HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 04/25/2016 - MINS 04 25 16 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page I of 116
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 ofthis 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 summaryform. This is an official record
of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Oficial Meetings are audio and video recorded.
The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on April 25,
2016 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lock"'ood presiding.
INVOCATION
Rabbi Alexandria Shuval-Weiner, Temple Beth Tikvah — Roswell, GA
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 Joe Lockwood)
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
(Agenda Item No. 16-091)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the
following changes:
• Move Staff Reports to the next Regular Meeting on May 2, 2016.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
PUBLIC COMMENT
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 2 of 116
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of the March 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 16-092)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of the April 11, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 16-093)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
3. Approval of the Financial Statements for the Period Ending March, 2016.
(Agenda Item No. 16-094)
(Bernadette Harvill. Finance Manager)
4. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Layne
Inliner, LLC for Highgrove Club Drive (1720) Stormwater System Improvements.
(Agenda Item No. 16-095)
(Carter Lucas, Assistant Cit), Manager)
5. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and
Excellere Construction, LLC for the Cogburn Road Sidewalk Project.
(Agenda Item No. 16-096)
(Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager)
6. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Cheryl A. Hilvert, Consultant, for
Facilitation of Strategic Plan Implementation/Departmental Operating Plans Preparation.
(Agenda Item No. 16-097)
(Steven 1Gokoff, Interim City Manager)
7. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and All
Termite and Pest Control, LLC for Pest, Termite and Rodent Control Services.
(Agenda Item No. 16-098)
(Jim Cregge, Parks and Recreation Director)
8. Approval of a Contract Agreement between the City of Milton and Tri Scapes, Inc. for
the Right of Entry, Indemnification and Maintenance.
(Agenda Item No. 16-099)
(Jim Cregge, Parks and Recreation Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve all the Consent Agenda Items.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS (None)
C]
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 3 of 116
FIRST PRESENTATION
1. Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend the Defined Benefit Pension Plan to Reduce the
Qualifications for Normal Retirement to Attainment of 65 and 5 Years of Total Credited
Service.
(Agenda Item No. 16-100)
(Sam Prager, Human Resources Director)
2. Consideration of an Amendment of Chapter 56, Article III of the City of
Milton Code of Ordinances to Update the Maximum Speed Limit Table.
(Agenda Item No. 16-101)
(Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager)
3. Consideration to Adopt an Amendment to the Impact Fee Ordinance Fee
Schedule.
(Agenda Item No. 16-102)
(Michele McIntosh -Ross, Principal Planner)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve the First Presentation Agenda
Items. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-4).
PUBLIC HEARING (None)
Zoning is transcribed verbatim
ZONING AGENDA
1. Consideration of RZ16-02NC16-01 — To Rezone from AG -1 (Agricultural) to CUP
(Community Unit Plan) to develop 50 Single Family Homes on 63.57 Acres at an Overall
Density of 4.79 Units per Acre and a Concurrent Variance to Increase the Maximum Lot
Coverage from 20 Percent to 54 Percent for Each Individual Lot fSec. 64-1141(d)(1)(b)).
(Agenda Item No. 16-086)
ORDINANCE NO. 16-04-272
(First Presentation at April 11, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6.00 pm
Page 4 of 116
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. The first slide in front of you represents
an outline of the subject parcel that we are going to be discussing this evening. The current zoning
for this parcel is AG -1. The 2030 future land use map shows this area for a proposed land use as
AEE (Agricultural Equestrian and Estate Residential). This is the site plan that was submitted on
January 7, 2016 and this is the required yield plan for the parcel that shows a yield of 50 lots. This
was based on a level three soil analysis. This shows a rendering of how the proposed 50 lots would
lay out. Next, we received a revised conceptual plan that was submitted on February 17, 2016 and
then, subsequent to that, another revised conceptual plan. And, the difference between these two
recent submittals of a conceptual plan really relates to the number of units along the frontage;
along Ebenezer Road.
The subject site contains 63.57 acres and is undeveloped although one of the parcels did have a
single family residence adjacent to the lake which has been demolished. The site is zoned AG -1
(Agricultural) and is located within the "Agricultural, Equestrian, Estate Residential" designation
of the 2030 City of Milton Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant is requesting a rezoning to CUP (Community Unit Plan) to build 50 single family
residences at an overall density of 0.79 units per acre.
Based on the applicant's final conceptual site plan that was submitted on March 17, 2016, and a
letter of intent that was received on January 7, 2016 to the Community Development Department,
Staff offers the following considerations:
In relation to the development plan which is also essentially the yield plan. Properties not served
by sanitary sewer shall be required to provide a site plan to determine the maximum number of
lots on the subject site as follows:
The number of lots in a CUP development shall not exceed the number of lots that can be
reasonably created within an AG -1 zoned development at the same site location. The following
items shall be submitted to determine the lot yield for the subject property:
(1) Indicate all bodies of water and the appropriate buffers;
(2) Provide a level 3 soil analysis;
(3) Provide a tree survey indicating specimen and heritage trees;
(4) Indicate the configuration of lots and associated minimum building setbacks; and
(5) Show approximate location of house footprint on each lot.
The applicant has submitted all of the above listed items depicted as a "traditional" AG -1
(Agricultural) district subdivision. Based on these parameters, the maximum number of lots that
can be developed is 50 lots. Staff also refers to this plan as the "Yield Plan".
In terms of development standards for the CUP:
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2415 at 6:00 pm
Page 5 of 116
Development Standards
Proposed Development
No building shall exceed 40 feet in
Applicant has not indicated height
height
Minimum lot area as specified in
The minimum lot size shown is 11,250 sq. ft.
conditions
Minimum CUP development size shall
The CUP development size is 63.57 acres
be four acres
Maximum density allowed is 5 units per
The density of the subject site is 0.79 units per acre
gross acre
Minimum lot width (at building line]
72 feet
per conditions
Minimum CUP development frontage
Exceeds the minimum
shall be 35 feet
Minimum lot frontage shall be 20 feet
20 feet minimum
adjoining a street
Minimum heated floor area as
2,400 square feet
specified in conditions
Minimum perimeter setback as
Per the site plan
specified
The following are proposed building setbacks and development standards for individual lots (CUP
allows for applicant to specify building setbacks):
a) Front yard setback — 10 feet (20 feet previously)
b) Side yard setback — 5 feet with minimum 15 -foot separation between buildings
c) Side yard setback adjacent to a street — 20 feet
d) Rear yard- 20 feet
The applicant has indicated that there will be a minimum of 50 percent open space. Below is the
Zoning Ordinance's definition of "open space":
Open space means a portion of a site which is permanently set aside for public or private use and
will not be developed. The space may be used for passive or active recreation or may be reserved
to protect or buffer natural areas.
(1) The term "open space" includes wooded areas other than required landscape strips and buffers,
pathways/walkways, fields, and sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands, etc.
(2) The term 'open space" does not include detention facilities and platted residential lots.
Other site plan considerations of the applicant's revised conceptual site plan submitted on March
17. 2016 are as follows:
The proposed site plan does not indicate sidewalks within the development or along Ebenezer
Road. The construction of sidewalks within a residential land use designation of one unit or less
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2416 at 6:00 pm
Page 6 of 116
shall be decided on a case-by-case basis pursuant to Chapter 50 of Subdivisions (City Code). The
applicant has stated that internal walking paths throughout the entire property should be considered
in lieu of the sidewalk requirement.
Staff notes that Ebenezer Road and its associated right-of-way is in the City of Roswell. Therefore,
Staff has included transportation conditions to be coordinated with the City of Roswell.
The conceptual site pian submitted on March 17, 2016 does not show any stormwater management
facilities on the site. A conceptual stormwater management plan will be required prior to the
submittal of a Land Disturbance Permit.
The applicant proposes to utilize a community septic system where each lot will have its own
septic tank and the effluent is pre-treated and then applied onto a dedicated site for leaching for
the entire community. The site plan indicates the general location of the community septic leaching
area in the undeveloped area on the site plan submitted on January 7, 2016.
Staff notes that this system would be evaluated and permitted by the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division and not the Fulton County Health
Department. In addition, there are conditions included if the request is approved regarding the
community septic system.
Site plan objectives for the proposed development are as follows:
It is Staff's opinion that in order to preserve the subject site and create a community that is designed
with the property and its unique qualities, Staff suggests the following objectives when evaluating
the proposed site plan:
1) Conservation Area (size) — The overaII amount of open space or conservation area is
50%. The majority is located in the northeast portion of the property and it is Staffs
opinion that this northeast portion of the property should be developed in order to
preserve the rural view shed along Ebenezer Road.
2) Small rural enclave or hamlets — The development pattern appears to be more suburban
in character than enclave or hamlets.
3) Small residential nodes — There are three areas but two of the three areas dead end and
do not connect.
4) Consider this parcel as part of a larger overall plan for the area — Potential for
connecting with adjacent parcels that may be developed in the future has not been
shown on the site plan.
5) Preserve rural character from the roadway(s) --- Although there is approximately 100
feet of viewshed with additional area on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to
Ebenezer Road, more of the development should be pushed away from the road to
protect the existing pastureland and placed in the north east section of the site.
6) Vehicular and pedestrian inter -connectivity — It appears there can be easy pedestrian
inter -connectivity, but vehicular inter -connectivity is not shown to adjacent parcels.
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 7 of 116
7) Naturalized detention area(s)- It appears that the existing pond will be utilized but
further details will be needed.
8) Internal trail network- There is an internal trail network on the site.
9) Rural architecture/local vernacular — The applicant is in agreement with this type of
architecture but has not agreed to individual building permit approval by the City
Architect.
10) Preserve existing vegetation and topography to the extent possible when siting homes.
The applicant has indicated that he is not in agreement for the City Arborist to approve
each lot's site plan for removal of vegetation which is not subject to the Tree
Preservation Ordinance.
11) Variable lot sizes and building locations on the lot — Although there are different lot
sizes, they are divided up into two locations instead of a variety of sizes on the street.
Additionally, the houses are not positioned in a variety of locations.
Therefore, it is Staff's recommendation not to support the applicant's revised conceptual site plan
submitted March 17, 2016 because it does not meet the above site plan objectives and provide the
best solution for developing the site plan. The applicant submitted a set of architectural conditions
on April 19, 2016 for the proposed development. If this petition is approved, Staff is in support of
them and they are included in the Recommended Conditions.
VC16-01 - To increase the maximum lot coverage from 20 percent to 50 percent for each
individual lot.
The applicant has requested the above concurrent variance to increase the maximum lot coverage
based on the fact that the lots are small in size and would not meet the maximum 20 percent lot
coverage requirement which is typically attainable when one acre lots are developed. Staff does
not recommend the submitted site pian by the applicant and therefore recommends DENIAL of
VC16-01 but the request is included in the Recommended Conditions if the Mayor and City
Council choose to approve the increased lot coverage to 50 percent.
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ANALYSIS
The applicant has completed the listing of questions on the ESA as required by Section 64-2126
of the zoning ordinance. A field survey of the site was conducted by Staff and verified the presence
of a perennial stream, manmade pond, wetlands, flood plain, steep slopes, and specimen trees. At
the time of submittal of a land disturbance permit, more detailed evaluation of the specimen trees
will be made. It appears that specimen trees were not identified on the eastern portion adjacent to
Sweet Apple Road.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 8 of 116
FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
This shows the increase in number of students for Crabapple Crossing, Northwestern Middle
School and Milton High School should a development of 50 lots occur on this site.
FINANCIAL MODELING RESULTS
The present value of annual net fiscal impacts for this development is $243,228.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On January 26, 2016 the applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information Meeting
(CZIM) held at the Milton City Hall. There were seven residents from the community in attendance
who signed the sign in sheets. The community stated that they were concerned about the additional
traffic that 50 lots would produce and the small lots instead of one acre lots.
CITY OF MILTON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COURTESY REVIEW — February 2,
2016
Comments:
• The applicant will revise plans after community/staff meetings and represent to the DRB
at its April meeting.
City of Milton Planning Commission Meeting on March 23, 2016, they recommend unanimously,
7-0, to deny this application and the variance request.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND REPORT:
The applicant held the Public Participation meeting on Monday, February 15, 2016 at the Kroger
Community Room. There were ten residents in attendance. The applicant provided the required
Public Participation Report on February 19, 2016 via e-mail and an update on February 14, 2016.
Standards of Review
Whether or not the proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and
development of adjacent and nearby Property?
The proposed 50 lot single family residential subdivision developed at a density of 0.79 units per
acre is inconsistent with adjacent and nearby properties which are scattered single family
residences on large lots. Although the proposed lots are less than one acre in size, the distance of
the proposed lots and therefore the building setback is more than 50 feet which is the typical rear
building setback for AG -I developed lots. And, I will insert here that if it is on an exterior street,
the requirement is a 60 foot setback. It is Staff's opinion that the applicant can create a more
appropriate development pattern by moving a portion of the lots to the northeastern portion of the
site where there is no development. This would allow for a larger "view shed" along Ebenezer
Road and eliminate the dead end cul-de-sacs.
1
1
i
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 9 of 116
Whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or
nearby property?
It is Staff's opinion that the proposal may not adversely affect existing use or usability of the
adjacent properties. It is Staff's opinion that the sites can be developed so that the lots can be
moved away from Ebenezer Road to preserve the rural viewshed and cross the stream to the
northeast portion of the site. In addition, there can be groupings of lots with greenspace in between
and the ability to site each house to preserve any appropriate vegetation or topography.
Whether the property to be affected by the proposal has a reasonable economic use as
currently zoned?
The subject site may have a reasonable use as currently zoned AG -1.
Whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan?
The 2030 City of Milton Comprehensive Plan: the proposed use is for Agricultural, Equestrian,
and Estate Residential.
Proposed use/density:
Single Family Residential at 0.79 units per acre is consistent.
Although the proposed CUP (Community Unit Plan) development conforms to the
recommended overall density of one unit or less per acre, it does not conform to the
following suggested policy and intent of the 2030 City of Milton Comprehensive Plan if
developed with the Recommended Conditions.
• We will encourage development that is sensitive to the overall setting of the
community and will contribute to our community's character and sense of place.
Whether there are other existing or changed conditions affecting the use and development
of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the
proposal?
It is Staff's opinion that the proposed conceptual site plan submitted on March 17, 2016 by the
applicant does not provide the best site plan for the subject site considering the site's pristine,
rural character.
Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered environmentally
adverse to the natural resources, environment and citizens of the City of Milton?
The proposed use may not be environmentally adverse to the natural resources, environment and
citizens of the City, but it is the opinion of Staff that the homes can be better sited on the
property to preserve the natural resources such as trees and unique topography of the site.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis of the proposed development, Staff recommends DENIAL of
RZ16-02 and VC16w01. if the Mayor and City Council chooses to approve the applicant's
conceptual site plan submitted on March 17, 2016, the attached Recommended Conditions
should be approved.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page l0 of 116
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, the rezoning of property located at
745 Ebenezer Road should be approved for CUP (Community Unit Plan) CONDITIONAL
subject to the owner's agreement to the following enumerated conditions.
1) To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a) Single family detached dwellings and accessory uses and structures.
b) No more than 50 total dwelling units at a maximum density of 0.79 units per acre,
whichever is less, based on the total acreage zoned. Approved lot/units totals are not
guaranteed. The developer is responsible through site engineering (at the time of
application for a Land Disturbance Permit) to demonstrate that all lots/units within the
approved development meet or exceed all the development standards of the City of
Milton. The total lot/units yield of the subject site shall be determined by this final
engineering.
2) To the owner's agreement to abide by the fallowing:
a) To the revised concept site plan submitted on March 17, 2016. Said site plan is
conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, all
other applicable City ordinances and these conditions prior to the approval of a Land
Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall
be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy,
b) All areas which are not part of an individual lot and held in common shall be
maintained by a mandatory homeowners association, whose proposed documents of
incorporation shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review
and approval prior to the recording of the first final plat.
3) To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
a) Minimum lot size — 11,250 square feet
b) Minimum lot width (at building line) — 72 feet
c) Minimum lot frontage — 20 feet
d) Minimum heated floor area per unit — 2,400 square feet
e) Minimum front yard setback — 10 feet
f) Minimum side yard setback -- 5 feet with a 15 foot building separation
g) Minimum side yard setback adjacent to a street — 20 feet
h) Minimum rear yard- 20 feet
i) Adjacent to AG -1 (Agricultural) — Per the Site Plan
j) Minimum perimeter setback for the development — Per the Site Plan
k) Prior to issuance of each building permit, the City Architect shall approve exterior
elevations and placement of the building on the lot.
1) Prior to issuance of each building permit or individual grading permit, the
City Arborist shall approve the number and type of trees and vegetation that can be
removed from the Iot.
m) Provide a minimum of 50 percent open space.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2416 at 6:00 prn
Page 11 of 116
n) Maximum lot coverage of 50 percent for each individual lot; dependent on the granting
of VC 16-D 1.
o) In order to provide a defined building construction area, provide a plan at the time of
Land Disturbance Permit submittal that indicates the areas of disturbance including
grading and tree removal for the site. All areas not disturbed or graded shall remain in a
natural state.
4) To the owner's agreement to the following building development considerations:
a) Historically inspired American style homes using rural and small town vernacular
architecture.
b) Fagade and Exterior Finishes:
1. Cladding shall consist of a mix of:
i. Natural Stone — no synthetic stone
ii. Lap Siding to be fiber cement board
1. Smooth finish boards
2. Variety of siding exposure widths
iii. Board and Batten
iv. Natural Wood Shake
v. Variety of traditional brick colors and textures found in rural and
small town America.
2. Front porches (minimum 8 feet deep) or wrap around porches:
i. Appropriately sized columns
ii. Columns using classical orders
3. Windows sashes to include muntin patterns of six lights over six.
4. When shutters are used, they will include hinges and be sized appropriately for
the window.
5. Roofing materials to include allowable roof types:
i. Standing Seam Metal
ii. Architectural Asphalt Shingles
iii. Wood Shake
6. Roofs shall be sloped or gabled, shed roofs for accent only.
7. Metal gutters with round downspouts.
8. Carriage Style Garage Doors.
9. Rear of homes along Ebenezer road to include four sides architecture.
5) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements dedications, and
improvements:
a) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton or the City of Roswell prior to the approval
of a Land Disturbance Permit, sufficient land as required by the City of Roswell
Department of Transportation
i. Proposed right-of-way shall be located no less than 16 feet behind the
edge of pavement of Ebenezer Road as required by the City of Roswell
Department of Transportation
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of 116
ii. Provide 5 foot wide sidewalk with minimum 10 foot wide grass strip along
entire property frontage of Ebenezer Road as approved by the City of
Roswell Department of Transportation. All proposed infrastructure
improvements (i.e. sidewalk, curb and gutter, ditch, etc.) shall tie to the
existing facilities on adjacent properties as required by the City of Milton
Public Works Department and City of Roswell Department of
Transportation_
b) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton sufficient land as necessary to provide for 50
feet of right of way from the proposed roadway to the northwest property line for
future interparcel connection as required and approved by the City of Milton Public
Works Department.
c) Access to the site shall be subject to the approval of the City of Milton Public Works
Department and the City of Roswell Department of Transportation, prior to the
issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit.
6) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a) Owner shall be required to have an approved stormwater concept plan prior to
submission of a land disturbance permit application.
b) Owner agrees to limit the number of homes adjacent to the viewshed along Ebenezer
Road to no more than seven (7) homes.
c) Owner agrees to the following items regarding the community septic system:
i. Owners shall submit a perpetual maintenance and operations bond
sufficient to cover the replacement of all essential mechanical equipment
and provide for a minimum of three years of contract operations services.
The perpetual maintenance and operations bond shall be in a form and
amount acceptable to the City and from a surety rated no less than B++ by
A.M. Best.
ii. Owner shall submit a Trust Indenture in a form acceptable to the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division and the city of Milton shall have the
authority to approve the Trustee. The Owner shall provide written
statements indicating that the proposed Trustee's relationship to the
Grantor does not create a conflict of interest for the Trustee and that the
Trustee is willing and capable of the responsibilities established by the
Trustee Indenture.
iii, Owner shall submit to the city, prior to City Council approval,
confirmation from Fulton County that the proposed septic system is in
compliance with the standards of the health and wellness department and
the Fulton County sewerage regulations.
iv. City shall have the right to review and approve the design of any
community septic system proposed for the project prior to the issuance of
a land disturbance permit.
V. No expansion of the system, other than as may be required by the
appropriate regulatory authority, shall be permitted and no lots, other than
J
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 13 of 116
those shown on the approved site plan shall be added to the community
septic system. Neighborhood covenants shall be prepared and recorded
that provide that the system shall not be expanded to serve lots or
development outside of the lots on the approved site plan.
And, that is my presentation.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, are there any questions for Kathy at this point before we hear from the applicant`?
Councilmember Longoria
Kathy, how long has CUP zoning been available as an option in the city?
Kathy Field
The CUP, Robyn, can you answer that question?
Robyn MacDonald
Sorry, what was that again?
Councilmember Longoria
How tong has CUP been available?
Robyn MacDonald
Since the inception of the city and prior to that.
Councilmember Longoria
Do we have other CUP developments in Milton?
Robyn MacDonald
We do.
Councilmember Longoria
Can you name a few of those; I'll name Crooked Creek.
Robyn MacDonald
That is with sewer but without sewer there is Triple Crown, a portion of White Columns,
Kingsley Estates, Atlanta National.
Councilmember Longoria
So, we have done similar things. Most of those were in existence at the point and time the city
came in.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 14 of 115
Robyn MacDonald
We did a final, like a fourth phase of Triple Crown, was done a couple of years ago but that is all
the CUP's we have done. We have done a couple of NUP's which are a little bit different
because they use sewer.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay. On the portion of the property that is adjacent to Sweet Apple Road, I mean obviously
we've got a gravel road and a regular road that intersect, there is no access in the proposal from
the gravel road, but did that impact or come into play in terms of the yield plan itself, because,
obviously, property adjacent to a gravel road is supposed to have three acre lot minimums.
Kathy Field
Carter can answer that. I'll Iet Carter start then I'll fill in.
Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager
It is not necessarily that it is adjacent to a gravel road that kicks in the requirement for three
acres, it is that it accesses off of the...
Councilmember Longoria
So, the driveway or something has to come off the road.
