more detached homes. We are talking seven townhomes versus 19,000 sq. feet. Realistically, it probably is not going to affect traffic or density much but to me is losing the commercial and never being able to get it again. Councilmember Mohrig That is the concern I have as well. We have such limited commercial availability within the city. I know you say today there is not a need for it but as more and more housing goes in throughout Milton , you are going to see more infill in areas today we do not have. When we reviewed this in 2014, we spent a lot of time taking a look at what the balance would be for that plan and liked the idea of having single family detached instead of having all townhomes . We spent a lot of time on the design standards and what we were looking for in those single family detached homes to get the look and feel of the town. The commercial aspect was a part of that and we even asked the question, do you see this as something that is going to be built out and would you build this at the same time or hold it for the future? The answer was , yes, we are going to do it all as one. I personally have a hard time given up limited commercial even though you say it is a small portion. This really was for mixed use and that is what we approved just two years ago and that is what I would like to see it stay. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 28 of39 Councilmember Kunz My statement is a little more visionary. I announced my candidacy for office at the shop across the street and was very aware of the challenges they had at the time. The reality is that many of us in the community are working hard to make this area vibrant. Brian Bowersox and Curtis Mills have made a huge investment in Wilbur and Rudy's across the street. Laura Holmes is with the Milton Building Alliance doing great things out there as well. The vibrancy of that area is starting to become very special. Our commercial property is about the talents of our people. We have a lot of talented people in Milton that could find a way to make this area work. From where I sit , giving up that commercial area is showing a discredit to the faith of our community and I cannot do that. I believe in our people too much that they can make things work in that area. I do not think it is a taking , with all due respect to your attorney, because ultimately pricing determines what you can do. There is a risk as a developer for buying property at a certain price . We have to hold true to our vision and I think the opportunity is there. I do not agree with your assessments. I see what is happening and I think there is plenty of potential but that potential may be a little early it is hard to say but I think we need to stick with what we have right now. Councilmember Lusk Mr. Braswell, what you have come up with is what we approved in 2014 . I would suspect this is the optimal layout for this type of development. Is there any possibility that you could reconfigure this layout to make the commercial more adaptable and more feasible for this type of development? I am not talking about restaurants since they demand the highest sewage treatment. Tad Braswell What we wanted to do was to put in a private plant with two or three restaurants with some more shop space. There is no way that I can finance that. There is no way a restaurant at $36 per square foot is going to generate the revenue . We do not have the capacity for that in this space. If you want me to do more studies, I can do that but there is not a demand for restaurants and retail space at that corner. It is too high risk for someone to develop this for that. I can 't put in a private septic system because you will not allow that. The plant across the street already has problems because it is not getting the sewage it was designed for so it functions under capacity causing lots of problems. It is not going to be a retail spot you think it is going to be. I can do a study to show how many roof tops are needed to make this a successful area which might help you with your future planning. I will be glad to do so. When you lay the numbers out it is not going to be what you envision it to be. Councilmember Lusk I have two points. The first to clarify based on some comments we had from the public. This was rezoned in 2004 by the Fulton County Commission. The City of Milton was not formed until 2006. This board here was not involved in the rezoning of this area. This rezoning from Regul ar Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 29 of39 AG-1 to mixed -u se allowed for residential units and commercial units in this comer of the intersection. Is that correct, Robyn? Robyn MacDonald That is correct. We had 33 townhomes with a specific amount ofretail and specific amount of office . Townhomes were located above the commercial/retail offices . Councilmember Lusk That rezoning also contemplated a community waste water system onsite? Is that correct? Robyn MacDonald That is correct. It was proposed to be located in the AG-1 portion south of there with the community parks . That condition was deleted in July 2014 . Councilmember Lusk Right. So that was also approved by the Fulton County Commission as well? Robyn MacDonald Correct. Councilmember Lusk In 2014 , that prov ision was given up in trade for use or capacity at the Publix shopping center, correct? Robyn MacDonald