Carter Lucas
That is correct; that is what triggers the three acre threshold.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, so the fact that there is no access in the proposal eliminates that as a requirement?
Carter Lucas
Yes sir, that is correct.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, in your presentation you mentioned that the Fulton County School Impact assessment, I
think they called it a re -zoning impact assessment, and I just want to try and be as clear as we can
be, it seems Iike the rezoning from AG -1 to CUP is that we are implying that there are 50 homes
that are created out of the change in zoning and that is really not true because there are going to be
some homes there if it is developed as AG -1. We think there might be as many as 50 so really the
impact or the rezoning impact may be zero but it is certainly less than 50 but and if we are
communicating that just based on a development of any type going in there then that makes more
sense. I just want to get clarity on that.
Kathy Field
Yes, and that is part of the exercise that we do. When we have a rezoning application, we always
look at the impact, but clearly, if this were development under AG -1, there would certainly be an
impact, we wouldn't show it because it would be allowed by right.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 20I6 at 5:00 pm
Page I5 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, Carter, Ebenezer Road right now is a dead-end. Is there any plan to extend that or connect
that anywhere else? Have we given any consideration to that?
Carter Lucas
It has not come up in any of our transportation discussions. Based on the old maps it did look like
at one point it did go down and tie into Lackey, but that would be the logical tie-in point, then you
would have to decide what to do with Lackey out to 140 or back through Litchfield 100, but at this
point there has been no discussion on the extension of Ebenezer.
Councilmember Longoria
So, for the foreseeable future, it is going to remain a dead-end.
Carter Lucas
In fact, the section in front of this property on down to the dead-end is the City of Roswell.
Councilmember Longoria
So, the number of homes indicated in the proposal that would include the change to CUP versus
the yield rendering that is included for AG -1, I mean there are 50 homes in both and I don't
necessarily want to get into the discussion right now if 50 homes is the real number, but Iet's Just
pretend that it is some number that is the same for both proposals, that means there really wouldn't
be a traffic impact in terms of rezoning from AG -1 to something else.
Carter Lucas
Correct.
Councilmember Longoria
The traffic is the traffic and if it gets built to AG -1 it is going to be the same as if it gets developed
as CUP.
Carter Lucas
Yes sir, that is correct.
Councilmember Longoria
The last question I have Kathy is, if this property were to be developed as AG -1, and there were
no variances being requested, how many approvals are going to be required by the developer?
Carter Lucas
I will start with that one. As of right AG -1, it would move straight to the LDP process.
Councilmember Longoria
So, they wouldn't have to have any kind of approval for where they want to put houses so long
as the lots themselves they have platted are one acre or more and they are putting a home on
there that meets the AG -1 standard,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 20t6 at 6:40 pm
Page 16 of 116
Kathy Field
That is right, which has its own setback standards.
Councilmember Longoria
Correct, okay, thank you.
Councilmember Lusk
Further to Joe's last point, could you go over the process maybe in a little more detail on an
AG -1 application and how it goes from the application to permit and to construction.
Kathy Field
I will start with the zoning part and then I will probably turn it over to Carter but clearly with AG -
1, that is an allowed by right zoning category and most of the land within the city is zoned AGA.
So, therefore, the owner of the land is allowed to develop it according to those AG -1 standards.
Unlike a zoning ordinance where you have to send notices to the neighbors, for instance, that does
not happen with AG -1. When you have AG -1, it is by right, and you go really right into the
development phase. You come in and there would be a plan and it would be reviewed by Carter's
group. Carter, you can just sort of pick it up but we would check to make sure it had the zoning
and then, of course, all the setbacks to the houses and everything is looked at as part of the building
permit. So, we do the zoning part and then there is a development part that goes on and a soil
erosion part that goes on then the building part goes on and then they finally end up with the
Certificate of Occupancy. But, Carter can give you more detail about where they would go directly
in terms of AG -1.
Carter Lucas
So, once they came through the zoning piece which is basically a concept plan approval or some
people refer to it as a preliminary plat, the concept pian approval will then go to a stormwater
concept plan and you can do those concurrently if you wanted to. Once you had those concepts
approved and, basically those just lay out the guidelines under which the LDP will be reviewed so
it allows the concept of both stormwater and the lot layout to be approved prior to expenditure of
a lot of engineering costs. So, once those two concept plans are approved, it goes straight into the
LPD process. The LPD process is the formal engineering design, final engineering design of the
infrastructure required for the subdivision and it also goes to Fulton County for either Health
Department and/or water approval. Once all those approvals are in place and the LDP is issued
off of those drawings, then it goes into construction. The infrastructure construction, once that is
completed and approved, we receive the final plat, once the final plat is approved, we can issue
the building permits off of the final plat.
Councilmember Lusk
Okay, this is all then, this whole process is notifying the public and the neighbors and the whole
community?
Carter Lucas
There is no public notification in that process because it is a by -right type process.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2416 at 6:00 pm
Page 17 of 116
Councilmember Lusk
Okay, so as soon as he gets his LDP, the next morning he can go out with chainsaws and dozers
and start working without any notification to anyone?
Carter Lucas
That is correct.
Councilmember Lusk
Okay, maybe it could go through the process for CUP then either compare it or contrast it however
the case may be.
Kathy Field
The CUP is a rezoning process that we do and we, of course, send out notices to the neighbors.
The plan at first comes in and we look at the plan to make sure that it does meet the requirements
and we also at that time ask them to provide us with the yield plan which is part of the CUP
rezoning process, they must provide that. We then advertise the application and Robyn will hold
the first public meeting which we call the Community Zoning Information Meeting which is an
informal meeting for neighbors and interested parties to come in and talk informally to the
developer in terms of what his proposed project is. Subsequent to that, the developer has to hold
his own public meeting, a public information meeting which is usually held at Kroger or some
place near the proposed development that is going on. And, then subsequent to that, there will be
a courtesy review by the DRB of the site plan. They are looking at it from a design perspective.
It then goes on to the Planning Commission for their review and comment. At that point, staff has
provided it to the Planning Commission and that report then goes through the City Council with
their review of the application and their recommendation for approval or denial with conditions.
We can, under a rezoning, attach conditions to the application which we did with the application
before you and those conditions include, for instance, full architectural review for all buildings,
we included the design guidelines that we would use for that. That is included as one of the
conditions I read tonight. We include a much more enhanced report from the City Arborist rather
than just identifying specimen trees we suggest that he be rendered the authority to review and
approve all trees that are being removed from the site. And, then next, we also put a condition in
that mandates that for each building lot that a site construction area be reviewed and approved by
the arborist so that they whole lot, for instance, is not clear cut and grated. That it is done very
environmentally sensitive. These are all conditions and we do that for most rezonings. We always
have conditions that we can legally include. And, we provide those to you and then you certainly
make the final determination of whether or not to approve those conditions but we do have that
flexibility with a rezoning because it is case by case basis, we look at it specifically, and so we are
able to capture those. But, if it is an AGA by right development, that is already inherent on the
land, it goes with the land, and they are entitled to develop there. Of course, we have certain
requirements and development standards such as setbacks and whatnot; looking at specimen trees,
there are some general development standards but we can get very specific when we do a rezoning,
so I think there are differences.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6.00 pm
Page 18 of 116
Councilmember Lusk
So, would you say in the last part of your discussion here, variation between CUP or any rezoning
as compared with AG -1; CUP is pretty specific as far as how the land is grated, how trees are
removed, how homes are sited, etc. as opposed to AG -1 which is a by right part of the code where
you could possibly go in and clear cut a lot and mass grate it; is that true to say?
Kathy Field
Yes, and we have seen that to some extent especially as specimen trees are taken and the developer
has to pay into a tree recompense fund for those trees that are taken out. We try to save the trees
to the extent that we can, that is always our goal, but a developer does have the liberty to do that.
And, you know, some of these sites do have some topography issues and sometimes it is easier
rather than building into the site, again, it is up to the developer, he can make that determination;
grate it off or build into the site, we have seen it all ways within the city. We try to encourage
good development practices.
Councilmcmber Lusk
Okay, maybe one other general question, would you say that there is more community involvement
on the design of the development under CUP than there is under the typical AG -1 type
development?
Kathy Field
Yes, because the way that the rezoning process is structured, it builds in community input all along
the way.
Councilmember Lusk
One last question here, on your recommendations on the last page, (iii) states that the owner shall
submit to the city prior to City Council approval confirmation from Fulton County that the
proposed septic system is in compliance with the standards of the Health and Wellness Department
and that Fulton County sewerage regulations. In a development this size, I think it is stated earlier
in this application that it goes through DNR and EPD.
Kathy Field
Yes, Carter or Robyn, can you respond to that?
Carter Lucas
That was a condition established to address the code section in the subdivision regulations that
brought Fulton County into the process. Fulton County wouldn't necessarily regulate a system
like this. It would go to the state so the applicant would just need to submit a letter that basically
said that Fulton County was, approval by the state would be approval by the county.
Councilmember Lusk
Thank you, Kathy.
�J
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:40 pm
Page I9 of 116
1
Councilmember Mohrig
Kathy, just a couple of questions, under one of your recommended approvals (5)(b) it says,
dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton sufficient land as necessary to provide for 50 feet of right
of way from the proposed roadway to the northwest property line for future interparcel connection
as required and approved by the City of Milton Public Works Department. This seems to be a
pretty much self-contained subdivision. Why would we be requiring any type of interparcel
vehicular connectivity? I can understand the trail system connection. But, why do we have that
in there as a recommendation?
Carter Lucas
I think we try to look for a project interconnectivity wherever the opportunity presents itself. When
you look at the potential development to the north and the Lahkapani development and the
potential for connecting to sections of Lackey or out to 140, that relieves some of the pressure off
of the intersection at Etris, Cox, and Ebenezer. So, whenever we have an opportunity where we
can look for a connection to another point that would allow some relief from an intersection that
otherwise couldn't get relief, we try to take advantage of that. So, that was the intent of that
particular condition.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, I guess as far as the option, council could say, because what I have heard overwhelmingly from
communities is that they do not want to have interparcels and connectivity; they like the dead-end
road. Rather than try to make that work and be a cut through, that is still something that council
could vote on. Correct?
Carter Lucas
That is absolutely a condition that you can choose to accept.
Councilmember Mohrig
Okay, and one other question, as far as the natural undisturbed buffer, can it be specified to ensure
that this goes into a land trust where it is; if it is undisturbed today it stays undisturbed. I have
heard different opinions from different people. Is that something we can protect as part of this
development where you can actually ensure that what is greenspace today, what is protected, will
stay protected going forward.
Kathy Field
I will refer this to our attorney but I would think that we could also ask the applicant that too.
Because you are asking that it be made into a conservation easement.
Councilmember Mohrig
You could do that.
11
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 116
Kathy Field
I think that would be a question for the applicant to see if he is willing to put that. I think you are
talking about the 100 foot buffer along Ebenezer Road? Is that the area you are referring to?
Councilmember Mohrig
Basically, anything that is native undeveloped greenspace.
Carter Lucas
I will tell you from a stormwater perspective, that is one thing that will count toward water quality
is the conservation of greenspace provided it is more than 10,000 contiguous square feet. So, any
types of actions like that, they can get credit toward their stormwater requirements for that.
Councilmember Hewitt
This 63.57 acres. Is it currently 63.57 acres in one tract or is it multiple tracts?
Carter Lucas
It is three different tracts. That is the total acreage so you've got; I can tell you the total acreage
of all three tracts, just give me a second. You have a 23 acre tract that borders Sweet Apple moving
to the west, there is another tract of 24.7 and 22 acres; I'm sorry, that first 23 acres is actually 15
on our side of Sweet Apple. That tract covers both sides of Sweet Apple, so it is 15 on our side.
Councilmember Hewitt
Okay, and it is a separate owner than the other two?
Carter Lucas
Yes sir,
Councilmember Hewitt
And, that is on Sweet Apple gravel road, the 15 acres?
Carter Lucas
That is correct.
Councilmember Lusk
To one of the last points that Rick made regarding interconnectivity, and I believe there was a case
in front of us about a year ago, adjoining developments up on Birmingham Highway. Enniskerry,
I think was one, and I forgot the adjoining one.
Carter Lucas
Arcaro?
Councilmember Lusk
Arcaro, yes. And, it was suggested, and came out of the recommended conditions that there be, I
believe, interconnectivity between the two developments and it was turned down. I guess, we
don't have a firm policy that addresses that. Is that safe to say?
Regular Meering of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 21 of 116
Carter Lucas
That was a little bit different case because the parcels were right adjacent to each other and they
both would exit out onto 372 so it didn't necessarily provide us with access to another road in
addition to the one that fronted those two parcels. So, while the value is still there to some degree,
when the entrances are only separated by 1,000 feet or so, system wide we don't see it quite as the
same value as we might on a condition like this where we would connect over to 140. So, it is not
a hard and fast policy. We look at it on a case by case basis.
Councilmember Lusk
And, as far as the easement of four interconnectivity that is proposed here. Is there a reason that
it is suggested to go to the northwest rather than to the west? The west is the school property_
Carter Lucas
West is the school property and l think for a development in a manner similar to this would be to
the north. Typically, we don't make a connection like that over to the school without some other
road there so, you certainly could make it to the west also, but I think the value is going to be to
the north making it up to 140.
Councilmember Lusk
1 understood from an unnamed source that the school property is on the market and available for
development.
Councilmember Longoria
Real quick, just as a follow-up, the interparcel connectivity. Let's just pretend for a second that
the property next door becomes its own development, you are suggesting that the avenue to get
from Ebenezer Road to Lackey Road would run through these two residential areas?
Carter Lucas
To the north?
Councilmember Longoria
Yes.
Carter Lucas
We are suggesting that you would tie to a potential development to the north, yes,
Councilmember Longoria
So, rather than take Ebenezer Road and find a way to extend it to connect, we are having traffic
go through residential areas?
Carter Lucas
Yes, so it would typically be similar like residential traffic to residential traffic. You could
continue Ebenezer on but there is no right of way at that point. So, if that area were to develop,
you certainly can.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2015 at 5:00 pm
Page 22 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
I am picking on you, Carter, because you know I am sensitive to this just because of what the
citizens in Crooked Creek wanted to do because it was becoming very difficult to be in their front
yard without having to worry about getting run over. So, I find it hard to believe that we would
want to try to encourage that. That doesn't seem consistent with what we are trying to do as a city.
Carter Lucas
Yes, every case is going to be a little bit different. If you look at Crooked Creek and you look at
connecting Highway 9 up to Forsyth County. You are looking at connecting it from Highway 9
which is a very congested corridor to some not so congested roads when you get up to Cogburn,
Hopewell, and Hamby. So, traffic is going to go where traffic finds the least resistance just like
everything else and that is a very difficult thing to do. And, it is a very difficult thing to model
and estimate. So, you look at residential traffic at the end of Ebenezer, is somebody going to come
all the way from 140 down Cox and Ebenezer then back out through this just to get back onto 140.
In an emergency situation, certainly could, there are certainly situations that could occur in that
stretch where people would do that. And, from a system wide standpoint, we want that opportunity
to exist.
Councilmember Longoria
I get that.
Carter Lucas
We are looking at it from a transportation system.
Councilmember Hewitt
Along those lines real quick, is the portion of Lackey Road that is in Milton all gravel?
Carter Lucas
There is a small section at the very end near 140 that is paved and then when you cross into Roswell
it is then paved but everything else is gravel.
Mayor Lockwood
Going back to the reason Joe was asking about the CUP, Robyn, you mentioned some existing
neighborhoods that are CUP's, how about in general what, to the best of your knowledge, are the
ones that we have approved. I know we have done a few in the city since we have been the City
of Milton.
Robyn MacDonald
Actually, the only CUP we've done is the one I mentioned; the fourth phase of Triple Crown that
went out onto Birmingham Highway, the very last phase. We have done a couple of NUP's, one
of them was the one, we was a similar type of zoning methodology. We did it across from
Cambridge as well as the lower part of Hopewell; the Beazer Home Development was NUP. But,
really, the only CUP we have done as a city has been the extension of Triple Crown.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of 11 d
Mayor Lockwood
What were the other ones you mentioned that were existing?
Robyn MacDonald
So, we have the larger rest of Triple Crown. We have a portion of White Columns off of the
Freemanville entrance. We have Kingsley Estates, which is further up Freemanville. And, Atlanta
National is a little bit different because they have minimum two acre lots so they wanted to
preserve that. Those are the main ones. There are a few other smaller ones.
Mayor Lockwood
I think you mentioned Crooked Creek too, right?
Robyn MacDonald
Crooked Creek, yes, there is Crooked Creek but that is with sewer.
Mayor Lockwood
I guess my question is with all of those CUP's, were all the minimum lot sizes one acre?
Robyn MacDonald
That is correct except for Crooked Creek, yes.
Mayor Lockwood
I guess the question I have for Carter to take Bill's question further, as you go through the AG -1
development scenario, you get the LPD and then you have a preliminary plat, is that approval?
Carter Lucas
It is called a concept plan in our instance, basically, they are essentially the same thing.
Mayor Lockwood
At what point is the final plat to where they find out what the actual density is based on say you
have to go to the Health Department for septic and things like that and soil and engineering, at
what point would the developer then finalize what his actual yield is?
Carter Lucas
Well, there certainly would be a final plat after the development with all the infrastructure in place.
There is a potential that the county could put restrictions on each of those lots when they approve
the final plat so there is a two-step process the county and Health Department for septic and water
approves the plat as well as the city approves the plat. If they put special conditions on those lots,
there is a potential at the end of the day where they would try to get a permit for the individual
home site that did not meet whatever conditions the county put on it but I would say, in most cases,
what happens is, your final count is, at the final plat stage once all the infrastructure is installed.
Mayor Lockwood
I guess my question is, it would be conceivable that a preliminary plat versus once you got in there
and actually started the yield could be different.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 1 l6
Carter Lucas
Sure.
Mayor Lockwood
Rick mentioned something about, and maybe Ken could, as far as keeping something preserved in
perpetuity, legally, is that something that can be done, or something 100 years from now when we
are all gone, different neighbors are living there, different situations, could that ever be reversed?
City Attorney Jarrard
Well, that plays into a protective covenant. In many other jurisdictions, that is a concern and the
applicant has to be agreeable to doing that and they locked down.
Councilmember Longoria
Locked down forever and ever. Because I get a lot of questions from a lot of citizens saying that
there is nothing that is permanent and as a consultant, the only thing that I know is permanent are
temporary arrangements but other than that I am not aware of much.
Councilmember Mohrig
But, you are saying it could be under Georgia law, you could do that.
Councilmember Kunz
Carter, maybe you can answer this or Kathy. Whenever we have someone that comes before us
with AG -1 with a soil test and maybe if there is a discrepancy with the actual amount of homes
that can be put im how often do we see a discrepancy and what degree of that are we usually seeing.
Carter Lucas
I don't know that we track that internally that I could give you a good answer. Most of that goes
to the county and is approved by the county. And, usually any discrepancy is going to be resolved
through the use of an alternative type system. I don't know off the top of my head that I have seen
one that was approved under preliminary or a final plat that never got built on for any reason from
a septic perspective but I am sure it probably exists out there.
Councilmember Lusk
Question for our City Attorney, a point has been brought up that if this is approved tonight, this
would set a precedence for all the rest of the development that might occur in the city. What is
your comment on that?
City Attorney Jarrard
I will break into two responses. The first response is that does it set a legal precedence and my
answer is that it does not. Land is unique. Every piece of land in Milton is unique. Circumstances
surrounding land development are unique. The application for your zoning code is unique. Is the
product of your legislative discretion as you view the surrounding properties, so I don't believe
that it establishes any type of legal precedence in respect to tying your hands to a future land use
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 20I6 at 6:00 pm
Page 25 of 116
application? That is my legal answer. I will tell you, however, that we all also must at least be
cognizant of the fact that if you approve some particular land use, it doesn't necessarily have to be
this one, but you may hear about it again, in other words another member of the development
community or property owner may say, remember when you did this, you just need to be mindful
of that. But, from a legal perspective, there is no legal precedent.
Councilmember Lusk
Thank you.
Councilmember Hewitt
Further to Matt's question, Carter, I guess my question is that if you take a conceptual yield plan
similar to page seven in our packet that has the 50 AG -I homes on it, there is a whole other layer
of site design and engineering that may come out with the LDP yield.
Carter Lucas
That is correct.
Councilmember Hewitt
And, you may with topography or soil conditions or whatever, you are probably going to catch
any of your changes, your reductions if there are any, in that process.
Carter Lucas
That is correct.
Councilmember Hewitt
More so than from LDP plans to the final plat.
Carter Lucas
That is correct.
Councilmember Hewitt
So, the chance to catch those potential additional lots is from concept to LDP plans.
Carter Lucas
That is correct. And, at the time the final engineering is done.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, I guess bridging off from that, so from LDP, if today it says it is 50, but when you go and do
the final analysis that could actually go down.
Carter Lucas
It could.
i
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 26 of 116
1
Councilmember Mohrig
Because, I have heard a lot of concerns about the validity of the soil, and I am not a soil expert,
but that is something that before any land disturbance permit would be granted, that would be
looked at again.
Carter Lucas
That is correct.
Councilmember Mohrig
In more detail to say, no the layout of where you are looking at this is the tree and here is what is
allowed.
Carter Lucas
It is not necessarily from a soil perspective, though, it is more from an engineering perspective
when you start looking at the grading of the roads and the subsurface conditions that exist
associated with that so the level three soil report that has been done and associated with this is
typically pretty good. If you get some significant excavation that may change the soil types, you
may need to reduce some of that, but typically it is going to be related to other items associated
with the development of the final plat rather than the four or five items that are listed in the zoning
code that we review the yield plan from.
Councilmember Mohrig
One last question regarding precedence setting, Ken, I heard what you said that this does not set a
Iegal precedence where someone can come in and claim they did it here so I am entitled to do it
here with CUP. It is still individual lot zoning application dependent. We would actually review
each one. We can look at a site, if this was denied or approved, we could deny or approve any
other future CUP that comes forward based upon standards that we are looking for.
City Attorney Jarrard
Correct, based upon these other considerations that the Milton City Council applies.
Mayor Lockwood
Just to clarify that though, what if it was one next door that had the exact same characteristics and
issues, to your point earlier about, it is going to kind of raise an eyebrow.
City Attorney Jarrard
That is the difference between arguing that you did it next door versus that being Iegally mandated
to do it here. Because, again, even if it is next door, property, considerations, traffic, access,
topography, all things are going to be different. Land just by its very nature is different. But, to
the Mayor's point, just be mindful of the fact that you have to hear the argument, you can't shut
down the argument, but by a legal precedence it is all the same Ianguage.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 27 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
Kathy, Carter, this whole debate that we are getting ready to have is all about how many homes
can actually fit on this property. I find it a little bit concerning that we are going to save some
portion of this determination for the land disturbance permit step. And, my concem here is that
what we need to understand today is exactly how many homes could be developed on AG -I as the
zoning versus what happens when we rezone. Because the land they are disturbing, once we
rezone, is not the land that they would be developing on in the same way if it stayed AG -1. So,
I've got some real concerns and when you were saying that part of the step and your conditions, I
got a little bit worried then but I was going to save it until after we heard the public's concerns.
But, I want to make sure, testing the soil for a home that we are getting ready to build that doesn't
need to have a septic tank set up for it is completely different than the other condition so how are
we using that as the final determination on yield?
Carter Lucas
That's right. So, the yield plan has a little bit different than the engineering plan. The yield plan
has five specific conditions that we review it by. In an ordinary situation, you would then take that
yield plan through an LDP process and through final plat. This is a little bit unique in that the
zoning plan would then, if accrued, would then control the LDP process. So, the LDP itself, the
final engineering plans, would not be over the same type of plan that we saw on the yield plan. It
would be over the CUP site plan approved plan.
Councilmember Longoria
Well, I can tell you this. I don't want to vote for anything that I am not sure is not somehow
changing what the results would have been had we left the zoning alone. My intent has nothing to
do, I mean, it has everything to do with keeping this thing the same. Making the zoning not a
material part of what we are doing. Okay. So, how do we reconcile that? I mean, how do we,
well, I'll tell you what because there are going to be plenty of questions about the yield plan and
everything else so why don't we save that for a little bit later.
Mayor Lockwood
The only statement I want to add though, Joe, in all due respect, in my opinion, this is not just
about the number of homes.
Councilmember Longoria
I said for me, Joe.
Mayor Lockwood
For me, there are several other issues there too.
Councilmember Hewitt
We can get into it a little bit more for discussion, so we've got this page seven; 50 lot development
yield plan that if it was going to be constructed that way, it may end up being 47. But, if we vote
for 50; it's 50. If we vote for 50...
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 28 of 116
Carter Lucas
If it goes to the CUP site plan versus a full engineering plan of the yield plan then that is right.
Councilmember Hewitt
You really wouldn't know if this 50 lot AG -1 would pull 50 lots until you take it all the way to the
LDP plans even plus a little bit.
Carter Lucas
Could be. That's right.
Mayor Lockwood
The point is if it is approved it is 50. If it goes AG -1, it could be up to 50 but could be 30, 40,
whatever, some other number, but we don't know it exactly until it goes through the process.
Carter Lucas
Typically when we see a reduction, it is only by a lot or two.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, we will open it up for public comment on this.
City Attorney Jarrard
Mr. Mayor, may I have a word very quickly? We did have one request to speak that did come in
late, this was not an individual that wanted something read; this individual wants to speak. Your
rules, Section 19(a) of your rules provides that public comment cards are supposed to be provided
prior to the reading. To Councilmember Longoria's point, I get that and understand that, however,
the council addressed the issue regarding the individual who wanted their comment read, so the
rules provide that the council can waive the rule or we can simply have this read.
Mayor Lockwood
So, you are giving us direction that we could go either way. Thank you, Ken. Let me say one
thing. Part of the reasoning, we reason we ask for all the cards, is so that when you are in the
middle of a discussion and somebody wants to get up and speak again or counterpoint and this and
that and get into something like, I do understand that someone does come in late and is not
available for that, again, to your point, Joe, if that is our policy, but Ken is saying that we have the
ability so I would be certainly willing, anybody that shows up at our city council meetings and
gives up the effort, I always want to listen. I would certainly be at least okay with allowing their
position to be read into the record. But, it would be up to council if they would be willing to do
that or allow that person to speak. Do you guys have any thoughts on that?
Councilmember Longoria
Yes, I am not trying to be a jerk, I am just trying to have some set of rules that we follow so that
we have a set of predictable conditions. And, so, I don't mind, I'll do whatever the council wants
to do. I just think we need to have a policy and we need to follow it.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 20I6 at 6:00 pm
Page 29 of 116
Councilmember Lusk
Along with Joe's comment, we seemed to have deviated from our policy and our rule. And, we
may have set, in some people's terms, a precedent in doing that. But, I think we need to reel this
in. I think, I don't want to be here until midnight. I respect everybody's opinion.
Councilmember Longoria
Let's take what we've got now and be done with it.
Councilmember Kunz
Well, I agree with having a policy but at the same time I like hearing people talk. I think a
compromise might be in order here and having it actually read might be the way to go.
Councilmember Hewitt
I am fine with it being read into the record.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, is there one more person who is okay with it being read?
City Attorney Jarrard
Without further conversation, we will readapt the public comments.
Mayor Lockwood
Thank you.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Nathan Hendricks, 5085 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Mr. Mayor and members of the council, I actually have two applications in front of me. One is
the rezoned application and the other one is the current one. We would appreciate, before we get
started, to hear your consideration of allowing some additional time both for the applicant and for
the community that is here to speak in opposition.
Mayor Lockwood
I would pretty much assume that we would have to look at that as we go along.
Nathan Hendricks
I am Pete Hendricks. I practice law at 6085 Lake Forrest Drive. Charlie Bostwick, the applicant,
is here with me this evening. Charlie is the one who has been immersed in this application. He
speaks with absolute specificity to each and every one of the points that I think you will want
further examined. So, with that I am just going to turn the presentation over to Charlie.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6.00 pm
Page 30 of 116
1
Charlie Bostwick, 230 Hammond Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 303.28
Good evening. We have an amazing opportunity this evening to create a place that protects the
rural look and feel of Milton by protecting the environmentally sensitive areas of this precious site
and to create empty nester housing for those folks that would like to stay in Milton and have that
sort of place to live. We can't do any of that with the AG -1 that is currently available or we would
be trying to do that today or we wouldn't be trying to make this change. With our plan, we can
protect the rural nature of Ebenezer Road. AG -I will destroy all the natural beauty along Ebenezer
and have homes as close as 60 feet to Ebenezer Road as opposed to our plan where the homes are
200 feet back from the road. We can preserve buffers and the beautiful pasture land that is along
that road today. We can preserve 35 acres, I will say that again, 35 acres of the 64, will be
preserved permanently for the city and for the neighbors. We will create two miles of hiking trails,
nature trails, a lakeside park, and fishing. We have a land trust that is very interested in our site
so we can protect it permanently over and above, on top of the HDA preservation. We are doing
this because we care about preserving these areas. We want to protect the environmentally
sensitive property. I am an environmentalist. Someone recently described me as an
environmentalist who happens to make his living by building homes, designing homes, and
creating great places. I'll take that explanation although I have been that way since I was a child.
I've been involved in many environmental projects. I have been a volunteer trail guide for the
Chattahoochee Nature Center for many years. I helped write the Help Protect Conservation Plan.
I helped Cherokee County's conservation zoning by rewriting it to be stricter on developers. It
has since been gutted but it helped for ten years. I'm not just a developer trying to clear trees or
get my way. I care about this deeply and my team cares about this deeply. AG -1 will mass clear
and grate this site. You can see the difference between the sites and what will be cleared and what
is not. Our plan, including the streets, the homes, the retention areas, the dam has some work that
needs to be done on it, we will clear 23 acres. AG -1 will clear 50 acres. This is a smart, low
impact development plan. It is ecologically sensitive. It will save at least 100 unique native
species, We have some up on the board over here. We have identified these in the areas we want
to protect. This is a special property because unlike most of the property around Milton and
suburban Atlanta, it is not covered with ivy, kudzu, and honeysuckle. Instead, it happens to be a
site with much of the native species preserved on it and we want to protect that. Only with the
CUP plan, can we create empty nester targeted housing because a one acre lot works great for
families. We hear almost every day from somebody in Milton when we are selling homes that
they are looking for a place for after they have raised their family. It is great for family homes to
have the big backyard and all that sort of thing but they want low maintenance but still have a great
high end home. We are still building homes that are in the high $700,000 to $1 million. These
are very high end homes. Trust me, this land is way too expensive for us to build anything less
than that. With these empty nester homes, we will actually have, if anything, a decrease in traffic
and an impact on schools. And, we will have the opportunity to continue our legacy of great
architecture in Milton. We have built many homes here. We have built them recently and received
some award winning homes here. We were published in the AJC two weeks ago featuring one of
our great farmhouse homes. We have also, if you saw the conditions that were put in there for
how we will build the homes, those are conditions that we put in there. Those are not City of
Milton conditions. Those are things that we put upon ourselves because we want to demonstrate
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 31 of l 16
that we are going to have high end homes here that are going to meet a high level of architectural
quality. I want to respond for a minute to some of the feedback that we have received, We have
been working on this for five months. We have had multiple public meetings and have met with
a lot of individuals that live on the street and a Iot of other community members that care about
this. We have gotten a lot of feedback. We have a better plan today because of that feedback.
But, to respond to the thought about the 50 lots. We have one of the most respected soil engineers
who has probably done many of the homes for people who are in the room today who are living in
Milton. And, we have a highly respected civil engineer and they have worked on this site and
spent days out there studying the soil and this really can get 50 AG -1 lots. Now, at the end of the
day, you might lose one or add one; there is just as much of a chance of adding one. There is an
area where if we have to do the AG -1 plan, we will have to pipe some creek, when we pipe the
creek we will lose the buffer. We haven't even counted those buffers but we have areas we can
count. There is a chance we can actually pick up one but 50 is a very good number certified by
engineers. It has been available to the public for three months. There have been some people just
in the last week who have begun to question the validity of it. But, in three months we have not
had one engineer, one qualified engineer, question it whatsoever. It is a real plan. Crossing the
creek is not a financial issue for us; it is an ecological one, it would destroy this property. It is an
expensive crossing; $254,400 to $300,000. The community septic that we have to do with the
CUP plan is $350,000 to $400,000 more than individual systems so, if anything, it is slightly
advantageous to cross the creek. But, that is not the point. The point is to save this ecologically
sensitive property, to save this extra land, this available greenspace for the city. We are going to
have much more than 50% of this land preserved in greenspace. If we were just the developer
trying to get whatever we can, it would be right at 50.00. It is not, it is much greater than that.
And, in terms of the septic system, I also want to point out that it is safer, cleaner water, it preserves
the environment; it is the only way to preserve this property. You will have people tell you tonight,
I am sure, and it has been said in recent weeks that we are building cluster homes; the smallest
property is more than twice the size of a typical cluster home. And, our average lot size is .4 acres
so these are not the tiny lots that some people are making them out to be. And, most importantly,
this is a density neutral plan. Unlike many conservation zonings where there is a density bump or
as far as I know, every other developer who has come before you to do something like this has
asked. We are not asking for one additional home. Many have asked for 10%, 50%, and even
100% increase. We are not. And, let me just repeat, this is the only way we will preserve the rural
look and feel of Milton and Ebenezer Road that needs to be protected. With 200 feet of setback
instead of 60 feet. It is the only way to protect the environmentally sensitive areas of this precious
site. And, it is the only way to create empty nester homes; high end empty nester homes, that those
folks are looking for. I have given to you a set of alternative conditions and these are revised
recommended conditions. The staff has put together a great list of recommended conditions and
we accept almost all of them. We made a few little tweaks to it that you will see and each of those
are in bold in what I have handed to you. Many of these address some of the questions that you
put into your and many of these actually make things a little stricter on us and do an even better
job of protecting pasture land and preserving the area. So, if you will take a look at those items
we are ready to accept all ofthese with the very minor revisions that we have added. One of these
I will point out to you is protecting the street type on Ebenezer and keeping it a rural street section
rather than going to a suburban feel with curb and gutter and that sort of thing. Thank you for your
time.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 32 of 116
1
Mayor Lockwood
Out of respect for everyone who has shown up here tonight, I certainly want to give them time to
talk so I guess we are going to have to add some time and that will be added equally on both sides.
At this point, I don't even know how many comment cards we have but we can start with adding
ten minutes to each side if the council is okay with that or we can add more if we think we need
more. I would be willing to say twenty minutes on each side at this point if that is okay with
council.
Councilmember Longoria
I am good with that but we should have an individual limit.
Mayor Lockwood
We typically do two minutes. Let's add twenty minutes and each individual gets two minutes and
if people don't use that and then we will probably end up having to add some more.
Joan Borzilleri, 540 Kings County Court, Milton, Georgia 34004
Thank you. Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Joan Borzilleri and I am here tonight
as a board member and to speak on behalf of Preserve Rural Milton in favor of the Sweet Apple
Development. I know I share the views of many people in this community that it is time to allow
the type of development Brightwater Homes has proposed in Milton. This is a responsible
development that sets aside the environmentally sensitive portion of this parcel in a protected
conservation easement that will never be developed. This preserved land has a stream with water
that supports our endangered local river systems as the AJC recently reported. It has over 100
unique species of native plants, numerous specimen trees, and home to many animals and birds.
The developer has done an excellent job of protecting the view shed next to Ebenezer Road, in
addition, by conserving the 33 acres by Sweet Apple Road that view shed is left totally natural.
To continue developing by only using AG -1 zoning was probably a good strategy back in 2006
when the city was breaking away from Fulton County. I think we have seen that this strategy does
not preserve parcels of undisturbed land with all of its natural beauty and benefits for both us and
local wildlife. AG -1 destroys many trees because the developer can just agree to buy his way out
of saving trees. It is important for the community to know that Sweet Apple is not asking for any
land conservation costs from taxpayers. The Preserve Rural Milton conservation petition has over
1,600 signatures. The PRM Facebook page has over 1,500 followers and this number is growing
daily. PRM has tried to educate people by sighting articles, books and research done by experts
in developing for land conservation. The citizens of Milton have ranked green space for passive
recreation and enjoyment of the woods and wildlife as their highest priority in the needs
assessments conducted by the city. People in Milton trust that their leaders are listening to them
and not just to those who are fearful of change, angry with government in general, and present a
non -fact based argument. Thank you.
Francia Lindon, 14810 East Bluff Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
Fortunately, Charlie Bostwick covered many of the things that I wanted to say about this project;
the fact that he is preserving so much of the open space. But, I do want to address something that
has gone on during this whole discussion period for the past year and a half both about the
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2015 at 6:00 prn
Page 33 of 116
conservation subdivision ordinance and this project and that is the lack of intellectual honesty from
the opposition. And, two things in particular have struck me and that is that the Planning
Commission did not vote three times to reject the CSU. If you check the meetings and the voting
records you will find that is true. Every member of the city council spoke in support of the concept
of the CSO during the final hearing it was only the details that they wanted improved. The fact
that 35 acres of open space with over 100 native plants and trees will be saved was never mentioned
in any of the blogs in opposition to this project. And, I think that is a huge omission and really
taints the discussion and slants it in a way that is dishonest. Finally, I just want to say that by
offering Milton 35 acres of undeveloped green space, Sweet Apple is distinctive from other cluster
housing which rarely takes into account the environmental impact of development. It also has the
potential to give Milton a quality product. To quote Randall Arndt, "the home buyer speaking
through the marketplace appears to have demonstrated a greater desire for a home with access to
permanently protected land than for one located on a larger lot but without the open space
amenity." Thank you for Iistening.
Charlie Fisher, 388 Taylor Glen Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am in support of the proposed Brightwater development and I want to say, here we are again
another opportunity for the City of Milton Elected officials to right the wrong. This new
development has the making of what will save Milton from becoming just another city of one acre
sprawl. The owners of Brightwater have gone beyond the call of duty in complying with the City
and community. The surrounding area where this project is intended has the blessing of many of
the homeowners. Also, these homes will be between $700,000 and 1 million dollars so they are
not cheap. In fact they will cost more than over 80% of new homes being built now in Milton. Yes
they will have a community septic but the plan is to have it inspected monthly. When was the last
time anyone on the council had your septic tank inspected. Or for that matter the people in the
audience tonight just to be sure that everything was in order. As a family with 3 children 2 are
married and one will be going to college in the fall of 2017 I am wondering what to do with my
home. Do my wife and I need a 5 bedroom home in typical large home Milton development.
Probably not. Do we need a 3 bedroom 2 '/_? bath home on less than an acre most likely, yes. Will
we find it in Milton? Most likely, no. Unless the city fathers stand up for what's right and let
developer's build a new kind of subdivision we will no longer be the center of the equestrian
population in Georgia. You, our city leaders should stand up for what's right and let us have the
flexibility of housing options to allow us to age in the place we have grown to love. I don't want
to move because a group of people want us to become a bedroom community of one acre lots and
5,004 plus square foot homes. The Planning Commission in there hearing on this rezoning talked
about how great the local control of our destiny is now that we are a City. So instead of being
known as the City Council that could and did not, become the city council that could and that did
something. Your legacy is in your hands.
Jae Lamp'l, 2330 Saddle Springs Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am in favor of this development. I am not a fan of development at all. If I had my way, we
would all build treehouses. But, here is the situation. We are in Milton and we know what is
happening here. The rate of development is almost out of control. Now, I am in favor of large lot
sires like everybody else. I love that but there is a price for that. We have this plot of land and
there are going to be 50 houses on this plot of land one way or another. And, as Councilmember
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 34 of 116
Lusk said, it is approved as AG -1 and the developer can come in and strip and clear cut the next
day. And, as we just heard the developer say, there will be under AG -1 mass clearing and grading
of this site. We have an opportunity now to protect something that could go away tomorrow.
Thirty-five acres of undisturbed natural area. That is what is so wonderful about Milton. And,
there is only so much of that left. And, if we allow this to go away, that is one less parcel of land
that we have. So, there is a cost to everything. Yes, we want large lot size but at what price. We
need to preserve this land so I am in favor of this development. Thank you.
Margaret Lootens, 3515 Peacock Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am not going to talk about the many virtues of the property that Charlie and Brightwater has
presented tonight and so many people want to talk about. I would rather pick up where Ken Jarrard
left off. I would like to talk about how this doesn't set a legal precedent but how this doesn't shut
down the argument. How people will continually bring it up and remember when. In my view, it
sets up a social precedent that we are talking about. And, if we can't shut down the argument can
we at least shut down the behavior. I am talking about disrespect. I started generally talking about
respect. Now, I am going to talk about disrespect, specifically. And, I am going to talk about a
Design Review Board meeting that I went to in March of this year. I was there on behalf of a
neighbor supporting the expansion of his Montessori School and while I was there, somebody was
in violation of the ordinances with a fence violation. And, this gentleman was very upset and he
was told he could not keep his fence. Ranting, screaming, arms flaying, insults, mind you, at a
volunteer board of the city. There were other people at this meeting. I see that Bob Buscemi is
here, Ed Parsons is here, Angela Rambeau is here. I was very concerned for my safety as well as
the safety of the volunteer board members, the city staff members, and myself. And, I did not even
realize that Rick was even there; my councilperson in my jurisdiction, until I got up to turn around
and walk out to call the police. I am not a person who is easily unnerved but I encourage you
tonight to stop the bullying and do the right thing and fulfill the promise of the Mayor's legacy
plan by approving this tonight. Thank you.
Kathy Ort speaking on behalf of:
Laura Rencher, 1060 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30044
Good evening Mayor and city counciimembers. My name is Kathy Ort Towers and I live at 150
Buttermuir Court in Johns Creek, Georgia. I am here tonight to speak on behalf of Laura Rencher.
She lives at 1060 Birmingham Road in Milton. I am here to read her comments but in
consideration of time, I have condensed them slightly.
I am in support of the rezoning because I believe it is an important step in the city's conservation
plan goals. It represents a balance between development and conservation. Landowners should
have the option to develop their land and choose not to destroy the integrity of the entire plat. This
developer actually has made every effort to accommodate all of our concerns about the view shed
and septic. It is important to balance the community's rights and the landowner's rights. As we
know, change is really hard and we fear what we don't know. Fear seems to be impeding the
balance between conservation and development. Whether it be fear of community septic systems,
fear of establishing a precedent or increased development. Each argument seems to be based on
fear. Every decision regarding change involves a certain amount of risk but no decision means
that we safely venture down the same path with the same problems of the AG -1 development and
a loss of rural land. Landowners can cash in on their favorable property values and no one can
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 35 of 116
blame them. It would be a shame if the loud minority holds back the city's vision and progress.
We all agree that we value rural character, open space, wildlife, and equestrian presence in the
city. It is important to look for solutions and compromise. As a community, we can find answers
and look at all sides. This is the only way forward. Leadership is about having a vision and it
takes a brave citizen or councilmember to be the voice for that vision and vote for the rezoning.
Thank you.
.lack Lindon, 14810 East Sluff, Milton, Georgia 30044
Good evening Mayor and council. The proposed Sweet Apple CUP development will be situated
on about 64 acres and contain 54 homes. That is 1.28 acres per home; the same as the density for
a 50 home one acre lot subdivision that could be built at the same location. In other words, not
high density as the opponents of the plan think. The difference is that the Sweet Apple CUP will
preserve in perpetuity 35 acres of trees, pastures, and natural resources and will provide an
enhanced view shed along Ebenezer Road, none of which is true of traditional AG -1 sprawl
development. This preservation is exactly what is identified in Milton's comprehensive land use
plan and it calls for the protection of Milton's natural beauty as provided by the trees, lakes,
streams, and pastoral views. This subdivision will preserve 35 acres of forest meadow natural
resources in contrast to the one acre tree less sprawl that we see with most of the subdivisions
being built here today. All of you on the city council are well aware that our community has
created many ways to protect our environment and rural character for almost two years, One of
the main reasons the CSO did not pass was because it calls for CSR's to be our preferred mode of
development. Many landowners and members of city boards were concerned that this would
require the landowners who wanted to develop their property to submit conservation plans along
with their standard one acre plans. That objection, however, is not true here. In this case, the
landowners want to develop their properties with preservation greenspace and the environment at
the top of their mind. Unlike those who develop under AG -1, these landowners who want to
develop to save the environment should enjoy the same rights. In conclusion, I ask you to consider
not only the rights of the landowners but what we all believe in; the mutual need to protect the
beauty of our community now and forever. Thank you.