Based on what the applicant just said, yes that is correct. Mayor Lockwood Does anybody else have anything ? Councilmember Hewitt I am ready to make a motion . I would like to make a motion to deny Agenda Item 16 -058. Councilmember Kunz Second. Mayor Lockwood Okay, I have a motion for denial by Councilmember Hewitt and a second by Councilmember Kunz . Is there any discussion? I know there was a request for a deferral but I am not sure though whether or not we are concerned with the commercial if there is any way to relook at this plan ? I'm sure you guys have looked at it in all different directions. Would there be a way to Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 30 of39 reconfigure it to make it work? It is just a consideration. Okay, does anybody else have comments? Councilmember Kunz I am open to considering trying to make commercial work. Councilmember Hewitt I would rather it be withdrawn than deferred. I have a motion to deny it. Mayor Lockwood We have a motion on the floor to deny it and a second. If there is any interest in allowing it to be withdrawn , that motion and second would have to be denied or not passed. Councilmember Longoria We would have to vote down the denial in order to make another motion. Or we have to have the person who made the motion withdraw it. Councilmember Hewitt I want to just vote on it. Mayor Lockwood Okay, we have a motion and a second for denial. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Just to clarify, I was not in support of that only to look at it to see if they could make it work. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to deny Agenda Item No. 16-058. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion in favor of denial. The motion passed (6-1). Mayor Lockwood was against the denial. End of verbatim transcription UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) Regular Meeting of th e Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 201 6 at 6 :00 pm Page 31 of39 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Michael Chambers, 715 Ebenezer Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I have to say that I am 44 years old and I have lived here, almost 22 years, in North Fulton County and I have never really participated in the public process . I am here tonight with my 13 year old son and I have 3 other children. My wife, Monica, and I live at 715 Ebenezer and we have lived there about 4 Yi years. We purchased the land about 12 years ago. We lived in Crooked Creek for 10 years and I certainly enjoyed my time there and all the golf as well. I am here today, though , to represent some of the folks that live on Ebenezer Road . It is my understanding that we have not really had a voice. I travel significantly for my job so thank you for giving me time to speak tonight. My wife went to the Public Forum. When I heard the attorney speak about how they had not heard any opposition, it made me want to come here and speak on behalf of myself and my neighbors. I reached out to my neighbors to make sure I could speak on their behalf. I have prepared a few comments that I would like to read. My family, along with most of my neighbors , have significant concerns with the proposed development at 745 Ebenezer which is located at the end of our road. That land was purchased by Chatham in 2005 shortly after I purchased my land . I discovered this when Mr. Lucas asked me how much I paid per acre for my land and he did a quick calculation in his head and he thought he had hit the lottery. So , he was quite happy when Chatham bought the land from him. They went under, it was purchased out of bankruptcy and the decision was made by W . J. Albertson to buy land . It has now fluxed back and forth so we have collectively as a group of neighbors spoken , some of us more than others, and I am confident that we are in alignment in our thinking. The proposed development appears to be an end around density while putting our properties in a Milton taxpayer base at risk. We realize that progress and development cannot and should not be stopped . Again, I am very aware of the one acre approval which was there which would create roughly 50 homes there and we are very much in support of that. So, many of us supported becoming a part of Milton and we are confident that our property rights and values will be protected . I remember when you were able to cross over Arnold Mill and bring Milton to us and I was delighted about that. Speaking on behalf of the neighbors on my street, our concerns are the residual effect on our wells with the huge concentration of community sewage and the economic impact of the failure of that system versus 50 homes on one acre lots. I have lived in my home for 4 Yi years and I just had my septic serviced and I can only imagine how often that would have to happen with 50 homes all together with a leaking septic field only being roughly 700 feet from the well on my property. We are also concerned about the value of the proposed homes and the square footage not meeting the standards or the quality of life that we have on Ebenezer Road. We have a very high quality of life on Ebenezer Road. I fell in love with the property as soon as I saw it back in 2004 . Taking the square footage that has been proposed and creating that level of density would diminish the value of our property. I would suggest