Vance McGaughey, 255 Meadowood Drive, Roswell, Georgia 30075
The reason I am here is because we received a letter because the property we own is 26 acres on
Sweet Apple which is adjacent to this development. I cannot tell you how ecstatic I am about how
this is coming about. This land has been in our family for 50 years. We have held off on selling
it because for lack of a better term, I have always used the term "wham barn thank you mam"
developer. Someone who comes in, cuts the road, cuts down all the trees, builds the mcmansions,
then plants a Bradford pear or leaves a 20 foot buffer strip and says it is a conservation easement.
That is not a conservation easement. And, we have never done anything because the current zoning
models are based on archaic zoning which really stemmed from after WWII. One acre one house;
half acre one house, it was the suburban sprawl after WWII. So, there was nothing in zoning that
addressed the need to both preserve the land and develop it. And, then a few years ago, along
came a visionary, many of you have heard of him. His name is Steve Nygren and he developed
Serenbe in South Fulton County. Serenbe is an absolute wonderful model based on the English
Village concept which is where you, yes, clustered homes together but you had pockets of homes
interconnected with fields, farms, and forests. People that have moved there say they can't believe
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04 pm
Page 36 of 1 i 6
they found something like that because they have a smaller yard to take care of and an incredibility
energy efficient home but their kids can go on hiking trails and the rest of the land is preserved in
its natural state. So, finally, something has come along that addresses bath developing the land
and preserving it. That is what Brightwater is going to do. They will leave 35 acres. The land is
gorgeous; it has been described as like being in Cashiers, North Carolina. If you follow the spine
of the creek and the mountains and valleys around it and the lake, it is absolutely beautiful. That
is why we have never wanted to do anything with it yet because there were no laws for zoning that
addressed how a developer could preserve it. This does. I urge you to be visionaries on this. You
will get praise a few years from now because people are going to be visiting the land saying this
is what we wanted all along. To walk out of our house and let our kids go play in the creek and
not have a big yard to have to take care of and be able to play in the woods and the fields. Be
visionaries; be bold. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different
result. Thank you.
Bernard Wolfe, 1000 Lackey Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
1 represent Lahkapani which is the largest undisturbed farmland remaining in Milton and Roswell.
I respectively request that you approve the Brightwater proposal. A lot has been said here about
this but I would like to mention a few things. The site plan that you have looks like it would be an
arbitrary way of placing two rows of housing on a field. It is not. Lahkapani and this property are
unique in that what we have is a series of inwardly projecting ridges that give you vertical
separation from the amenity. These ridges are flat on top. They are ideal for what they call the
old villages in Italy and things that I have seen around the world. That is how a lot of this
development is done. What Brightwater has done is what we want to do on Lahkapani. How do
you preserve a natural area; it is the greatest desire of our citizens; natural areas, trails, etc.
Brightwater has made the lot size smaller but not that small. They configure them to take up less
space. In doing so, it is adversely proportional to green space. The smaller the lot you build on,
the more of that land will be greenspace. So, how do you maximize greenspace, with lot size?
Notice also on the site plan that each one of the houses are all positioned that if you look out the
back window you see natural areas. Let's preserve the natural areas so when our kids go out and
walk in their neighborhood, they are looking at the glory of God versus the folly of man, Thank
you.
William Albertson, 320 Crooked Stick Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
1 have been a Milton business owner and resident for the past eight years. I am the seller of this
land. I have owned the land for the last five of the eight years I have lived here. I appreciate what
a special place it is. I have four young children who hike the land. I have an Eagle Scout who
knows the land as well as I do. Brightwater has been a good partner in finding the best solution
for preserving the features that make this place beautiful but would be lost under a traditional AG -
1 development as we have heard tonight. There is going to be opposition to my comments tonight.
We have heard a lot of good things about why we should do it and there are things about why we
should not do it. I think the key is that we have 34 people; less than 100 people speaking here
tonight, and fortunately, Milton has a Comprehensive Plan as well as a conservation plan that have
parameters for 36,000 Milton residents that you represent. So, this is not about the 1% thoughts
on what we should do or the few folks here tonight, although all their points are valid but,
fortunately we have a plan. I was digging through the Milton website tonight to get some
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 37 of 116
inspiration from Professor Daniel's fall 2014 recommendations to you and he said if Milton is
serious about implementing its comprehensive plan, the city will need to place more emphasis on
the preservation of private land. So, here is a situation where Charlie and I have gotten along well,
we share the same view that this land is a special place and we have worked together to come up
with something that serves the 36,000 residents and the city for the planning of the future. The
neighborhood aligns with Milton's future plans. Thank you.
Ed Parsons, 1760 Redd Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
1 am a member of the Design Review Board but I am not here representing thetas; I am representing
my own personal views about this. If you had asked me 60 days ago if I would have supported
this I would have said, I don't know. But, we are fortunate enough to have Charlie present this to
you and now that I understand what they are trying to do, I support it. I think it is a great idea.
My biggest reluctance was the sewer and how they were going to handle that. I don't know if
everyone is familiar with what is going on. Each individual house is going to have its own septic
tank. The only thing that is getting pumped out is the liquid and that is going out across
distribution. I am an environmentalist by trade. I forestry degree and wildlife management degree.
I walked this track of land this morning so I feet like I have a good idea about the land. I am
representing the box turtle I saw today, the trees that I saw today, there are oak trees that are
beautiful; that is what you guys want to preserve. It is a great opportunity to save 35 acres in
Milton. Everyone wants conservation, greenspace, trees saved; here is your first and greatest
opportunity to establish that. I hope you will consider my opinion and the opinion of others that
this is a good use for that land.
The City Clerk read the following public comments into the record
Michael J. Wilson, 14790 East Bluff Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am in favor of this zoning variance.
David Strauss, 1835 Highgrove Club Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
To maintain the beauty of Milton, please support the Sweet Apple CUP.
Bruce Langston, 301 Providence Oaks Circle, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am in favor of this variance because I support trees and preservation of greenspace and natural
habitats. I applaud the developer and any other landowners who seek to preserve greenspace and
view sheds.
Tom Meredith, 735 Ebenezer Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am in support of this agenda item.
David Gower, 825 Ebenezer Road, Roswell, Georgia 30004
Last night I picked up a book to read. It was an old story written in 1843 by Charles Dickens about
a man named Ebenezer who is visited by ghosts. I read for a while but it wasn't long before my
eyes were shut and the book lay flat on my desk. I started to dream and was visited by ghosts of
the past who wanted to see my Ebenezer. The ghost met me at the corner of Cox Road and
Ebenezer Road and we began to walk slowly down Ebenezer toward the dead end. The ghost of
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 38 of 116
the past stopped to review the street, admired and commented approvingly of the multi -acre estate
lots, several horse farms, the Haydon Hall neighborhood, the plentiful trees and the rural nature of
this community. It was at the very end of the street that the ghost saw the request for variance sign
and asked me about it. I replied that the developer called Brightwater Homes was planning a green
development on the land. A puzzled look came over his face. What is greener than the walk we
just took down Ebenezer? I wanted to be a good person. I wanted to save the planet. So, I used
my best green speech and explained that I had been to most of the meetings and that there were
going to be 50 homes on this property but a good portion of the homes are going to be clustered
up against Ebenezer Road. There will be greenspace in the back and walking trails. I explained
that to get access to the back of the property and build houses by AG -1 rules that everyone else on
Ebenezer Road had followed in the past would require a bridge. Brightwater said that a nice
looking bridge could not be built and the trees would have to be cut down. Birds and turtles would
have to be displaced. The cluster of ugly homes along the street was a small price for us to pay in
order for us to be green. The ghost looked at me and said, green is put on people trying to make
money at the expense of others, shouted the angry ghost. Do you really want your street to look
like Roswell? And, at this point I was shaken and afraid to even mention the 50 house community
septic system that was planned.
Monica Chambers, 715 Ebenezer Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am one of the homeowners directly affected by this variance request for Ebenezer Road. I am
here tonight to oppose the variance. Brightwater will lead you to believe that this higher density
is to save greenspace because they are an environmentally friendly builder. Brightwater
consistently produces high density neighborhoods with no greenspace and typically clear cuts the
area and shoves as many homes into the space as possible with no regards for the environment.
So, to imply that they are doing it here for any other reason than to put the homes on the most
buildable profitable land is absurd. If Brightwater was truly interested in the environment, they
would take the land and build 20-30 homes on one acre lots and leave the remaining space as
greenspace. But, that would not be possible so they are not interested in doing that. The yield
plan they submitted showing 50 homes while legally permittable does not have to be economically
feasible. It is a plan brought to maximize the number of lots. It is not necessary to consider
whether a homeowner would actually buy a home on a steep lot, wetlands, or a flood plain. The
yield plan as submitted divides the property into unmarketable lots as clearly acknowledged by
Brightwater by the fact that they have stated that they will not develop the property if they have to
do one acre lots. So, why should we allow a variance that does nothing but take 50 undesirable
lots and cram them into the only buildable portions of the land? Are we more interested in
protecting the developer's pockets or the taxpayers of Milton? The pro greenspace will not be an
economic or visual advantage for our road or the citizens of Milton. It is the most unbuildable
section of the property. It is not visible or accessible to the street and would be home to multiple
drain fields where 50 homes will dump from their septic tanks. I have done a tremendous amount
of research on community septic systems and I know exactly what type of system is being put in
place. Community septic systems are good options when the area is being developed on thousands
of acres; not 60 acres. Serenbe which is being used as an example is on over 900 acres and they
have onsite controls for the system. While I appreciate the passion of the Milton residents, those
speaking for and against this development, I would guess that most of them had never even been
on Ebenezer Road until this issue was brought up and will probably never go on it again after this
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 39 of 116
decision has been made. I suggest that those who are the most affected by this decision; those who
live on Ebenezer Road, be given the most weight when you are making your decision. I
respectfully ask you to deny this request tonight.
Michael Chambers, 715 Ebenezer Road, Milton, Georgia 34044
1 am here tonight to represent Matt Capps who is my neighbor. He is living in Arizona. He is a
baseball player for the Arizona Diamondbacks. I will read the comments that he has. I am also
going to represent Bill Werkheiser. Between Bili, Matt, and myself, we own 22 acres on Ebenezer
Road. We represent six home investments and we are not in support of this proposed development.
Bill and I have been neighbors now for five years and I have owned by property for close to ten
years. In talking with Bill, our idea of wanting to maintain the current approved AG -1 standards
make the most sense for us when we went through our development. I will use my home as an
example. We live on four acres and we developed about an acre and a quarter. The remainder is
full of trees. We share the same creek bed that runs through WJ's property. I have been on WJ's
property and he has been kind enough to let my children fish on it. It is beautiful. I would
encourage whoever develops that land to develop it like that property. It might be more expensive
which means the homeowner would pay more to purchase the land. On behalf of Matt, I will
simply state...
City Councilmembers, Mayor, and City Manager my name is Matt Capps. I live at 690 Ebenezer
Road. I am writing today to speak on maintaining the integrity of our neighborhood and city. I
was born and raised in Douglasville, Georgia just west of Atlanta and lived in Sarasota, Florida
for six years before my wife and I wanted to move back closer to home about five years ago. One
of the more appealing draws to the Milton area for us was the equestrian field, country vibe, and
great accessibility to the city and all the amenities that come with big city life. We were thrilled
in our decision to buy our home in January 2011 and now our growing family; our four year old
son and 19 month old daughter, we are even more fond of the country community of Milton. We
understand we cannot stop and do not wish to keep people from developing along our road as we
clearly understand the value of living in Milton, Georgia. Our only hope is that when people move
to Milton, they move here and find the same values and principles that we are excited to call 690
Ebenezer our house. We have a great area with wonderful people and we wouldn't blame anyone
for wanting to call Milton home. I formally request that AG -1 zoning be upheld. I would hate to
see that disappear. Thank you.
Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Milton, Georgia 34044
1 oppose this zoning request. In the zoning request, the applicant has the burden of proof that the
current zoning classification is a significant detriment to him. I will be listening carefully tonight
for the applicant's explanation that the AG -1 zoning classification is a detriment to him. The
applicant by submission of the yield plan has concluded that the site can be developed with
residential homes as it is currently zoned. A significant detriment to the landowner is not shown
by the fact that the property would be more valuable if it were rezoned or the fact that it would be
more difficult to develop the property as zoned than if rezoned. What happened to opposing
rezonings? Quarter acre lots are not compatible with our long term land use plans or AG -1
subdivisions in our zoned areas. Homes can be located ten feet from the street; homes can be
located 15 feet apart, homes can be located within 20 feet of the exterior property line. The yield
plan is not certified by a professional engineer. I have heard that it was. There is not an engineer
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 40 of 116
stamp on the document. The yield plan does not respect the soil map data that was provided by
the soil samples. There are drain fields partially or completely located in unsuitable areas. The
current yield plan by any reasonable review is a density bonus to the developer. It would be an
unjustified grant of special privilege to the applicant if approved. As the zoning process has
progressed, the site plan has changed several times. The conservation area is now called
undeveloped land; an undefined term, what does that really mean? There is no requirement that
the land be permanently set aside in an easement for permanent protection. The undeveloped land
will be cleared and grated for the community septic system. I want you to think about the legacy
you want to leave for our community. You have an important decision to make tonight. Think
about what would happen if West Paces Ferry, Tuxedo Road, the Governor's Mansion area was
subdivided into one acre lots. We would not have a beautiful area there. Please try to keep this
area beautiful.
Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road, Milton, Georgia 34004
1 support and applaud staff's recommendation for denial of this application. Ebenezer Road is
beautiful. It reminds me of the road I Iive on. My farm is my sanctuary that we purchased here in
Milton because of the security afforded with AG -1 zoning. Our life savings is invested in our
property and now its value hinges on your decision tonight. Approval of this zoning would expose
a loophole in the CLIP by allowing quarter acre lots in a district that is set aside for Agriculture,
Equestrian Operations on estate parcels greater than one acre. Imagine a development like Vickery
or Crabapple on Ebenezer Road. Staff says this is not in keeping with the vision we have for this
area and I agree. I would like to make a few observations about Brightwater Homes. They have
made it very difficult for staff to conduct a comprehensive review of this application. I initially
refused architectural review but finally agreed but did not agree to a site review by an arborist to
identify specimen trees which staff wanted because of the intense grading necessary to develop
this parcel. They submitted their application void of storm water management facilities. They
have chosen to place 50 homes in the most environmentally sensitive area as indicated on the level
three soil map. On March 23`d the environmental survey was submitted and incomplete.
Brightwater claims to be a green builder by protecting and preserving the environment but I will
let you decide whether their actions match their words. Regarding density, Brightwater's legal
counsel states during the introduction of the planning commission meeting on March 23`d, and I
quote Mr. Hendricks, "the northeast area of this property that is in the east of the creek and has a
massive change of topography that accompanies the creek is over to Sweet Apple and is an area
that is really not appropriate for development." Very true. The land off Sweet Apple is not
economic for development. Mr. Stater's analysis found ten lots that are not buildable reducing the
yield to 40; the same as Mr. Jamieson on the planning commission and everyone knows that David
Chatham could only get 36. Please deny this zoning. Thank you.
Marie Tittle, 12875 Heydon Hall, Roswell, Georgia 30004
(speaking on behalf of Heydon Hall Subdivision)
I am here on behalf of our subdivision and the 21 homeowners. We are strongly opposed to this
Brightwater Homes coming in down the road. I did find it interesting; I hope that when I am an
empty nester, my home looks like that. It is a beautiful home and I do not believe these will he for
empty nesters. So, that is falsely represented. And, also, as much as I heard Brightwater discuss
their love of the environment, I am a little surprised that they would be willing to build doze it if
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 41 of 116
it stays AG -1. If you were such an environmentalist, why wouldn't you keep some of it intact.
Our main concern is that there are multi -acre properties all up and down Ebenezer. The smallest
property is our subdivision with one acre home sites. We would ask that you keep the AG -1 zoning
in place and honor that as our councilmembers. Thank you.
Arnold Moore, 395 Canterbury Lake, Milton, Georgia 30004
I agree with the previous speakers. I want to point out just a few discrepancies that were
mentioned. First of all, if you are an environmentalist you don't reject an arborist review of your
property. Second, I would like to find somebody that is willing to pay a million dollars for a 2,400
square foot house. My daughter recently bought a new house and she found that the price of very
nice new houses is about $200 a square foot. So, these are either going to be very nice houses or
much larger than they are talking about or they are going to cost less. One of those things has to
be true. The other thing I want to talk about is with all respect to Mr. Lusk, if CUP type property
protects trees what happened to the lot across the road from Canterbury? If anybody wants to drive
by there and find a tree, they are going to have to look harder than I have. Thank you.
Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you tonight. Tonight, I want to talk with
you about overwhelming citizen opposition to the CSO. Over 800 citizens signed a petition against
it. Citizens were on one side and special interest groups were on the other. Ebenezer Road is the
same, however, we all know that. So, what I want to talk about tonight is the issue that we have
in front of us tonight and that issue is risk. I am a student of risk. As a business strategy consultant,
I deal with high risk every day. I sometimes relate to my clients as seen through the movie, Body
Heat. In it, Mickey Rourke is making a bomb for William Hurt. Rourke tells Hurt, whenever you
try to do something like this, there are fifty ways to mess it up. And, if you can think of twenty-
five of them, then you are a genius. Well, I don't think there are any geniuses in this room.
Brightwater's CUP application is very complicated. Risk hides in complexity. The Milton
Coalition has found many serious issues with this application and we are just lay people. But,
what scares me are the hidden problems that probably still work in this application. Our zoning
laws, which are not perfect, get refined through trial and error over decades. With a CUP, we have
to get it right the first time. This application is a game changer for Milton. It sets the precedence
for Milton and puts us on a very different path. So, my question to you is this, given that the
citizens strongly oppose this application, and given the problems that have been identified, and
given the hidden problems that probably still work in this application, are you willing to take such
a big risk? Are you smarter than a genius? If you have even a shred of doubt about this application,
you owe it to citizens to deny it. Thank you.
David Smith, 120 Bannock Court, Roswell, Georgia 30004
My property backs up to Ebenezer Road, a five acre estate lot next to the Turner property. The
greenspace is great but I want to point out that it is not a public park. It will be a private area.
Also, understand that it is going to be the leach field and if anybody has had any experience with
septic tanks, you know that leach fields are the failure point. The other thing is that I hear AG -1
being talked about and the assumption that it is going to be clear cut. That is a big assumption and
frankly as a resident it sounds like a threat to me so you might want to keep that in mind as you
consider the words to use. Thank you.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 42 of 116
Vincent Taylor, 15670 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004
I want to voice my objection to this. I moved here 5 years ago with my wife and we moved here
because of the character of Milton and we think this will eventually destroy the area. I have seen
this from where I grew up. The lot size was a quarter of an acre and gradually over the last 30
years it has been changed so people got variances and now there are three houses on a quarter of
an acre. One house was torn down and three houses were built in its place. Thank you.
Kurt Nolte, 825 Dockbridge Way, Milton, Georgia 30404
First of all, I want to say that Milton is unique. And, I do give everyone on the council credit for
keeping it that way. It hasn't really been easy over the past almost ten years now. I think we have
the unique rural feel that everyone moved here to enjoy. One of the things that is interesting sitting
back here, is that everybody who lives on Ebenezer Road, other than those who are standing to
make a profit financially, are against this. That must tell you something right there. This zoning
proposal is not consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. A lot of people put a lot
of blood, sweat and effort into that and I am afraid that the more variations of that we get, the less
we will be able to control it going forward. Second, I understand the plan is not density neutral.
The greenspace is located in the back which brings up a question, how does that help the city, if
you are still building more homes than you should on that property and the greenspace is not being
used by the citizens of Milton. Third, I also understand that the planning commission, the group
that you put together and nominate people for, unanimously denied this. They are the ones who
are looking out for the citizens of Milton and they have denied it. They are a strong voice that we
should listen to. What we have in Milton is unique. It takes a lot of diligence and effort to keep it
that way. I appreciate everything that everyone has done and let's hope we can keep the quality
of life here in Milton that most of us moved here for. Thank you.
Lisa Bilkenberger, 205 Sable Pointe Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
Let's listen to the staff both the planning commission and the community development department.
They both denied this proposal for rezoning. I want it denied. Secondly, I haven't heard enough
about the risk that the community septic would propose. There is not enough data. Why would
the city want to take on that risk? Now, of course, if the city was going to get the 35 acres as a
city park, ,that might be interesting, that might weigh the risk but just to have private land and the
city take on the risk of community septic is not interesting to me. Also, why is the housing being
doubled from what we currently support under current AG -1 acreage? I haven't heard any reason
why the city should support that other than perhaps more taxes. I live on AG -I and my property
was not clear cut. I have a lot of trees on my property. So, AG -1 does not mean clear cut. It
means you can maintain the natural area.
Thomas MacMullan, 1714 Windsor Cove, Milton, Georgia 30004
I would like to point out that there is a precedent and we are not talking about courtroom precedent
here. Everything that council does is precedent and especially in a neighborhood and a city like
Milton. Understand that Rotary is a precedent, this gentleman that owns 25 adjacent acres is
ecstatic about this development because he can now develop his property in smaller lots. You see,
precedent takes over very fast. In fact, we have precedence in this room especially if this is
approved. I would like to point out that if you go down Ebenezer Road, this is the exact kind of
i
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 43 of 116
area and development when Milton was conceived 10 years ago that we want to preserve. It is
tasteful and serene. It is well done. It is in good taste. The people obviously enjoy living there.
They enjoy investing their money there. Here is a flyer from the house that is for sale. It is close
to this development. 605 Ebenezer Road, located in the upscale historic area of Milton, on pristine
Ebenezer Road. Distinctive traditional home with panoramic views. Truly a private oasis with
pool, tennis courts, potential equestrian facility. Now, this is going to be next door to this
development. Is there anything in this development that is anything near what I just read? No.
This is destroying the very concept of Milton that was envisioned when the city was started ten
years ago. I recommend that the recommendation of staff and the planning commission be
followed and that this does not provide the best solution for developing sites. It is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It is inconsistent with adjacent and nearby properties.
These people on this road have invested their money and their life savings in this zoning ordinance.
Zoning ordinances should not be a holding pattern until someone else has another idea. There
should be something safer. A zoning ordinance is a covenant and these people's investments ought
to be respected.
Kim Horne, 415 Wade Glen Court, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am here tonight to ask for denial of the RZI6-421 VC 16-01 Ebenezer Road. Please support both
staff and the planning commission's recommendation to deny it. You have heard many reasons
from people who spoke before me for denial. This request is in direct conflict with the
comprehensive land use plan. The land is zoned AG -1. It has the appropriate use to be zoned as
AG -1 in the strictest terms. The rezoning is inconsistent with adjacent and nearby properties of
single family residences. You have heard many people this evening who live on Ebenezer Road
and the nearby areas saying they do not want this development. Please listen to what they are
saying. It is not reasonable to have quarter acre lots on AG -1 Iand. No tree survey was submitted.
The policy states that to determine what can reasonably develop under AGA standards, a tree
survey must be submitted. None was submitted. The concurrent variance which should also be
denied for 50% more lot coverage that is allowed; 20% is attainable within the AG -1 standard.
There is no basis for this variance. The petitioner does not own the land. The developer could
walk away from this today. So, don't approve something that is unknown. Please don't support
this variance. Thank you.
David Damiani, 935 Post Oak Close, Milton, Georgia 30004
For the record, I am in opposition to this variance request. I would also like to submit to council
these diagrams that I have prepared with some help that refer to what Mr. Slater had pointed out
earlier when you think about some of these parcels being outside of context of what is allowable
in terms of the sewage field. In any case, I am in opposition to this and I am going to just cut to
the chase. A lot of folks who went before me, Mrs. Chambers, Mrs. Bentley, Mr. Slater, outlined
a lot of good arguments that I am not going to repeat so I can save my time for somebody else.
But, I will say, I do not give Mr. Bostwick a lot of credit. He is a damn good salesman. He almost
convinced me. And, I have heard three people tonight say, no tree sample was submitted. I am
not aware of all that stuff. I am not a technical expert in all this. I am kind of new to all this. But,
I look over there and see 35 pristine trees that are supposedly going to be saved by this. How do
we have that but we haven't submitted a tree sample? And, I am taken aback with the concept that
if it is not this it must be that. It is either the left diagram or the right diagram; I disagree. There is
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 44 of 116
not one or the other; they are not mutually exclusive. And, the threat here is that if we don't
approve this tonight, we are going to come in and take all this beautiful land, tear it down, take the
box turtles, take the squirrels and move them somewhere else. I think we are all grown-up enough
to understand that is not the only option here. So, I encourage you to listen to the planning
commission. I encourage you to listen to the staff. Make a reasonable judgement tonight and deny
this. Thank you.
Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
l respectfully request that you deny this rezoning and the subsequent variance. Staff recommends
denial; the petitioner's application. The planning commission recommended denial of this
rezoning. This petition for rezoning is in direct conflict with the comprehensive land use plan.
The land use plan says that this land should be AG -I; Agricultural, Equestrian, Estate lots. This
is counter to that. Agricultural districts do not allow for quarter acre lots. This would be precedent
setting. It will allow others to come forward and indicate that you were inconsistent with the comp
plan and we don't need inconsistency to the comprehensive land use plan. Our best legal defense
against any rezoning case that goes to court is consistent application of the law. We all know it;
you know it. We have heard it from attorneys in the past who have presented it to our boards. We
need to be consistent with our land use plan. This rezoning is inconsistent with adjacent and nearby
properties that are single family residences on large lots. We have heard from Ebenezer Road
residents; they don't want this. It is inconsistent with their investments. Most citizens do not want
this rezoning because it would set a negative legal precedent. The distance of the proposed lots
are in many instances less than 50 feet from adjacent properties. This does not protect the city
rural view shed which so many want to protect. The subject site has a reasonable economic use as
currently zoned. The community unit plan document states that the comparison of yields between
an AG -1 development and a CUP should be what could reasonably be built. That analysis does
not deem 50 units on this particular parcel. That yield is inconsistent with what the facts would
show. A more detailed review of the soil maps in the proposed development reveal a number of
issues with the claim that this land could yield 50 lots. This shouldn't be a guessing game and this
is not the time to say, trust me. This is the time to make it certain that what could be developed is
what would be developed. If you approve the CUP this evening, you are effectively allowing for
higher density development. That is not what any of you ever said that you would do and it is
indeed what would happen. The use of the CUP to drive high density lots that would otherwise
never be allowed, is a flawed process. We should not allow a flawed process to increase density,
I have heard several of you tonight question the yield plan process and you are absolutely correct.
The disturbance of land that does not happen until later in the AG -I process is the only process
that would legitimately identify what density is allowed. To approve under a CUP without that
land use process is absolutely allowing for higher density. We all know it and to say that the
elephant doesn't exist is outrageous. Why does the most recent plan not show storm water
management facilities? It is another premier example of why the density is overstated. There are
a multitude of reasons. I sent you a four page document. I hope that you read it. If you didn't I
ask that you add it to the record. Please deny this rezoning. It is not appropriate and it is not
Milton.
1
1
E
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2416 at 6:00 pm
Page 45 of 116
Gary Cochran, 470 Ebenezer Road, Roswell, Georgia 30004
I didn't know I was going to be in this near sweep position tonight so I am going to make it
relatively short. First of all, I urge you guys to think about the brain that Milton has. It is a brain
that caused a lot of us to move to Milton or very near Milton. It is the same brain that allows
Nancy and I to ride our horses down our road. It is the same brain that has a 19 acre horse farm
sitting right next to our seven acres on Ebenezer. The same brain that sees bicyclist, people with
strollers, going down Ebenezer every day. I don't envy you guys or your position. There has been
a lot of cognitive distance going on here between things. Is it a public park we are talking about
or is it an area for about 100 seniors to walk around? Is it a shiny object you have waved in front
of us? Or, is it really something that is deeply felt by the developer? Is the developer really an
environmentalist; if so, would he really clear cut the land and threaten his ability to build more
houses on it? Is the staff's recommendation well thought out? Is what is being proposed consistent
with the land use plan? I think a lot of people who have spent time on this care a lot about Milton
and they have concluded that the zoning permit should be denied and I will certainly support that.
Thank you.
Derrick Palmer, 15700 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004
About three years ago, me and my wife moved here to Milton. The reason we chose Milton is the
beauty, the principles, and the value. Fast forward to today, I am currently the homeowner's
association president for Canterbury on the Lake, The reason being; because we care. We care
about Milton. We care about the presence of Milton. We are totally against cluster homes. If you
talk to most of my neighborhood, they are totally against it as well. Instead of 50 homes, why not
30. Why not 20? Once again, we are against that approval. Thank you.
The City Clerk read the following Public Comments into the record.
Joe D. Whitley, 1250 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am in opposition to the rezoning of this parcel of land. The council has before it a proposed
rezoning decision that is not supported by either the city staff or the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission, as you know, voted 7-0 against the rezoning of this parcel. As you know,
community septic that is called for by this rezoning is an unproven concept that Forsyth County
no longer endorses. I encourage the council to give this concept more study to ensure that we do
not open "Pandora's Box" to a concept that will also create an unwanted growth in an already
overburdened community. Also, the bonding of these types of facilities to help with repairing of
them in the event of a failure should be studied by the city to avoid economic loss to new
homeowners in our community.
Rosemary Nelson, 15170 Sandpoint Trace, Milton, Georgia 34004
1 am opposed to rezoning from AG -I to CUP.
James Romano, 15125 N. ValleyFeld Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
1 do not want community septic and high density development in Milton.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 46 of 116
Janet Romano, 15125 N. Valleyfield Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am against the rezoning to high density and community septic in Milton.
Heather Cash, 12650 Morningpark Circle, Milton, Georgia 30004
In opposition.
Bill Weylheiser, 720 Ebenezer Road, Milton, Georgia 30404
In opposition.
Mayor Lockwood
I will now close the hearing. I would like to say to both those in support or against this petition,
I certainly appreciate all your comments. And, again, we hate to cut people off and have a time
limit but out of respect for everybody and allow everybody a chance to speak we have to have
something there. But, we certainly do appreciate everybody's time and opinions on that. So, I
will close the public hearing now and open up for; Ken do we need, do we have any time left? If
the applicant had that also to be able to answer questions.
Charlie Bostwick
I think a lot has been said today and I want to thank everybody for their participation all through
this process for the last five months and you have really been great. I just want to point out a
couple of things. Lot coverage; we are actually, we have net about 5,500 square foot lot coverage
versus the currently allowed 8,700 so just a little clarity; what we are asking for is actually a net
decrease per lot. Also, we have submitted a tree survey. I am not sure what the confusion is but
it is in the packet. I also would like to point out that our immediate neighbors across the street
from us are in support of this. Along our east border, they favor this. And, the property owner
along the west and north border are in favor of this. I know there are a number of people down the
street and we would like to be good neighbors to them. Those that are immediately around us are
all in support of this. Thank you very much. I think this is one way to really protect the rural
nature that we all care so much about. I look forward to the opportunity. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood
I will close the hearing now and open it back up to questions or comments from the council both
either to staff or the applicant.
Councilmember Longoria
I would like to request a five minute recess if that is possible.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, we will take a five minute break.
Mayor Lockwood
We are going to reconvene our meeting. Before we move forward with public continent, there
was a statement made that we had three minutes left so in talking to Ken; I am willing to allow, if
council will to use the three minutes then obviously we will have to go back to those in support.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 47 of 116
City Attorney Jarrard
So, if there is time left for the opposition to speak and it is supported by the council then what we
can do is allow those in opposition to exhaust their time but then the applicant can have the last
word.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, is council okay with that? How do we handle it procedurally? Does someone have to have
already put their comment card in or are we opening it back up?
City Attorney Jarrard
For rebuttal, it would be someone who has already spoken in opposition. They can just come up
and take the remaining time.
Mayor Lockwood
Is there anyone in opposition that has already spoken and filled out a card and would like to speak?
Monica Chambers, 715 Ebenezer Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
One thing that I think has been left out tonight is the community septic system. This plan that we
keep hearing about, individual septic tanks on the property and how it is going to be pre-treated
going into those fields, it has failed to be mentioned is that where there are failures in septic tanks
is the drainage fields. What causes that can be very simple steps as far as it is not built right, the
land itself, the homeowner may have made a mistake in their individual septic tank and that flows
into a drainage field. So, you have 50 homes of sewage being down there. Pre-treated fluid is not
potable water. I keep hearing from different groups that no, clean water is clean water, it is not; it
is full of bacteria. That is what causes health problems. All the homes surrounding this property
are on wells; every single one of them. So, any kind of catastrophic failure is going to affect every
home around there. You have heard from every single family that lives on this street. There is
only one currently for this development and that is because of the concessions that were made by
the builder when the first plan showed five homes a pool next to their house. Every other person
on Ebenezer is against this so I am asking you to take all of that into consideration and more than
any other person speaking tonight needs to listen to the residents of the street. They will be the
ones affected the most by this. Thank you.
Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
The CUP is a site specific planning zoning so the only code is the site pian plus whatever special
conditions are added tonight. Please be very careful and consider that because it is a site plan and
the conditions that are agreed to tonight. That is all that controls this development. Please proceed
cautiously. Thank you.
Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30404
I wanted to talk about Woodview. Woodview is a conservation subdivision that is in Woodstock.
It is the first conservation subdivision that was approved in Woodstock. The setbacks for this
subdivision are similar to what is being proposed for Ebenezer Road. I encourage city council to
go out and look at Woodview. If you go there, you get a sense of a conservation subdivision.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 48 of 116
Forty percent of the land is conserved; most of it is unbuildable; it is in a flood plain. Unbuildable
and uneconomic land that is claimed as greenspace and that is what is being done here also. So, I
think it is important to look at that. What happened in Woodview is that one developer came in
and got the CSO then flipped it with multi -homes. Mr. Bostwick does not have to develop this
land; another developer could come in. Thank you.
Charlie Bostwick, 236 Hammond Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 34328
Just in response to a couple of things. The Woodview neighborhood is 200 lots on 70 acres. Ours
is 50 lots on 64 acres so the comparison doesn't make much sense to me. Also, we never flip land;
we have never in our existence flipped land to another builder; we won't do that and we don't plan
to do that. While there are questions about the number of lots that can be built; my engineer is here
and he pointed out that technically you could drain the lake, it is a man-made lake, and you could
add lots in there too, So, potentially we are talking about 55 lots. I am not asking for that. I am
just asking for what is reasonable. This is a very reasonable plan. I am not going to do 50 AG -1
homes but the next guy will if I can't preserve the land. We truly care about it and I will stand
behind that. I would also like to point out that we have met every single requirement of the city
which was quite extensive to determine that this site is valid. We have done a full topo, a level 3
soil study, construction testing for rock, the full tree survey, full wetland study, we have spent
$40,000 just showing that we could do a plan that we don't want to do just so that we can
demonstrate that we are not asking for extra lots. We just want to build a great project here and
protect the rural feel and sensitive nature of the land. The city has asked us to protect 50% of the
land; we are protecting about 60%. That is a developer that truly cares. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood
The public hearing is now closed. I apologize for going hack and forth on this but I am trying to
respect everybody here and listen to the public. I will open it up for questions and comments for
staff or the applicant.
Councilmember Longoria
I have some questions and I actually want to start with the developer so whoever is going to speak
on the developer's behalf. So, lots of questions have been directed at the yield plan itself and so I
want to know even though you said you wouldn't do it, can the yield plan be built as shown?
Charlie Bostwick
It is not only buildable, it is what most developers would do. There are not many developers out
there that would do this type of project because they would rather do what is easy which is AG -1.
You have an engineer letter that I submitted to you earlier today which states that not only is it
developable it is designed as AG -1.
Councilmember Longoria
The property does not exist as one parcel today; it is three different parcels as we discussed earlier
today and the particular part where most of the conservation of open space is going to occur is that
arm that sticks out to the right-hand side. And, it would appear since there is not development that
is planned for that other than the walking trails that it was added just to bolster the development
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 49 of 116
that can happen on the other side of the property. Is that the thought process that you guys went
into?
Charlie Bostwick
No, not at all. We actually bought this property planning to do 55 lots and before the CSO, we
thought we could do 55 lots and we were planning to develop on that side of the creek; we had
planned to do so and that is in public record from back in December when we presented that.
When we realized we would not be able to use that plan and we were looking at other options, we
realized the yield plan for the city, they requested that we stick to the yield plan, we had to go
down to 50 lots. The sellers were not willing to reduce the sales price of the property so we said,
okay, how can we still do this conservation type zoning and make this work and the way to do it
was to not cross the creek. The other part of it was that the more we got to know this property, the
more we identified these special native plants, it tended to be more in that area. So, that area of
the property is more ecologically sensitive and we want to preserve it for that reason. Does that
answer your question?
Councilmember Longoria
Can you tell me what percentage of the land is currently in a flood plain or a stream buffer or
something else. You are not showing in the yield plan any homes on those types of locations?
Your yield plan, if I read all the documents that flip back and forth on that, your civil engineer was
very adamant about the placement of the homes, the placement of all the components in that yield
plan.
Charlie Bostwick
That is exactly right. We had a full study done with creeks eliminated and the buffers, etc. I don't
know the exact percentage of it but we are not building in those areas at all so we stayed out of
those areas for our plan. The AG -1 plan because of some technicalities in terms of the creek and
some of that area to be destroyed in a way that our plan protects.
Councilmember Longoria
On your proposal, you did not indicate a maximum height for your building structures and there is
a limit of 40 feet; do you not plan to build anything that is taller than 40 feet? This is one of the
things that, for whatever reason, staff wasn't clear on what your intentions were because you did
not answer.
Charlie Bostwick
We absolutely do not plan to build anything taller than 40 feet. We will stick to the city guidelines.
Councilmember Longoria
You have stated that your minimum lot size is a quarter of an acre. How many lots on this property
are a quarter acre?
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 50 of 116
Charlie Bostwick
There are only eight of them that are right around the park that are a quarter acre. We took some
land that would have been in the lots, we could have made the lots a little bigger, and put that land
into the part that is in the middle and that is a unique part of this plan that makes it special. It gives
a central part of the community that gives the community an identity. We originally had it placed
closer to Ebenezer but we have moved it further away from the road so we do not have any quarter
acre lots visible from Ebenezer. There are only eight around there because we put land in that
middle part.
Councilmember Longoria
I think you said earlier that the average lot size is .4 acres.
Charlie Bostwick
That is correct.
Councilmember Longoria
What is the maximum lot size?
Charlie Bostwick
It goes up to about 3/a of an acre. I point out that a lot of these lot lines could be moved straight
back and we could make them bigger lots but that doesn't change how the land is going to be
developed. All it means is that they are not going to clear more trees and I am not asking them to
do that so I have actually limited the number of trees I can clear by making the lots smaller.
Councilmember Longoria
The minimum square foot home size is 2,400 square feet and I would agree with whichever
gentleman it was who said no one is going to pay $1 million for a 2,400 square foot home;
absolutely not. But, what is the maximum home size that you envision?
Charlie Bostwick
That is a really good question. I would expect most of our homes would be between 4,000 -5,000
square feet. Our average price point last year was $915,000; we don't build small homes. We
don't know how to build a 2,400 square foot home and make any money, particularly with this
development.
Councilmember Longoria
So, what do you think the average home price is going to be for the development?
Charlie Bostwick
We are saying $700,000 to $1 million; the reality is that we will start at around $800,000 and the
average price is going to be around $900,000.
11
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 51 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
So, the 2,400 square foot home; there are only eight of them, they are going to anchor at the low
point in terms of price point and then you are going to go up from there. To get to an $800,000
average price, you are going to have to have some homes over $1 million.
Charlie Bostwick
That is the number our attorney says to put in there; we are not going to build anything less than
3,500 square feet. We just can't make money with that.
Councilmember Longoria
I've got some probably difficult questions to answer about infrastructure costs because one of the
things that a lot of our citizens have sent questions and concerns about is; what is the motivation
to develop the property the way it is being developed. My biggest fear right now is that if it stays
AG -1, we really don't know what we are going to get. AG -1 says that there is a minimum one
acre lot capability to build, but as Carter mentioned earlier, we don't know that until they come
and apply for the land disturbance permit. That is a heck of a time to figure out what is going in
and that, to me, is where all the risk is. There are a couple of people who talked about risk in this
whole process; that is a lot of risk right there because we just don't know what is going to pop out
if we leave this AG -1. Now, if we had a zoning district that allowed us to say, oh, I'm sorry, you
are going to have to build this or we get approvals in that process, I would at least feel better about
it. But, we have citizens that are concerned about this so if this were Ieft AG -1 and you were the
developer, you have talked about infrastructure costs and you have talked about the tradeoff
between the bridge to get from one piece of property to the other versus the community septic
system. What is the real difference when you compare the AG -1 development versus the CUP
development in terms of the infrastructure costs.
Charlie Bostwick
I appreciate your concern about all that sort of thing because in the current zoning there is nothing
to keep someone from curbing this and building homes 60 feet off of Ebenezer versus our 200 feet
off Ebenezer. The difference in cost if we were to cross, and it is not really a bridge, we would be
taking dirt off of one hill and another hill and filling the low spot and putting a 300 foot pipe in
and burying that creek forever. The cost of doing that estimated by our engineer and our land
development folks is around $250,000 - $300,000. The cost of the community septic system that
is required to do the CUP zoning is about $750,000; the difference between the $750,000 and what
it is going to cost on individual lots is about $350,000 to $400,000 more; so it is twice the cost to
do the community septic system versus individual septic systems. That is a net increase in cost to
us. The reality is that we have a little bit less street that we have to put in and that sort of thing so
it is about a wash at the end of the day in terms of the development costs.
Councilmember Longoria
So, it is not more expensive to go one route or the other.
Charlie Bostwick
That's right; it is about the same.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04 pm
Page 52 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
Do you have any idea the minimum number of homes that you need to be able to build, again, we
are talking about something that is very important to the citizens and very important to me, that
we understand this. Because, I am not interested in granting anybody any kind of a density bonus
just because of how they are going to develop property; if anything, I am all about density
negatives. In other words, if you were coming to us and saying, AG -1 will allow for 55 homes
and we want to put 40, that is a much easier argument to have than on par, one for one. And, the
reason it is more difficult, unless we were going to do the work, we really don't know what AG -1
was going to support, and like I asked earlier, that is the hard part of this equation so what is the
minimum number of homes that this development has to have in order for it to remain a
development for Brightwater?
Charlie Bostwick
I appreciate that question. Like I said, we bought this land and put this land under contract, I
should say, for 55 lots, and that is what we ran our numbers on and that is what we were hoping to
do. When we said 55 lots on 64 acres in December around the time of the CSO, everyone said,
well, that seems very reasonable. Sounds good to me; however, after the CSO, they said that still
sounds good but you need to do a yield plan and as long as you are not asking for additional density
from the yield plan then you will have support. The yield plan showed 50 lots and not the 55 that
we thought. Like I said, the cost has not come down on the land at all, the cost of the development
hasn't changed except for a little bit to cover those five lots, so we are in a situation where we
reduced the number of homes that we can get so it is a tight project.
Councilmember Longoria
Well, that was a good segue answer to my next question because it has to do with yield plan and
there are a lot of questions floating around about the yield plan. And, it is always good to find that
you have citizens that have such diverse backgrounds and capabilities and strengths so the fact that
we had somebody that is a citizen who understands this stuff come forward and point out some
things that he had concerns about, I think was a good deal. But, how do you defend the results,
your results, for the yield plan in lieu of all these other people who are pointing to issues that you
have there. The fact that some of the lots that you have platted in the yield pian rendering really
aren't buildable. The fact that some of these drain fields that you have drawn out on the yield plan
can't really go where you are saying that they are going to go. And, unless you are actually going
to do the development, we will never know. So, how do you defend that?
Charlie Bostwick
I appreciate those concerns. I have seen some of that work that citizens have done. I will start by
saying that we had certified engineers do this plan. We had the top soil engineer in the area that a
lot of people know and respect at a high level do the soil study then a top engineer do a layout of
every single lot on here. So, we have certified engineers who have submitted this plan. It has been
with the city for three months now. It has been public record for three months now and so far we
have not had one engineer look at that and say that there is any issue whatsoever. To the gentleman
who did a study saying that some of the soil was not usable, well, he took everything that wasn't
perfect at the very top and said that it was unbuildable and that is absolutely not true. Most of the
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 53 of 116
septic systems in the City of Milton today are built on some of the mid -grade soils, not the best
and not the worse. But, there are also lots of tools available to developers and builders. Builders
in Milton use it all the time, these tools where they can come in and bring dirt in, they can do
unconventional systems, there are plenty of tools that can do that. I can also argue we could do
three bedroom homes and we did a septic yield plan based on five bedroom homes because we
thought we wanted to be realistic about what makes sense here. We could have done all three
bedroom homes and used much less land and maybe even gotten one or two more out of it. So, it
is extremely buildable, we have engineers who have said so, and I have to say we need to count
on engineers as opposed to the laymen.