you look at Hayden Hall neighborhood which has maintained the integrity of the street. Lastly, Sweet Apple Road , which is a gravel road , has become a popular cut through for commuters and there are significant developments going on in Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , March 21, 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 32 of39 Cherokee County. We saw the proposed version that the staff submitted which appears to have an opportunity to connect Lackey Road with Ebenezer Road for future development. This would exponentially increase the traffic volume and current flow on Sweet Apple Road. This is very much a concern to many of us. In closing, each of us are in support of one acre lots that have been approved which would eliminate our concern with community septic systems and the value of our homes. We hope that the council will protect the quality of life on Ebenezer Road by eliminating any development which would connect a neighborhood to Ebenezer and Lackey Road, thus a state road , which runs directly parallel allowing for that. I appreciate your time. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a Resolution Unilaterally Modifying the Sewer Service Map between the City of Milton and Fulton County Pursuant to the Amended Fulton/Milton Sewer Intergovernmental Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 16-03-369 (Agenda Item No. 16-077) (Ken Jarrard, City Attorney) Ken Jarrard, City Attorney As the council is aware , on January 2014, the City Council and Fulton County entered into a second amendment to allow additional sewer service in Milton. It has been long negotiated. The solution is that we have agreed upon the sewer boundary but we have also agreed that it does not make sense for Milton to authorize the additional allowance of sewer in Milton unilaterally. The final resolution we came up with Fulton County is that we have done this two times. We did it in January 2014 by doing a unilateral modification of the sewer map. We also did it again in September 2014. Council had to fill out this unilateral form which you have in your agenda books. The sewer map would be revised and it then becomes the official sewer map between the City of Milton and Fulton County. It doesn't require them to provide sewer but authorizes them to provide it if they choose to do so. This would be the third resolution to authorize the provision of sewer in the city after the second amendment. There would be two parcels; one at 12575 Arnold Mill Road and another at 12655 Arnold Mill Road. Mayor Lockwood Are these two new parcels that we are adding to have sewer? City Attorney Jarrard Yes, I believe that is correct but, Robyn, can you confirm? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 33 of39 Robyn MacDonald Yes , that is correct. It is additional but the reason we are asking for it is that it is part of the Crabapple Form Based Code that you adopted. It is a T4 and a T5 so that implicates that they would need sewer when the Crabapple Form Based Code was approved. We have a de veloper who has presented a plan. They presented an improved plan that we have approved for them to go ahead with a land disturbance permit so that is the reason for the request for the sewer to be included in the map . Again, we have done this before , we did it across the street, actually, to be added to the map . Mayor Lockwood So , I guess to clarify, it is in the Crabapple Overlay. We have approved that and we have approved the zoning but it was approved without them actually having sewer. So , how would that zoning stick? Robyn MacDonald Well , it was implied by approving more than one unit per acre , that approval for the expansion of sewer was implied. We have done this before; across the street as well as a parcel on Bethany Bend across from Cambridge High School. You approved a zoning designation that would require sewer. Mayor Lockwood Could you please refresh my memory? Was this specifically discussed for this parcel or the overlay in general? Robyn MacDonald The overlay in general. When you approved the form based code at T4 and T5 , the density requires sewer. Councilmember Thurman What we are doing tonight is not going to increase density any more than what has already been approved in the past because the density has already been approved; correct? Robyn MacDonald Correct. Mayor Lockwood My question is that if we did not approve this tonight then the developer would not be able to build? Robyn MacDonald Correct. By approving the T4 and T5 zoning designations in the form based code, it was implied that sewer would be approved because those zoning designations allow for more than one unit per acre . Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 2 1, 20 16 at 6:00 pm Page 34 of39 Councilmember Lusk We have already established the parameters . Councilmember Kunz Just for clarification as well, obviously the community input was for this type of development at this location on this parcel. This was the community 's desire to have this type of density in this particular area for this parcel. And , that is what we are talking about tonight so that we can make good on that promise that the community asked for. Robyn MacDonald Correct. Mayor Lockwood Waterside behind there is on sewer. Robyn MacDonald Correct. Mayor Lockwood Has there been any community involvement in this recently? Robyn MacDonald No, not since the form based code was approved. Councilmember Longoria I would like to make a motion to approve Agenda Item No. 16-077. Councilmember Lusk I second the motion. Mayor Lockwood I have to say that I have heartburn on this because of adding additional sewer. I am not in support of that. Councilmember Hewitt Historically, I voted for the sewer map that I thought clarified this in 2008 or 2009 and I have voted against amending the sewer map since then , including the 20 some odd homes that are going in across from Cambridge that just started, so I am not going to support this either. Councilmember Thurman Well , I think in the future we need to be careful that we don 't approve either a form based code or a density that would require something like sewer if that is not our intent. And, that is not saying that this is not a proper place for it, it is adjacent to high density development on Arnold Mill Road , you are not going to put one home per acre in that area but I think we need to be careful in the future that we understand the consequences of everything we are doing. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 35 of39 Mayor Lockwood Again, I felt like , as Burt stated, with the original sewer plan we wanted to nip it in the bud and define the parameters, so to Karen's point, this is something that we need to be careful that it doesn't sneak up again in the future. Councilmember Lusk We have already established these transect zones in the Crabapple Overlay area. Is this one here the outward bounds of the transect zones? Robyn MacDonald This property on the east side is the furthest north and the Crabapple form based code ends at this parcel. Councilmember Mohrig Are we certain that today with our existing zoning this is the last that we are looking at to make a change? I voted with Burt on going against the homes that are being built across from Cambridge because that was an addition of sewer. But, for this you are saying that we have already addressed the zoning so that it should be the zoning that would allow it but we just didn't have it in the sewer map. Robyn MacDonald Correct. City Attorney Jarrard It is a matter of chronology. You adopted the language first. Now that we have the unilateral ability to make our own modification to the sewer map, so it is very easy from a planning perspective , if you like the language, then it dissipates the sewer usage and an amended map is very simple. Councilmember Longoria My reason for making the motion is to support the zoning that we have already put in place. The idea of adding sewer to support the zoning that we know is required there is a logical choice. Nobody is against sewer because it is sewer. People are against sewer because it increases density; however, in this situation the decision had already been made to have a higher density in this area, therefore, sewer is necessary in this particular area. The decision had already been made. Councilmember Lusk This is a sequential process. When we adopted that transect T4, it contemplated introducing sewer in that area. So , if we deny the extension of sewer into this area would it be a taking? City Attorney Jarrard I would not use the word "taking" but it would effectively deny the ability to use the T4 zoning that has already been approved . Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 36 of39 Councilmember Thurman For a long time the only thing we really had to rely on to keep the land use what we wanted was lack of sewer. And, that is why land use and sewer usage in Milton had been tied so closely together. We make our own decisions now. And, I believe we should make decisions based on what is the best land use and then let the sewer come with it or not. Just because sewer is available doesn't mean that it is a land use that we want to have sewer. And, just because sewer may not already be in a particular piece of property at the time, it doesn't mean that the land use is not proper for one that would need sewer. So, I think it goes both ways and we need to make sure we let the land use dictate the property, not the availability of sewer. Because if you let the availability of sewer dictate the land use, then we could end up in big trouble. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 16-077 . Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed (5 -2). Mayor Lockwood and Councilmember Hewitt were in opposition. 2. Consideration of Subdivision Plats: Name of Development/ Location Action Comments Total Acres Density (1) Blue Valley III A, LL 195 , 196 F inal Plat Create 5 lots 7 .184 . 7 lots I acre (2) Kimberly A . and Johnny C. Hembree Minor Plat Move property line NIA NIA & Mark C. & Laura P . Streit, LL 1054 Revision between lots 57 and 58 (3) Water 's Edge, LL 321 , 322, 327, 328 Final Plat Create 19 lots 29.75 .64 lots I acre (4) Keeneland Estates, LL 414 Minor Plat Revise easements NIA NIA Revis ion and show improvements (Agenda Item No. 16-078) Kathle en Fi eld Co mmuni ( ty Develo ment Dir ector 'P ) ... ... Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm P age 37 of39 Kathleen Field, Community Development Director You should have a map in front of you that indicates where all of these subdivisions are located in Milton. Blue Valley and Water's Edge are existing subdivisions and these are the final phases of those subdivisions . The other two plats are minor plat revisions . All of these are zoned AG-1. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item No . 16-078. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Lusk was absent for the vote. 3. Consideration of a Guaranteed Maximum Price for the Construction of City Hall between the City of Milton and New South Construction, Inc. (Agenda Item No. 16-079) (Carte r Lu cas , Assistant City Manager) Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager Tonight , we are asking for your approval on the guaranteed maximum price of the construction of city hall at a value of $10,442,749. If you remember, back in February we approved the original CM agreement with a stated cost limitation of a little over $9.8 million. The difference in these two numbers is based on the allowances that we are carrying under that original number. We have moved those items into the CM contract. Those allowances are for voice and security data and AV . The $10 million dollar figure does not include $122,100 which we are holding as a bid alternate for the actual physical equipment of the security and AV systems. At the time that we are ready to implement that, we will most likely do a change order and most likely take them out of design contingency in order to carry that money. This dollar amount is within our stated budgeted amount for the project so we are asking for your approval of this value tonight. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 16-079. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimously (7-0). MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 38 of39 STAFF REPORTS Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager I have passed out a handout that is a follow-up to the TSPLOST discussion we had about a week ago. The first page is a breakdown of the distribution of the overall project list that we have. These are the eligible projects that we have been reviewing. The next two pages which outline the Yi % distribution and the 'l'4 % distribution are projects that we thought would be eligible based on these amounts. All of these projects will ultimately depend on what actually gets passed. At the bottom of both of the lists are projected revenues that we anticipate from each of these different distribution amounts; regional , local, and other projects would be funded under the 85% and if we get the additional 15% Flex amount , then the Flex projects can be funded. The last page gives you information about the trail plans that we have anticipated. Department Updates 1. Fire 2. Finance 3. Information Technology 4. Communication & Engagement 5. Human Resources Fire Department, Bob Edgar, Fire Chief Thank you again for the proclamation and your kind words. All of the accomplishments you mentioned are due to the dedication of the entire department. Thank yo u for all your support. The MDA boot drive started two weeks ago and on our first day of collection was $12, 771. Last Friday's collection was $14,870 and that does not include the change. We have almost reached the $30,000 mark in just two days of collecting. We greatly appreciate the support from the community. We are continuing with our annual check-up of all the fire hydrants and markers. The hazardous mitigation plan has been completed and sent to the appropriate departments for final review. It will come before the council for your approval very soon. We have three fires that are being actively investigated at this time. Finance Department, Bernadette Harvill, Finance Manager The FY15 audit is complete. All documents have been put together for CAFA publishing. Business licenses are due on March 31 51. Next month I will have numbers for you as to which businesses are still outstanding. As of about a week ago , only half of the businesses had renewed their licenses so we will be very busy in the next few days . The tax sa le process has begun Phase Two which is the title research so I will have numbers for you soon regarding which properties are still outstanding and if we are going to have a June tax sale. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, March 21 , 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 39 of39 Information Technology, David Frizzell, IT Manager Last month we had an uptick in service tickets due to the Public Safety Department. Normally they are not included in my report because they are routine maintenance but this went on longer than usual. Alpharetta put their servers through a new data center so they were down most mornings and then we had to respond to the changes they made which took a couple of days . Communication and Engagement, Angela Thompson, Manager One of the big events coming up for us is the Mayors Run. There are 470 participants registered which is almost double the amount we have had in the past. Our community egg hunt is this Saturday at Friendship Park. Human Resources, Sam Trager, HR Director Our Pay for Performance research is coming along as scheduled. We hope to have the results in late spring or early summer. We will bring forward for your approval at the next meeting a slight change in the pension plan. ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 16-080) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 9 :22 p.m . Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Date Approved: April 25 , 2016