Councilmember Longoria
Certified engineers; the reason they say they are certified engineers is because there is a
certification process and Iicensing process that they have to adhere to so a professional engineer
in the State of Georgia has to be certified by the State of Georgia. My understanding is that the
engineering firm and the engineer that did the work for the soil survey is licensed, he is a
professional engineer and he provided his stamp on the results. So, we have a certified soil survey
that has been done, correct?
Charlie Bostwick
He is a professional engineer and he is certified to do these and he has done work in Milton; many
projects, just in the last few years and for a long time previous to that.
Councilmember Longoria
So, we have the civil engineer that did the yield plan rendering that is equally credentialed and the
same situation but that plan is not certified. And, I am going to draw a technical distinction here
that certification is not attestation. I can attest that we did our homework and that this is a good
result but without a certification, that is not the same.
Charlie Bostwick
He wrote a letter in support of it and he is here tonight if you want to ask those questions to him
directly. I'm afraid I don't know the technicalities of that.
Councilmember Longoria
I'm not a hydrologist so I will just get myself in trouble there but it is more about transparency. It
is more about removing all questions. And, it may be very common that you have one engineering
firm do one and another engineering firm do another.
Charlie Bostwick
That is the most common in the industry. Almost always that is the case and even when you have
one engineering firm that does both, they often outsource it to another anyway so there are two
different ones. The soil study was done by someone who does a huge portion of Milton. He won't
do the layout. That is not what he does. He does the soil testing. He was out there on site for days
doing testing and then doing lab testing in-house. If he would have or could have done the layouts,
that is fine but that is a different engineer that does that; a design engineer as opposed to a soil
study engineer.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:40 pm
Page 54 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
A lot of citizens have expressed concern over the impact from the community septic system that
you have planned. Again, I am an engineer but not that kind of engineer so I don't know. But, is
there a, well, let me start first, where the heck is the drain field in this whole thing because I have
heard that it is located on the upper east comer, right in the middle of what you say is the land that
you are trying to preserve. I have heard that it is on the left hand side of the lake. Where is this
thing going to be?
Charlie Bostwick
So, the plan right now, and this is up to EPD and city approval through the LDP process but the
plan right now is to put it on that northeast area up there. There is an area up there that we can put
the system in without having to take any trees out. We are going to use a special system to bury
the line in the trees without damaging the trees or taking trees out. We are actually going to work
with the Georgia Native Plant Society and they will come out and help us identify these areas as
well and protect anything and make sure we don't run any of our line where there is sensitive plant
life.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, so how are you going to get from one end of the property to the other?
Charlie Bostwick
That is simple. There is a collector tank that collects the fluid and then pumps it over to that side
just like any system like that.
Councilmember Longoria
So, this isn't gravity fed; this is a pump system, and you are going to hide the pump in some little
thing that looks like a barn and people line up and have their picture taken in front of it because it
looks so quaint and all that stuff, right?
Charlie Bostwick
That is what they do at Serenbe. Yes, we will make sure it is very attractive and will either look
like a barn that belongs in Milton or it will be buried in the ground so you won't see it at all. Either
one of those ideas could work; we are open. It will be important to us to make sure it is
aesthetically appropriate for a high end neighborhood.
Councilmember Longoria
So, a lot of us have done more research than we ever wanted to do on septic systems. So, this has
got a lot of people concerned. Do you plan on having an HDA for the development?
Charlie Bostwick
Absolutely, we will have an HOA. We have very detailed guidelines put in place in all our HOA's
in all the neighborhoods we do of all sizes. We will make sure there is language in there that
covers all the septic issues.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 prn
Page 55 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
Yes, I was going to ask if you would have an issue including language in the Homeowner's
Agreement to provide for a maintenance reserve that is specifically for the shared portion of this
community septic system in the amount of 10% of its cost or whatever is most common with that.
The reason is that we need some kind of guarantee and acknowledgement from the homeowner's
that buy here that this is a component of the property. My wife is a real estate agent. She has sold
homes to people where she says this home is on a septic system and they look at her and they don't
understand what that means. And, a lot of time homeowners buy things that they are not
completely aware of what is going on. So, we need to have some way of communicating to the
homeowners here exactly what the story is. We also have to have some way to make sure that
anything that goes wrong with the system like this, it is not left to chance how it gets taken care
of. So, do you have a problem with that?
Charlie Bostwick
I absolutely support that and the city has asked for three years of maintenance costs to be put into
a bond so we are more than happy to do that and more than happy to write all that into the HOA.
Councilmember Longoria
I would say there are some other things that we need to do. We need to have some part of the
homeowner's covenants recognize some of these facts. And, I think, even Kathy mentioned
earlier, that we have to get reports on the maintenance of the system and they need to be made
public. I just want to say that you provided us with a statement saying that these are the conditions
that you will abide by that the staff provided and the ones in bold have been changed. Is that what
you are saying?
Charlie Bostwick
That is correct. We adjusted or added the ones in bold and in most cases it gets us closer to what
you guys, as Mayor and City Council, have been asking for and what our neighbors are asking for.
So, it is not trying to get away with something we don't want to do. It is more about actually, in
most cases, being closer to what people want as far as protecting the rural view shed and that sort
of thing.
Councilmember Longoria
So, as a general statement, you are prepared to agree with the conditions that the staff has outlined.
And, this is specifically how you would do that?
Charlie Bostwick
That is correct.
Councilmember Longoria
I have some questions for staff, but as long as the developer is up, it seems like we ought to keep
going with that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 56 of 116
Mayor Lockwood
Does anybody have questions for the developer? Bill.
Councilmember Lusk
Mr. Bostwick, we are back on this wastewater treatment facility here. Have you identified an
engineer that would design such a facility?
Charlie Bostwick
We have talked to several engineers; one guy in particular that helped lay out how we might do
this plan; very well laid out with a lot of the input I have given you so far in terms of having the
individual tanks on each lot so that doesn't become a community burden. And, dealing with only
the affluent and making it a simpler system with fewer parts to go bad and all that sort of thing.
So, he has helped us lay out all that. We have a need to deal with him to do the whole thing but,
yes, absolutely.
Councilmember Lusk
In the interest of full disclosure, I am not interviewing for that job.
Charlie Bostwick
They have done lots of these around the state and I have worked on some of these; several of these
in Hall County, 15 years ago that are all doing very well and haven't had any problems.
Councilmember Lusk
How many have you researched out there and do you have actual records of performance out there
or records of non-performance?
Charlie Bostwick
I can't speak to specific numbers. We have civil engineers, both the ones that design the system
as well as ones that maintain the systems. And, then I have the ones that I have worked on
personally and there are other folks in the audience that have done some research on state and
national numbers on those sort of things. The failure rate is very low. The failure rate from the
few statistics that are out there actually seem to fail at a lower rate than individual systems fail,
And, the other part of that is when they do fail, you know it before they fail because there is
monthly monitoring that happens by a state licensed professional. You don't get that with all the
other systems. So, in terms of failure, they are less likely to fail and much more likely that you
are going to know about it and deal with it before it becomes a huge problem.
Councilmember Lusk
In my experience, the most obvious failure would occur with your wet well and the pump that is
pumping up into your leech field. So, I would assume in the design of a system like that, you
would have an alarm system to notify either locally, probably remotely too, that there is a problem
with the pump system.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 57 of 116
Charlie Bostwick
That's correct. There are a lot of safeguards that are put in place. Each individual home has an
alarm system if something happens there. We can put in the HCA guidelines that would require
individual systems to be checked, monitored, and cleaned out on a regular basis. The pump that
is in the collector; that pump, engineers have advised us to use an off the shelf pump that if there
is an issue with it, we can have it replaced immediately. We can also place two pumps in there so
that if one of them goes bad, we get an alarm, and there is plenty of time with the other one running
until we can replace the original one. There is not any down time. The other thing that they have
designed into the system is that there are tanks that are bigger than necessary so if there is a power
outage, it can continue to collect and not have an issue. Unlike, individual homes, if they run into
that issue, the bigger systems are safer in case of a power outage.
Councilmember Lusk
With any kind of mechanical issue like that in most facilities, you do have backup and you are not
dependent on going down to Home Depot at midnight trying to find another pump. That is the
knowledge that any professional engineer would bring to a design like that. I have heard some
questions or concerns brought up about distance to existing wells in the area. Where is your leech
field going to be in relation to any existing wells that you are aware of?
Charlie Bostwick
The wells we know about are closer to Ebenezer Road and not right on Ebenezer but close to it.
We are planning to put the field even further from the wells than the individual systems. And,
again, we will have cleaner water. And, we will also put it in an area that makes it difficult for it
to ever, unless it runs downhill and back up, be an issue. There are several septic systems currently
closer to those wells than our system will be.
Councilmember Lusk
I believe the state code requires 100 foot separation. Maybe your engineer could confirm that.
What the separation is between a leech field and a well.
Charlie Bostwick
That is what I have been told as well. And, we are several hundred feet from the closest well.
Councilmember Lusk
I will call it the finger to the east; the 13 or 14 acres. I noticed you have trails and that is one of
the amenities that you are offering. Who would you envision using that; would it be exclusively
for the residents? What are your thoughts?
Charlie Bostwick
The attempt was to be for the residents. Some folks have asked if we would open it up to nearby
neighbors and that sort of thing, and we would be glad to be good neighbors but we need to address
liability issues; who does it actually belong to regarding liability. We are open to how we deal
with that. We have a land trust because of the site and the way that we have done this plan; it
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 58 of 116
usually turns down developers but they said that this is the kind of plan that they want to support.
They are very interested in taking control of this site. We want the HOA to continue to have the
access rights but if there is a way to safely give access to other Milton residents, we are open to
ways to deal with that.
Councilmember Lusk
Talking about the land trust, what experience do they have in the area and are they a well-known
land trust?
Charlie Bostwick
They are based in Athens, Georgia. And, mostly what they do is in Georgia. They know the area
very well. They have done other projects all around this area. They have many land trusts around
Georgia. They are one of the most experienced land trusts in the area.
Councilmember Lusk
Can you divulge the name of them?
Charlie Bostwick
They have asked me until this is approved and they have a board meeting to do their final approval,
they have asked not to be named. We have a back-up also. One of our neighbors has a connection
with one of the largest land trusts around and has asked to be involved as well. So, we have some
good options. It is very important to us. We are not interested in doing this property if the HOA
has the ability after we leave to clear cut the land and put a soccer field in. It would defeat the
whole purpose of doing this. So, one way or another, we will be protecting this in perpetuity.
Councilmember Lusk
I want to make one statement here, I was either misinterpreted or I misstated when I asked Mrs.
Fields about the comparison between AG -1 and CUP. We talked about clear cutting and mass
grading. AG -1 does not mandate that you go in and clear cut and mass grade. It allows for it.
That is the point I wanted to clear up for those who may have misunderstood me.
Councilmember Kunz
Just a quick question on the community septic as well. You guys beat me to the well question but
odor; I have explained that. We have had some people who have had concerns about that.
Charlie Bostwick
Yes, we have heard that before in the last couple of months and folks have been concerned about
the odor that can come from a system like this and I understand their concern. Of course, we are
going to be very concerned about that as the developer is trying to sell Brightwater Homes here by
not having an odor issue. The example that has been pointed to has been the Publix at Birmingham
Crossroads. That is a case where, I was told by our engineers, that the fluid that comes out of a
grocery store is about eight times the concentration of what comes out of residential properties
because of the nature of what happens there versus the amount of water you use for things like
taking a shower. We will have a lot less concentration then that one does. We have also learned
that there are several things they can do that we learned a few weeks ago. The operator has never
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:40 pm
Page 59 of 116
been notified that there was an odor issue there and they said they can solve that with a few things
to improve the system. We also learned that they added a carbon filter to their system, about a
$10,000 piece of equipment; they can add to it that filters all the air that comes out of it so you
don't have the smell. We intend to put that filter in our system.
Councilmember Lusk
In your revised recommended condition, Article 1(b) — no more than 50 total dwelling units at a
maximum density of .79 units per acre. How many actual sites would have that maximum density?
Charlie Bostwick
That is low density. Typically, an AGA plan would be just a little hit more than that. It is not
terribly atypical for AG -1 but many AG -I have a few more homes on it because of the creek and
the lake and our desire not to drain the lake and put more homes there, we could put slightly lower
than AG -1 properties could do.
Councilmember Hewitt
On the centerline plan; in our packet it is the 50 lot development plan, so it shows that you can get
the 50 lots on there. I can't blow this up to where I can read it, but we kind of talked about it when
I was out there; where are the ponds; the retention ponds, indicated on that plan?
Charlie Bostwick
If you see on that plan there is a retention pond on the very northern end of the property just west
of the creek on the edge of the property. You also see one down towards the southern side of the
property where the two creeks converge just below the lake.
Councilmember Hewitt
One is where the old house was, right?
Charlie Bostwick
This area right here.
Councilmember Hewitt
I can't really see the lot lines. Are those outside any of these lot lines?
Charlie Bostwick
Yes, they are outside the lot lines and then our planner would have those ponds in the same area.
The good thing about it is we can have the ponds much smaller then we won't have to clear as
much.
Councilmember Hewitt
What is the contour interval on these plans?
Charlie Bostwick
Two feet intervals.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 60 of 116
Councilmember Hewitt
Do you know what the calculated area of the stream buffers, the detention pond, that sort of thing,
what the area is in square feet or acres or anything like that?
Charlie Bostwick
Including greenspace that we are preserving?
Councilmember Hewitt
No, outside of the greenspace.
Charlie Bostwick
T don't know that calculation.
Councilmember Hewitt
Each individual house will have a tank and a pump or a duplex pump system, whatever it is, and
then those will pump to another community type pump or pumps, correct?
Charlie Bostwick
Yes.
Councilmember Mohrig
Have you built in the past similar septic systems with the holding tank and also a fluid drain field
and, if so, what has been the record with those?
Charlie Bostwick
The ones that I was involved in Iocated in Hall County were built in the mid -1990's to about 2002
and they have not had any issues.
Councilmember Mohrig
Is that the same system you are proposing here with an individual tank on each parcel for each
home`'
Charlie Bostwick
Correct, in fact, most of them are the same and one is even more complicated than these.
Councilmember Mohrig
The road extension that was in there, regardless of what the final configuration is, are you open to
not having any connectivity so we do not have the issue of Ebenezer being extended through your
property.
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 61 of 116
Charlie Bostwick
That is correct. I have heard concerns from people who live in Haydon Hall and Ebenezer and I
will be happy to say that there will be no connectivity through my property or that there is limited
connectivity to our property but we have no interest in having folks from Cherokee County driving
down Lackey Road and passing through our homes because that would not be good for us either.
Councilmember Longoria
Kathy, in your presentation, in the report you provided us, you had the standards of review notes
that you guys basically said you denied the application based on that so I have some questions
related to that to ask you. The first one starts with how the rezoning is in keeping with the
surrounding area and we talked a little bit earlier the fact that it is .79 units and actually, it seemed
like what you had in the report that I read, versus what you had in your presentation today was a
little bit different. But, you are saying that because the report that we have, you are saying that the
surrounding area is too different, that the density that is being proposed was not acceptable in terms
of fitting in with the surrounding area. And, I thought I heard you say that differently in your
presentation today.
Kathy Field
The intent was to talk about the site plan. The staff did not have issue with the density that was
being proposed because it is consistent with the comp plan in terms of one unit per acre, But, it
was the arrangement of the houses, if you will, in terms of the site plan. We didn't feel that the
site plan was the best site plan for the site and that was the point we were trying to make.
Councilmember Longoria
So, it is not a density issue, it is a site plan issue.
Kathy Field
That is correct.
Councilmember Longoria
How do we go about figuring out what we think is an acceptable site plan should be because I like
things to be objective; subjectivity to me is the killer because we could always get different results
every time we go back and ask the same question so I want to have something that is predictable.
How do we look at a development and say, this is optimal for what this area should be.
Kathy Field
That is a very good question and I am not sure it is totally quantifiable. Based on my experience,
which is 30 plus years, our city architect which has 30 years of experience, it is a matter of
practicing good principles for our profession. And, assessing the land and looking at the land in a
way to carry out the vision of the council in terms of what we believe is the direction they want to
go, to carry out the policies of the comprehensive pian in terms of environmental sensitivity,
sustainability, green space, etc. So, you have to weigh all those factors and look at the land. I
could call our City Architect. We actually went through the exercise of looking at that site in terms
of what would be the best way from our perspective, it did not match the developer's perspective.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 62 of lib
We shared our plan with him to let him know where we were coming from. That is what I would
have to hang my hat on. It is subjective; it is not quantifiable but we use good planning practices
in terms of the exercises we went through to come up with what we have.
Councilmember Longoria
I appreciate the job that you guys do and these questions aren't to say that you have done anything
wrong. I am just trying to better understand it. So, are there any extenuating circumstances for
what they are trying to do in this proposal that would allow them some flexibility in what area they
preserve versus what area they develop? The goal of 50% open space is a lofty goal. And, having
to achieve that, you are right, you should be able to call into question where that space is; where
are the homes, but is there anything about this that is defensible. In other words, I get that it is not
optimum, but is it okay?
Kathy Field
My concern really goes to the fact that we are establishing a development pattern for the city as
we move forward. If you look at the undeveloped land areas in the city; this is a piece of the
puzzle, so we would like to establish good development patterns and so that was the perspective
that we took. Yes, it is density neutral but is it the best development pattern, I really can't support
it. I really think the biggest issue is with the house lots that are along Ebenezer.
Councilmember Longoria
You have said there are a lot of dead-end cul-de-sacs and I am trying to understand what the draw
back to that is because everybody in a neighborhood wants to be located on the dead-end cul-de-
sac.
Kathy Field
That is true and if we could call on our city architect, Bob Buscemi.
Mayor Lockwood
I would like to make a comment before Bob speaks on density. I appreciate all the engineering
and the numbers. It is easy to say something like this is low density when you took at the yield
plans but there is also a perception when you put the homes on the small lots. Vickery is beautiful;
they have big homes on small lots; Crabapple is really nice Iike that, but the perception is what our
citizens will see; we can talk about density neutral or low density but the reality is that it is going
to look like high density.
Bob Buscemi, City Architect
Basically, when homes are on one acre, cul-de-sacs are very advantageous but when you have
homes on smaller lots, you want to have more road connectivity so you can turn around without
hitting a dead end. If you notice, more of the higher density areas have roads that interconnect and
have a block structure. One acre zoning which is what we are very accustomed to has a lot of cul-
de-sacs and it is very customary but from a value standpoint I would say the cul-de-sac is better
on larger lots. Houses on smaller lots do not have as many cul-de-sacs.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 63 of 116
Councilmember Hewitt
So, basically, it is a spatial issue; when you have smaller lots it is hard to ft a functioning cul-de-
sac around those smaller lots.
Bob Buscemi
Right, it is the same thing with the visual impact, like Kathy said, the houses are more on the same
line as the houses in the area where there is conservation than from the roadway.
Councilmember Lusk
There is no secret how much I respect both of you and your department and what you do and what
you contend with on a daily basis and even in meetings like this that stretch on for quite a while.
Joe brought up the objective of how you design a development like this and my mind keeps going
back to Randall Arndt and the developments that he designed. Most of the ones that I have seen
that he has done, you know he works with the topography of the site. And, the ones that I have
seen, his examples, a lot are up on the east coast where there is more gently rolling topography up
there. We are right down here in the Piedmont area where we have some severe slopes and heavily
wooded areas here and with streams criss-crossing these properties. And, I think what we see here
is a plan to work with that topography without really tearing it up. I think what he is going to do
is knock the tops off of some of these ridges, which are almost flat right now, and try to site each
one of these homes in an environmentally or sensible location. I think to do anything beyond that,
and this is just my opinion, I think it would require a lot more grading, moving of soil, clearing of
trees, and I think that is counter to what we believe in up here and what these folks believe in out
there too. Let's minimize the impact to any type of property like this rather than violating the land
which is something that lasts forever, or at least in my lifetime. So, just my commentary. I respect
where you are coming from and I have seen your concept plan. I think there are alternatives there
and I think there are subjective approaches to this and you have to have some objectivity and some
subjectivity when you are designing like this. Which you comment on that? Not to put you on the
spot; you can disagree with me.
Bob Buscemi
I applied my best planning principles and I would say that the visual impact that the high density
or cluster or condensed housing that would be on Ebenezer would have a negative visual effect on
the community versus putting it in the back and keeping all the conservation in the front. When
people walk by or drive by they don't even know houses exist there.
Councilmember Lusk
Do you think reducing the number of houses on Ebenezer even further to that point would be
attractive?
Bob Buscemi
Any reduction or increase to the natural area would certainly help; pushing it way back more or
reducing the number.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 64 of 116
1
Councilmember Lusk
Bob, you and I have kicked around ideas and we haven't always agreed on things to but I certainly
respect you and Kathy.
Councilmember Mohrig
If I look at this, Bob and Kathy, I am looking at the plan showing the 50 homes, I am counting 7
homes at Ebenezer. What is the buffer or set back? I see something marked on here for 100 foot
setback but I have heard the developer say that he was going to put it back 200 feet. What is
actually on here because I think that is a big difference as far as looks.
Kathy Field
I think 100 but I have heard 200 as well.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, when you make your comments, I am trying to understand when you are saying the 7 homes
along the front, if it is a 100 foot undisturbed buffer, you think that is too close; because even
looking at the lay of the land, I walked the property, 100 feet you would be able to see the homes
from Ebenezer.
Bob Buscemi
You will see the homes and you will see the backs of the homes so it is only when we can see the
homes with the higher concentration of homes that we have done when they are closer to the street
even when there is a small buffer in the front, we generally make the homes face the street so that
people can see the front of the homes.
Councilmember Mohrig
I hate to jump up and down, but Charlie could you explain what you are representing and what
you agreed to and what you are planning to put in there versus what development said you need to
put in there.
Charlie Bostwick
At first, I had a 60 foot buffer in there and staff asked me to increase it to 100 feet. We had 12
homes along Ebenezer, the neighbors asked us to reduce the numbers along Ebenezer and staff
asked us too by reducing it we get about the same numbers as AG -1 and in doing so we have
pushed the homes even further back and so it is about 200 feet to the back of the home versus 100
feet which is the buffer which we can actually do a little bit more than the 100 feet but right now
the plan shows 100 foot buffer but the back of the homes are about 200 feet back.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, when I look at the pian, it looks like you have trees close to the house but the 100 foot buffer
is up but what would you agree to; what are you really thinking; 150 or 175 set back with the lots
as you have designated them?
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2416 at 6:00 pm
Page 65 of 116
Charlie Bostwick
If you will give me a few minutes to come back to the subject a little bit later, I can study it with
my architect and see if I can give you a more specific number on that.
Councilmember Mohrig
Kathy and Bob, as far as the minimum setbacks, one of the concerns we have heard from people
who live adjacent is, and when we have discussed these type of things before, is how close do we
allow homes to be from a back setback to adjacent landowners. Internally, you may not see it, but
with the people who live or will potentially live on the borders of this in the future when this is
developed, what is the setback in the plan right now and what do you recommend?
Kathy Field
Our understanding is that the setback is 140 feet.
Councilmember Mohrig
That is along the front.
Kathy Field
Along the front of the exterior road and then on the internal roads, is that what your question is'
Councilmember Mohrig
I am talking about if you look at the plat over on the eastern side and the north side.
Kathy Field
It is 50 feet.
Councilmember Longoria
I apologize I have a lot of questions. This is obviously a big issue. A lot of people wrote in about
their concerns so I just want to make sure that we can get to those so I apologize for the length of
my questions here. On question number two where you talk about whether the proposal will
adversely affect the existing usability of adjacent or nearby property, again, we seem to be a little
bit incongruous with what we would like to see with AGA. I go back and compare it to AG -1
because the only thing I know that can happen is the way it is zoned now and the way it is zoned
now, not what we could wind up with but what we will wind up with is what the yield rendering
looks like. So, what I am trying to figure out is how is that any better than what the proposal is?
Because I would say it is not any better; I would say it is worse, so how do we reconcile the fact
that the way it is zoned today could get us a worse product than if we just change the zoning.
Kathy Field
That is a very good question but we were responding to the plan that was submitted to us; the CUP
plan. This is a rezoning under the CUP and the plan was submitted to us under that application
which is what we are addressing here.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 66 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
Does the 50 feet or 100 feet or 200 feet to the house sound more reasonable? It sounds like that
was new information for you guys?
Kathy Field
There is still some visibility and I guess that is what the issue is; how visible is it.
Councilmember Longoria
I guess I keep getting back to this; is this the best use of the site? And, a lot of that seems to
revolve around you guys thinking that the open space isn't quite balanced out properly.
Kathy Field
In terms of its location.
Councilmember Longoria
Right, and I am sort of a nerd and I tried to figure out how we could determine that and if you
compare the center of the geography, and I know it is an odd ball shape, so the center of geography
isn't necessarily going to be in the center of a square, it is going to be sort of pushed off to the side
and I actually drew something up that compares, if you look at that red dot, it is roughly the center
of the geography of the property. If you look at the black dot that is just on the other side of the
lake, that is roughly the center of the open space. Obviously, the open space is more toward the
right hand side and to the north. So, if those were exactly on top of one another, open space would
be evenly distributed across the property, right? So, the fact that those are within 10% to 12%
distance from one another, it seems to me that we are getting this pretty close to having this tuned
from an open space versus geography point of view. And, again, this is just one way of interpreting
the eight dimensions that exist in this question. And, I guess, is your response still going back to
experience tells you that it is just not quite right?
Bob Buscemi
It does. The biggest impact is going to be the visibility of the homes from the roadway. There
was a development in Chattahoochee Hills, right next to Serenbe, in fact, Carter reminds me of it
all the time, where they preserved 100 acres in the back and put all the density right up on the road;
close to the road, within 100 feet.
Councilmember Longoria
How far back do the homes need to be before they are not considered part of the equation anymore?
Councilmember Mohrig
With this topography.
Bob Buscemi
With this particular piece of property. The way we looked at it, right there he is starting the, if you
just picked a linear road, the houses that are on that one finger, from that point forward, is what
we looked at, that dimension was around 400-500 feet.
L
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2015 at 6.00 pra
Page 67 of 116
Mayor Lockwood
I am going to step in here, sorry Joe, and I certainly respect that this could be very nice homes, a
nice product and plenty of users, but the reality is, once you drive in there, it is going to be high
density; the perception is that it is going to be high density. Crabapple is nice. Vickery is nice.
You can have woods all around it but you are still high density. If this was 500 feet back or 1000
feet back, you could put an apartment complex in there. Yes, you wouldn't see it from the road,
but the perception is there; it will forever change the area. I just really have a hard time with it.
The view, again, when you look at Ebenezer Road and surrounding properties and the neighbors
and you put this in there, even if you buffer it; 100 feet, 200 feet or whatever, it is still going to be
a highly dense feel when you drive in there.
Councilmember Longoria
Yes, but it changes the equation from the neighbors having to deal with it to just the people who
are buying homes having to deal with it. If I want to buy a home in the center of a high density
development that nobody else can see, then that is my personal decision. But, if I put a high density
development in the middle of something that everyone else can see, all of a sudden I have impacted
my neighbors and so I think there is a big difference there. Now, I am not defending this and
comparing it to that, I am just saying that there is a big difference there. So, I think visibility has
everything to do with this.
Mayor Lockwood
I think visibility would help if you wanted to develop that but then again, I disagree with that. If
there is a high dense neighborhood in there, or it is going to appear dense, it does affect the
surrounding areas. We talk about a rural viewshed and a rural area, Ebenezer is one of the top five
or ten roads in Milton that is that and I do believe this will change it. Definitely change it.
Councilmember Longoria
I have one last question. If you have a set of conditions required for approval so if we approve
this, you have conditions that you want to set out. Do these conditions make the development
acceptable to you or do they not change anything for you guys from an approval point of view?
Kathy Field
The purpose of those conditions was that should you decide to approve the plan in front of you
then we thought that they were important conditions that we would like to recognize.
Councilmember Longoria
I agree. In other words, if these conditions were all part of the original proposal, the proposal
would still not be any good from your point of view.
Kathy Field
That is correct.
Mayor Lockwood
They are not an endorsement of the plan.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 68 of 116
1
Councilmember Lusk
To Joe's previous point, and the Mayor's point about rural view shed; I am looking at the rendered
yield plan in the package and I see six houses along Ebenezer and by the AG -1 guidelines, I think
they would only require a 60 foot setback. Is that correct?
Kathy Field
Yes, that is correct.
Councilmember Lusk
So, would you prefer to have six or seven houses with a 60 foot setback along there or seven houses
that are set back in excess of 100 feet? One of these issues that we have charged the Planning
Commission with that they are working on is defining the rural view shed along our major roads
even Ebenezer Road. They are considering a 100 foot setback. I am not so sure that is going to
pass out of the Planning Commission from what I understand; it is going to be somewhat less than
that. So, is less better or is more better? What are we trying to achieve what we are calling a rural
view shed? Is it a greater setback on the roads and preserving the buffer, the natural buffer or
whatever buffer there is along these roads?
Bob Buscemi
Just speaking in terms of this application, the way we looked at it from a planning perspective, if
you have six houses on an AG -1 but they are spaced further apart; you have landscaped areas,
natural landscaped sort of buffers, just from the setbacks; 25 plus 25 is 50 feet. A lot of that is
undisturbed so you would have that visual break when you are on the road. If you start to
concentrate the houses, that is when the concern comes into play when you only have a small
distance between houses, you basically just have to grade it all. So, that was the concern we had.
Councilmember Lusk
Has the developer calculated the size of those lots as he has planned them along Ebenezer?
Bob Buscemi
I can only go based on his setbacks.
Councilmember Lusk
The setbacks and the separation.
Bob Busemi
The numbers are so small that you really can't bring houses with lots that tight and preserve any
trees. You have to just grade that whole area around it. I will let the developer speak on that.
Councilmember Lusk
I guess I was getting to the point of if we reduce the number of houses along Ebenezer so you do
get that separation; you are not looking at that massing along Ebenezer but you are getting a larger
setback along with it. Would that have some appeal from a design aspect?
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 69 of 116
Bob Buseemi
I am still going to stick with that it is a higher visual impact on the roadway and it is the perception
of density; density is placed against Ebenezer and in the context of the architecture within the lots
and the rural feel that exists on that road now. Overall, the visual density will be much greater
than it would be with AG -1.
Charlie Bostwick
We can make the space along Ebenezer; we can have 125 feet between Ebenezer and the back of
the lots and you also have the setback along the lot to the back of the house so we can go a little
bit bigger than we have there. We can probably go more than that but that is as much as we can
commit to on this spot here. That is twice what you get with AG -1 with the 50 and in addition to
that we are not allowed to take any trees down versus the AG -1 where you can clear that whole
space. Heydon Hall is a beautiful neighborhood and it looks great but look at how close those
homes are to Ebenezer. Our homes are three to four times back from them; we have a much bigger
buffer in terms of the size of these homes. AG -1 lots can be as small as 120 feet wide. We've got
homes along Ebenezer that are more than 100 feet wide as it is right now. If you would prefer us
to spread them out to 120 wide along Ebenezer, we could probably do that but we will start getting
our homes into the open pasture area which will not be attractive but if that is what is important to
match the same width as an AG -1 lot would be along there so about the same space between them
then we are happy to do that. It is hard for me to imagine how this is any way more exposed or
negative from Ebenezer considering all those things so please don't let this be a clear cutting along
Ebenezer; let us protect that buffer.
Councilmember Kunz
My viewpoints are a little bit different. I appreciate everybody getting right into the minutia of a
lot of this but there is a bunch to consider here. I see both sides. I think we have a glass is half
full, glass is half empty approach, while Mr. Mayor, I understand that you are looking at the houses
on that end, we also have plenty of people here that are worried about the land that I am looking
at when you first drive in which is that horse pasture. So, if it is up to the council, I actually put
together a little power point just asking some questions that I think we might want to consider
because I know there are people that have brought forth concerns and I just want to make sure we
know what all the questions are that we need to consider as well but it might take me ten or fifteen
minutes to get through it if you guys are okay with that.
Councilmember Longoria
I have been talking up a storm. Who am I to tell you to be quite?
Councilmember Kunz
I try to be pretty observant of what is going on and there are concerns on all sides that I see and
we are all residents here. This is not a question of whose side anybody is on. The reality is that
we are all one Milton and the fact is that the economic pressures are forcing us to have to make
decisions right now and we are trying to decide how best to handle those. Our enemy is not
ourselves; our enemy is Roswell, Alpharetta, J'ohn's Creek, Cumming, Canton, if we can't do
things as well as we can here, we run the risk of making mistakes that can at least leave ourselves
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 70 of 116
vulnerable to where those opportunities may wind up going so I want to make sure that we make
good decisions here. It is a matter of managing risks. It is a matter of looking at all sides. But,
you have to look at a little bit of the big picture on this as well. I look, and I am a big picture guy,
my job is to help make plans for people. And, as we do this as well, we look at our vision, the
2030 Comprehensive Pian, our vision is that Milton is a distinctive community embracing the
small town life and heritage while preserving and enhancing the rural character. And, of course,
we have had some adjustments to that recently where Milton is a premiere city where we strive to
promote a high quality of life, create a strong sense of community and place, respect our heritage
while guiding our future, and the best place to call home. So, what is rural and what is heritage`'
These are all taken with my cell phone by the way so if anybody wants to know, I walk up and
down Mountain Road on a regular basis and we have had residents and people ask, well, I've even
had people ask me if I live in the city. Well, this is it. This is what I see, this is what I look at
what is rural, what is heritage. These are the reasons why I carne to Milton. I think it is the same
reason that many of us came to Milton, because of these view sheds that we like to see. There is
me walking up and down Mountain Road. I enjoy doing that just about every weekend. That
property on the right is a strong Iandmark that I have seen. I walk there on a regular basis and the
reality on that property on the right, if AG -1 continues and that gets sold for one acre lots; that
disappears too. The question is, what are we going to do? And, while we Iook at it and love it, is
it staying, that is the question I want to ask. What is rural and what is heritage. These are the view
sheds that I see. And, as much as we talk about trees and things like that, these long vistas are
important. Now, this is currently what we have. People worry about precedent. What is our
current precedent? This is AG -1 property, right here, rural equestrian landscape disappearing.
There is AG -1. Right there on the right is Thompson Road. We lost that with the CSG vote and
now that is AG -1 and I haven't seen the pians but Carter, Kathy, can you confirm that they are
putting houses clear the roadway on Thompson Road on that property? I want to know. That is a
question. These are concerns that residents have. When I talked to one of the working farmers'
right next to this property, he is just sick about it. More AG -1; clear cutting. Not because we
require it but because they can. We see this. People are looking at what is going on right here and
as we watch it a lot of people are concerned. We have clear cutting on the left, one planning
commissioner on the right here said I think we have last our way on this one on the right; this is
Birmingham Road. And, I was at the planning commission meeting when he said that. And, this
is the reality of what we are dealing with. This is something that is important as well. Horses
were on that field on the left since 2003 and right now it is a cul-de-sac and the horses have been
removed forever. And, that is what people are seeing. That is the reality of the condition that we
are in and so our land that we have, while we sit here and argue, is changing. Things are happening.
We cannot sit there and say it is not. Now, people have accused me of what I have said and that
is fine. We are all in politics and that is what it is. But, I remember specifically, I looked at the
You Tube video when I said it. When I ran for office in 2011, what did I say and basically my
mother said specifically when she found out I was running that if I didn't support the horse
community, she would kill me, and she was dead serious. And, my Dad was a 6'6" NFL offensive
tackle; he is scared to death of my 5'4" mother and I am too. I say what I mean when I say
something like this and it is important to me if our logo is a horse and our gateway sign has horses
on it then we need to have something in place to think of that if that is going to remain our vision.
So, I have had a lot of people say, well what is a 2030 Comprehensive Plan say and I have a copy
right here. And, I do my homework. It is something that we look at if anybody has a question
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2416 at 6:00 pm
Page 71 of 116
about it. It is located on the city website. It was voted on by five of you, except Rick Mohrig and
1, we were here. It was motioned to pass by Councilmember Burt Hewitt and seconded by my
predecessor Julie Zahner Bailey. It passed 7-0. This is what the Comprehensive Plan says: We
recognize that the community has growth pressures and they are inevitable but growth should be
weighed and balanced preserving those elements of the community that have attracted existing
residents and businesses. Those fields are what attracted me. It wasn't the one acre lot
subdivisions. Unattractive sprawl development has led to visual clutter along roadways that can
detract drivers and detract from the community's appearance. I think all of us can agree on this.
This was a survey that was done and 24% of our residents responded. It says it right here in the
comprehensive plan. Page 9, lack of design standards have resulted in unattractive subdivisions
and subdivision entrances. Page 9, sprawl development frenzy and indistinct boundaries between
town and countryside. Page 9, large tracts of land suitable for continued agricultural uses are being
sold for residential development. There is no disagreement there. What does the 2030
comprehensive plan say? The 2030 comprehensive plan suggests the city should implement
conservation subdivisions. We've got a lot of people saying things about this. I just want to point
out what it says. Page 9, policies and regulations should maintain and promote the rural character
of the city including the preservation of open road neighborhoods, inclusion of a conservation
subdivision option, and locating new residential development in areas contiguous to existing
neighborhoods. Page 57, section 2.1, a strategy; maintain density neutral development practices
through innovative land development techniques such as conservation subdivisions and transfer of
development rights. We've done the TDR's. They are starting to work great; we need more of
them, but why are we still hiding out on the first one. Page 57, section 2. 1, strategy; encourage
projects that protect and integrate the preservation of natural areas, streams and green spaces and
require development. I think we are looking at that here. Page 64, section 5.6; we will be open to
Iand planning and development concepts that may be new to our area and have been tried
successfully in other places. And, I have to ask; are we open? Are we open? Page 65, section
5.6, strategy; consider a conservation subdivision in rural and environmentally sensitive areas and
in addition consider conservation subdivision classification that incorporates gravel roads. Page
71, section 7, item 3; ordinances and design conservation and include conservation design
techniques and new developments, study the conservation subdivision regulations and transfer of
development rights and prepare ordinances needed to implement them. Page 76, section 7, item
3, develop and control regulations, consider creating a conservation subdivision ordinance.
Implementation matrix, ordinance regulations, conservation design as a short term item to be
initiated within one to five years; and we are just past that. Development controlled regulations;
create a conservation subdivision ordinance. 2011 short term work program, LED (c) Section 11;
develop a conservation development design ordinance that is compatible with the vision and
policies of the comprehensive plan for the City of Milton. Page 108, the definition of a
conservation subdivision design. Page 108, definition of a conservation subdivision; which is
great because it is the first of a design of a residential subdivision that maintains its own permitted
project density but configures the homes arranged in a way that maximizes open green space for
conservation. Now, there are some subjective thought on what the actual density is on this process,
but I have to ask, is a conservation subdivision high density? Current AG -1 standards means one
acre greater than one acre per house. What we are dealing with Ebenezer property which is 64
acres with 50 houses which is 1.2 acres per house which is greater than one acre per house. It fits
in that criteria. And, everything else is subjective as far as the number of homes that could be in
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 72 of 116
there based on the soil perk test. Here is the thing, one is done by Doug Patton with the CPS, Matt
Fray, RLS, Sam Massotti, we talked about them before; the staff has agreed with their concepts.
We have others that may disagree, but while we are sitting here arguing over the validity of that,
where Carter Lucas says that if there has ever been any changes, it is usually one or two homes in
a process but if we do AG -1 subdivisions we have already seen the precedent that we currently
have in those pictures I showed everybody before. I am just asking the questions. Is clustering of
homes a good idea? Well, I went driving all over the place looking at cluster horses, you know, it
is our job to work. I went up to Montaluce up in Dahlonega; beautiful subdivision; winery, if you
look at it the homes are fantastic and they have to be in the $500,000 to $1 million range. Chestatee
is a golf course community and conservation subdivision. Conservation subdivisions are like a
golf course community without the golf course. But, that is a cluster home community, it is
something to look at. It is not the high density that I am necessarily seeing although the
interpretation may be high density but I am looking at the pictures of it. Here is Woodview. I've
heard about this on many different occasions and I went down Trickum Road and these are the
pictures of Woodview. Now, there are 200 homes on 60 acres; 70 acres, and in and of itself, you
would think would be a pretty bad looking process. And, if you look at the homes themselves,
they are not what we would regulate here. I agree with that but, what is good about this, and
you've got to look at the good and bad of everything, is from the rural view shed, you hardly see
those homes. You know, the fact that we might be able to place homes in a better light and give
us some options, give us some opportunities. I went to Serenbe, my wife and I went there
yesterday, and I tend to say I don't take people's word for it just to take it; I go see it. I go look
and I am looking there at what people say is high density. And, those are beautiful homes. And,
what I saw there was really something I think we are missing out on. I saw elder people sitting on
porches talking with younger people. People talking to their neighbors. You had people that were
driving around in golf carts and, you know, there is something, I sit there and we look at what we
could have here and it is just amazing how the community aspect there was fantastic. And, you
know, the beauty of it was something else. But, here is the best part about it, while people look at
the houses, and I respect that, this was part of the land. For those that look at the land, this was
the property. It's rural view shed left and right. I don't see houses there. This is not AG -I homes.
This is land. These are horses as you enter in. There is the plot of land. This is the, are we open
to ideas that others have sewn and have been successful outside of Milton. Is community septic a
good idea; there it is. I actually said I am going to stand on where the community septic was in
Serenbe. That is a path you can walk on. That little old shed there on the right is where it is and
in front of me where I took this picture was actually a $1 million dollar house. Now, where I was,
I wasn't sure, there was no odor to where I was standing. There was when I walked by that shed
there but it wasn't unbearable; it wasn't the best, but, you know, it was something there that was
interesting. The funny pari was that people were walking up and down there. I saw seniors
walking with walking sticks on this thing. I haven't seen senior walking with walking sticks
anywhere around Milton. Yet, we have an opportunity to look at. And, one question I have is
why not be open to conservation subdivisions? This property on the left is on Freemanville and
Birmingham Road; 19 acres. This was the argument that we talked about during the CSG and,
you know, granted the AG -1 by right, he can do it but if we are not open to a conservation
subdivision; there is a picture of Montaluce right next to it, you know, I thought it was very
interesting how we can put cluster homes around that field space just like they did in Montaluce
but we will never have that opportunity with where we are. What I see is a risk here in this
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 73 of 116
particular process and this is just a question, this is what a viewpoint is of many constituents that
have emailed me as well as what I have seen personally. That house behind me on the left is where
there is a field of horses that will never be there again. Our rural view shed is right there, On the
right, while if that becomes AG -1, it will become homes. And, while some people took at the
homes clustering right there, which I have seen in 5erenbe and others and it didn't really deter me
there; that is my perception. But, if we give up that plot of land right there where the horses could
be and, while you said you look at the homes when you drive in, I'm looking at that field. And,
the conservation subdivision gives us the opportunity to be able to maintain equestrian pastures
there or some kind of agricultural use. Whereas AG -1 is guaranteed to remove it, guaranteed.
Curtis Mills' house right across the street has a swimming pool at Blue Valley. It is AG -1, by
right, they can build that. My problem that I see here and what I am looking at, and I take this
very seriously, is that a conservation subdivision was voted on by the council in 201 l,inciuding
my predecessor, there is in the comprehensive land use plan, I showed everybody where it says it.
I am looking at the reality of the AG -1 economics that we currently have and it is just the big
picture that I am looking at. And, so the vision that we have, and this is the question we ask staff,
planning commission, etc. You know, they are not elected to have the vision. That is our job.
That is why we ran. This is a question of what is our vision going to be. What do we want to be?
Do we want to be one acre lot subdivisions? We are going to decide here tonight what it is that
we want to be. I think if we deny this, we are not going to have anything here. If we pass it, we
might have an opportunity to continue to do great things in our community. From my perspective,
for where I see this, and I tend to make decisions quickly in a lot of ways, it is my job. But, I also
analyze a lot. And, I speak to people. And, I look at things. And, in my mind, I can't get past the
fact that we have an equestrian property that is disappearing. And, I made a promise when I
campaigned to do everything I could to preserve what we had in that rural view shed of what we
have. To me, the horse on our gateway signs is not just an emblem; it is not just a symbol of what
used to be but is still a symbol of what could be. And, I think we need to have these considerations
as we consider this conversation tonight. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
Mayor Lockwood
Again, I am going to say I am strongly opposed to this. I am not opposed to a conservation
subdivision. 5erenbe is beautiful. All these pictures are beautiful. If we had 1,000 acres
somewhere, we could do it and put all the buffers around it. It might work fine. But, in the location
that this is proposed, the area, the surrounding homes, again, like I said earlier, if you put, basically,
we are taking AG -1 land and we are doing quarter acre lots and it is all perception. You may have
a lot of buffer; you can look at Crabapple, look at those homes and look at the woods across from
them and you can say, if you average this out, these are one acre lots but what do you think when
you are in the Crabapple neighborhood. You don't think of large AG -1 lots. It is all perception.
So, I think we would be doing not only the folks that live around here but on Ebenezer road and
ourselves a big disservice if we went for approving this so I am strongly against it.
Councilmember Hewitt
Let's talk a little bit more about yield. So, as things it today, we already talked about earlier in
the meeting, that it is three parcels with two owners. Mr. Bostwick, you haven't purchased it, it is
under contract, correct?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:40 prn
Page 74 of 116
Charlie Bostwick
Correct.
Councilmember Hewitt
As things sit out today, that 15 plus or minus acres, whatever it is over there on the Sweet Apple
side, how many lots could yield off of that parcel individually today?
Carter Lucas
I think if we looked at the. yield plan that was presented and based it on that, you could get 12 or
13.
Councilmember Hewitt
No, I'm talking about, if that person wanted to develop that 15 acres, I can help out a little bit,
because y'all answered them earlier for me today. Three acre minimum because it is a gravel road,
Sweet Apple Road, so it was 4 to 5 lots. Are you cool with that? The other two parcels, we can
call it one, is give or take 26 acres, I don't know how involved you were Carter with how many
lots that could possibly yield.
Carter Lucas
25 in a 23 acre lot.
Councilmember Hewitt
It was 37. So, as we sit today with these two parcels separate as they are, that gives me 42, if I
take the 5 and 37. And, they are asking for 50, correct?
Carter Lucas
Correct.
Councilmember Hewitt
So, that is 8 or 9 homes, as it sits today, if this wasn't coming in front of anybody, by right, that is
what could be done on that property, in theory, today.
Mayor Lockwood
Excellent.
Councilmember Mohrig
Without assemblage.
Councilmember Hewitt
Without assemblage; as it sits today. So, with assembling it and if we take the yield plan that
shows the AG -1 to 50 lots, which I don't have the ability to refute that or not. I will say that some
of the houses on that have 16-20 feet of slope across them. I'm not a house builder but I have
moved some dirt in my day and that is a big slope across a house footprint. But, assuming they
could get the 50 in there. That is still 8 or 9 houses more than we could sit in there today. As the
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 75 0£ 116
land is owned and sits there right now. So. I do see this as not density neutral. In my mind, I see
it as 8 or 9 more houses that could be in there. They are going to tax Ebenezer Road, going to
probably 140, traffic is already horrendous there now, I see that as 8 or 9 more homes that we
wouldn't get if it was developed as it stands right here today. So, that is my big gripe about this.
I don't have any doubt that what Mr. Bostwick proposes is going to be a quality product on the
houses or anything like that. But, when we talked about the CSO, my concern was not allowing a
single additional house on the ground than what would be allowed as it sits right here. This one
example is 8 or 9 houses more. So, I think that is something that we need to think about up here.
Is 8 or 9 bad? Is 20 bad and 10 okay and zero is good? I don't know. That is for all of us to decide
ourselves. Another thing, and something you said, you don't know what you would get with AG -
1. Well, we are being asked to make a definite decision using, we don't know what we will get
from AG -1 until you get it, as far as lots go. So, that is my point that I want to make. Pretty short
and sweet. I see it as 8 or 9 more homes than we could get on the ground sitting right here today,
I am not arguing soil types or slopes or this that or the other. This would be 8 or 9 more homes
that we don't need on the road.
Mayor Lockwood
I just want to address some of the AG -1. And, another thing, references to AG -1; AGA doesn't
always have to be bad. It doesn't have to be one acre lots. It can be three acre lots; it can be five
acre lots; it can have horse pastures. A conservation type subdivision, I don't believe is going to
have any horse pastures. Even on this layout here with a small pasture in the corner, there are not
going to be horses there. So, AGA doesn't necessarily have to be bad. If you look at Haydon Hall
and other areas around there, those are not necessarily bad.
Councilmember Longoria
I wasn't trying to imply that AG -1 is bad; anything can be abuses, right? So, AG -1 can be abused
for a bad outcome.
Councilmember Mohrig
I guess I go back to, why are we even having this discussion? If we go back to, if AGA, the way
Milton was developing, everybody was happy, we would not have been getting the screaming and
all the letters we have gotten over the last three years saying, what is happening, we are seeing
clear cutting, well, it is allowed today, so Joe, you are right, you could go and you could do three
acre estates. We are not seeing that happening; at least not the subdivisions that I have seen happen
in the last few years, So, I think that is why we are wrestling with this because there is no one
answer on how to do it. If Milton was developed the way it was 20 years ago when I moved here,
we wouldn't be having this discussion. AG -1 was going to do it and the developers would build
around and that is what we saw. That is not what has been happening in the last 5 to 10 years.
And, I am with Joe, and I guess along with you too, Burt, from a density neutral, I am for density
neutral. I am not for saying, let's add more homes, therefore, more traffic and more issues
particularly with the schools. I guess the question I have for Mr. Bostwick is that from what I am
hearing that some of the concerns are both from Community Development as well as from some
of the neighbors is that we have these 50 homes today. We've got an assembled 64 acres, we have
50 homes on the smaller two portions that are combined. Are you open to reducing the total
number of homes that are going to impact on the property that you are balancing the homes out
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 prn
Page 76 of 116
across the buildable area. I think that is what community development was suggesting originally
which is to find a way to actually put some of those homes, instead of up front, is there an option
to actually reduce the total impact of your buildable space with the number of homes.
Charlie Bostwick
Reduce the number of homes?
Councilmember Mohrig
Reduce the number of homes or spread them out over the buildable space.
Charlie Bostwick
I will answer the second question first. The reason we don't have them spread out over that leg to
the right because the only way to do that is to kill that ecologically sensitive area of the site. So,
the only way to get over there and do that is to kill the reason why we want to do this; why we care
about this. The other part of it is that you've got the economic situation, whereas, once you pave
across that creek, then you have used up the money you have to do the community septic system.
So, you have to choose one or the other and once you cross the creek, you have to go back to AG -
1. We are not going across the creek because it is against what we believe in terms of protecting
this site. In terms of reducing the number of homes, like I said before, we put this under contract
with the thought of 55 lots. Now, we have reduced it to 50 without reducing the cost of the land.
The only way to reduce the number of lots is to reduce the amount of land that we buy or something
like that but not at the current situation of buying all this land; the numbers won't work.
Councilmember Mohrig
I guess what I see is the concern from a, if you talk about, when people are saying clustering or
whatever, they are really all on the one part; none of them extend out to the ecologically sensitive
14 or 15 acre area basically counts to give you the total density plan but all the homes are in one
place; they are not spread across the entire area.
Charlie Bostwick
Yes, so we have done two things. We have protected the area along Ebenezer so we have this
much larger green space there, by the way, we really might have horses there. The next door
neighbor has two horses and she would like to get them closer to her property and so we were
talking about actually having horses on this and it is big enough to do that. There are 6-8 acres
right there. But, back to your question, it is kind of like the TDR where you are actually taking,
in some cases, the ability from across the city to the other side to get more density but we are doing
it all on one side. That is how I look at it. We are doing it in a way of creating a park so a park
doesn't work as well when it is in a little bitty parcel between the homes. It does better when it is
in a concentrated area.
Councilmember Hewitt
So, 50 is the number.
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:40 pm
Page 77 of 116
Councilmember Lusk
I want to go back to Burt's comments on the yield plan. I may have missed something in your
calculations but I think you came up with 4 or 5 houses in that 13 or 14 acres next to Sweet Apple.
Well, in getting 4 or 5 homes there, they would have to be on three acre sites which would mean
that they would have to come off of Sweet Apple Road. So, I think the calculations that they are
using and I think the way they have it designed there, is that all of the access will be off of a paved
road rather than a gravel road.
Councilmember Hewitt
I am talking about as it sits right now, if this wasn't in front of us, the Sweet Apple portion, if they
were coming in is 4 or 5 lots as it stands right now, not if these folks weren't in here.
Councilmember Lusk
I just wanted to make that clear.
Councilmember Hewitt
Cool, I understand.
Councilmember Kunz
I have three questions for staff. If a developer carnes in with AG -I and wants to combine lots, do
we calculate them as they are separately or do we calculate them on the purchase of everything
together?
Kathy Field
When the application comes in, it is looked at in terms of the total package that comes in. And,
usually what happens is that a developer will get an option and if he gets the zoning he will acquire
it.
Councilmember Kunz
So, with all due respect to Mr. Hewitt, I am sitting here looking at this, the reality is that people
under AG -1 can buy lots and build what they have not based on gravel road or whatever, they just
do it. Is that right? I mean, basically, AG -1, if they come in together, they can buy lots, combine
them, and then propose, regardless of gravel or not, and be able to find ways to develop a certain
number of homes. Am I right?
Kathy Field
As Carter Lucas explained earlier, because the arm or the panhandle, if you will, is being disturbed
or could be disturbed through Ebenezer as opposed to the gravel road. If this were free standing
and you were just buying the panhandle, we will call it the panhandle, his main access would be
off of the gravel road.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 78 of 116
1
Councilmember Kunz
But, the reality is that economically, if a builder wanted to build a bridge to combine the properties
upon the purchase, then he could build the eight homes that Burt Hewitt says he couldn't or
shouldn't do.
Kathy Field
Go ahead, Robyn.
Robyn MacDonald
Yes, that is correct. Yes, because he can cross the stream then he can access the other side of the
panhandle.
Councilmember Kunz
Right, so the economics of it, there is a reality to the economics which is the certain number of
homes that we have. The subjectivity is the question of the soil perk test. In my mind, I am just
trying to, you know, get to the reality of what that number is, if we have it. Next question, the
horse pasture, you know, the mayor said there will not be horses on that pasture. I would love to
have the builder talk about that.
Charlie Bostwick
We have a next door neighbor that has two older horses and she would really like them closer to
her property so we have talked with her about having a situation where we would actually have a
stable on our property which would be located on the right hand side. The pasture is actually a
little bigger than what is shown there. It is more than big enough for a couple of horses and we
would love to do that. It would be really great for Milton. We have a Milton entrance into our
neighborhood and we have a rural feel right here and we would be proud if that could actually
work out.
Councilmember Kunz
So, you are saying that we would have real live flesh and blood horses right there.
Councilmember Longoria
Ken, we have a city councilmember recusing herself which means we have an even number of
people sitting up here and everyone has to vote. Can you explain the rules related to what happens
if there is a 3-3 result on a vote and specifically if we are voting to approve something versus if
we are voting to not approve something?
City Attorney Jarrard
I can tell you with some confidence that a tie vote is the failure to secure a majority. So, how a tie
vote works is a defeat whatever the motion is so that is obviously something I will be monitoring
to see so if there is a tie vote on a motion to approve, then that is an unsuccessful motion. If there
is a tie vote on a motion to deny, then that is an unsuccessful motion. I will tell you that if
ultimately at the end of the day the council cannot un -deadlock the action then for purposes of
what becomes of this zoning item, it will be deemed ultimately...
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:40 pm
Page 79 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
The reason I asked the question is if we vote to deny and we tie, we can't be approving, that makes
no sense.
City Attorney Jarrard
Right.
Councilmember Longoria
And, if we vote to approve and we tie, we can't be denying because that doesn't make any sense.
City Attorney Jarrard
But, you have affirmative action, and that is you have an application in front of you for zoning and
so if the practical result is the council fails to secure a majority and cannot take action on that
application, then I think the process would mandate that ultimately we would have to say that it is
effectively denied. You can't get approval by no action.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, I just want to be clear, I've been playing these scenarios in my head, any kind of a tie is
going to wind up being equivalent to a denial. We can't move forward with the proposal.
City Attorney Jarrard
That is right but obviously we tried to figure out a consensus that might yield some result that
would achieve, I think that would be the best of both worlds, that we achieve, I'm not saying
approval, I'm saying something that achieves, even a vote of denial that achieves, but at the end
of the day we can't get to any action of results.
Councilmember Longoria
The other thing is that we, and we had a very astute citizen point our earlier, rezoning to CUP
requires that it is tied to some restrictions or some conditions, right? In other words, we can't just
rezone the land CLIP and wait to see what else could happen.
City Attorney Jarrard
Right, I think that Kathy or Robyn could speak to that better but there are expectations that more
standards will be built into it.
Councilmember Longoria
It is tied specifically to the site plan that we have been looking at and it would be tied to whatever
other conditions that we put on top of that so as much as I like to think that a re -zoning action is
actually helping us, the reality is that it is predicting a singular future for the property because
nothing else could be done other than what has been presented.
City Attorney Jarrard
Right.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04 pm
Page 84 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, thank you.
Councilmember Kunz
This is an idea. A couple of residents came up here who are in opposition but had a suggestion
and I would like to just throw it out there to see what happens because the question is the trail
system itself is private right now. Would there be any way that the developer might be able to see
that we might be able to make those trails public to the residents of the city?
City Attorney darrard
Yes.
Councilmember Kunz
The developer might have an interest in it. I would like to hear Mr. Bostwick. Again, we had a
couple of residents that asked that question and I thought it was an interesting idea.
Charlie Bostwick
We have contemplated that question. We would be witting to make that area off of Sweet Apple
public area and donate it to the city as a public park in exchange for the impact fee credits for
parks. For virtually nothing, we would be willing to donate that to the city. We would still want
to restrict it from clearing the land by putting it in a land trust if that can be worked out logistically
we can have those trails in that portion of the land.
Councilmember Kunz
So, you are saying you would be willing to donate?
Charlie Bostwick
I am telling you right now that we care about this project so much that if this is what it takes to get
this done, we would be willing to donate that land to the city in exchange for part of the impact
fees.
Councilmember Longoria
1 have some real issues with that because, Ken you can say that I am all wet when it comes to this,
because there was a gift take kind of thing that almost sounded like if you guys would do this for
us, we would do that you for, and I don't think that has any place in what we are trying to
accomplish here today. But, more importantly, Charlie, you have already told us that you are
locating the drain field in this particular area. How on earth are you going to have a public park
or something that becomes public contain a private structure on it like this? I mean, we can't, l
don't understand how we would do that. That doesn't make any sense. I mean, having open access
and allowing the public to walk through is going to be complicated enough because of all the
liability issues, but having this piece of the property as donating it to the city, I don't think that
will ever work.
1
Cl
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 81 of 116
Charlie Bostwick
I am open to whatever makes sense for the city here. I am just trying to be a good neighbor and
that sort of thing if it means having to have an easement over, it is not uncommon to have an
easement for a private structure over public property, or we can just leave those couple of acres
out of it or we could look at moving the septic up to the front of the property or something like
that. And, maybe there is a way to say look the city has some period of time to do due diligence
to decide if they want it or not. But, I am just trying to be amiable.
Mayor Lockwood
I appreciate that offer but the reality is it probably doesn't matter to you whether you donate it or
not, whether the HOA or the land trust owns it or the city owns it.
Charlie Bostwick
I would much rather it be specifically for our homeowners which adds value to our homes in a way
that making it a public park,
Mayor Lockwood
I think the question was the access to the public to it.
City Attorney darrard
I would recommend against the city accepting that property.
Councilmember Mohrig
I will ask the question a little bit more direct so, we have something we are looking at before us
and people, again we have all the homes on one area, I guess the question is, are you open to
reducing the total number of homes within that space that is there or is it 50 and this is it, this is
what you want and this configuration is what you are looking at?
Charlie Bostwick
I've got two answers, if one lot makes the difference between the decisions; we care about it
enough to make that work; if it is a matter of reducing it to some significant number that is going
to make a difference, we would have to lose a portion of the property to make that work. We
couldn't do it and also buy the full amount of property.
Councilmember Longoria
Ken, help me out, if we somehow change the number of lots, the plan that has been submitted with
this all of a sudden is invalid.
Pete Hendricks
Your standard language says that the site plan is conceptual only; there is language right in there
where it talks about the density, it says that it does not guarantee the yield on the density. You all
could set a number on what you perceive to be the number of lots and that would not be exceeded;
that number would not be guaranteed. Whatever your paragraph is, Robyn, under your
recommended conditions, when it talks about density at 0.79 and it says this is not a guaranteed
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 82 of 116
number of lots and then it goes on to track through, as Carter was saying, you've got to go through
the process of the evaluation as you go through the LDP and the building permit process to see
that you can get a yield that is specified in that condition.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, but what governs whether or not we can get that yield? Because, normally, under AG -1
terms, it is the soil that dictates that. It can't be a separate thing because we are specifically saying
that we are building homes that aren't where they should be; that we have moved them all.
Pete Hendricks
But, you are going to have your evaluation on each one per your assessed lot specifications. Each
one of those lots will have to go through an evaluation.
Councilmember Longoria
Which lots are you talking about?
Mayor Lockwood
I think what Joe is talking about, right now, if you developed your yield plan on the AG -1, it is
just perceived, it is just preliminary. And, if you are going with the proposed development, you
would actually never ever know truthfully what you would have because you would never go
through that process; you would never actually develop or grade that property.
Councilmember Longoria
Yes, let me tell you an example about the quarter acre lots that you guys are looking at developing;
you've got eight of them, they are surrounding the park. What good does it do to certify the soil
that a home that is going on a quarter acre lot does? It does no good whatsoever.
Charlie Bostwick
You wouldn't do that; there is no reason to do that. That is your point, right?
Councilmember Longoria
Yes, so what are we basing the certification on?
Charlie Bostwick
We were basing it on the yield plan which meets all the city requirements for the yield plan.
Councilmember Longoria
So, are you telling me that you are going to every single Iot that you have depicted in the yield
plan and you are going to make sure that you've got the ability to build a home on that lot; that
ghost lot?
Charlie Bostwick
I think that is what we have essentially done already. We have a plan that is a $35,000 plan with
soil engineers...
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 83 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
No, I get that; I'm not trying to question that. I am doing a bad job of asking my question; it is past
my bedtime but, here is the point, we've got, what is the guaranteed tie to; if we say, we want to
get .79 homes per acre and it is not to exceed what dictates that you are going to be able to do that
exactly, I have no doubt.
Charlie Bostwick
We have the septic yield plan to do. My engineer told me it was great.
Councilmember Longoria
I'm going to ask my buddy, Burt, to help me out here.
Councilmember Hewitt
So, it may not answer your question but, Ken, listen to this please. If you talked about, as Rick
said, if you lost some lots, you would have to lose some property. So, if you dropped out the
finger, let's just say, and cut out eight lots or something like that, doesn't that materially change
this application where you would basically have to go through this again?
City Attorney Jarrard
Not necessarily, the rule is that when we are talking about zoning you can reduce the acreage and
reduce the density and increase the acreage and increase the density. So, as long as the site is
getting smaller and the density is either neutral or less.
Councilmember Hewitt
To Joe's point, if this was to get approved, this is sort of our guiding document; it is kind of like
the sewer map, it is a picture more than words, so if we were agreeable to the applicant cut off
eight lots of this and not have this picture here. How do we know what that is going to look Iike?
City Attorney Jarrard
It will just yield what it yields and you will just have to run the numbers again and see what they
can do, again, this is all being done in real time right now; I am just simply giving you a...
Councilmember Hewitt
So, we wouldn't have that picture tonight if we were going to vote on this tonight.
City Attorney Jarrard
I am just giving you the rule. The rule is that it doesn't require a redo.
Charlie Bostwick
Could you please explain a little bit more what direction you are proposing; maybe we can help.
Councilmember Hewitt
I'm not proposing anything.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 84 of 116
1
Councilmember Mohrig
I am just asking a question because what I am hearing is the change with the number of homes and
the perceived density because of the number of homes on that central area and you have no homes
out on that finger; if you would reduce, I don't care where you take it from, but if you reduce some
of that, that you have just the plain greenspace today, what you are saying is that as long as you
keep the configuration the way it is right now with that parcel; 50 is what you are going for, and I
guess what I am saying is there any way you could ever get to less density beyond where you have
all your homes today.
Charlie Bostwick
We don't have the ability to just draw the line to where we can buy the land anywhere. We have
to lose that whole thing and if we lost the whole panhandle, if you will, then it would drop our
yield down to around 38 lots. We would have to go all the way to that; we can't really do
something in between.
Councilmember Mohrig
Okay, we are talking hypothetical, so if you did that what you are saying that would change, you
would still go with your 50% greenspace or close to that, but that would give you bigger lots on
that other space because you would be losing twelve homes out of the existing map.
Charlie Bostwick
We can do it several different ways. We can just have bigger lots or we can try to reduce the
number of homes along Ebenezer which there are different ways we could accomplish that.
Councilmember Mohrig
Is 38 what the yield plan shows, Kathy, can you tell me for that plat?
Councilmember Hewitt
We estimated 37 on the question I asked for the main.
Charlie Bostwick
The yield, per my engineer, the yield would be about 38 if we didn't drain the lake. If we drain
the lake, we can get a couple more in.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, anybody else, or questions for Charlie or staff? Any other comments? Does anyone want
to make a motion?
Councilmember Longoria
I'm trying to think of what motion needs to be made.
Councilmember Lusk
We just changed the game plan a little bit here, the possibility of doing it anyway.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 85 of 116
Councilmember Mohrig
Without the applicant requesting anything different, we are limited to what we have right here, is
that correct.'
Mayor Lockwood
No, you can make a motion to reduce...
City Attorney darrard
Again, we are getting a little bit into zoning no man's land. We need to do that in sort of a non -
structured way, My position on the legality of it remains, I just wonder if we are in a position to
do that tonight.
Mayor Lockwood
Does anybody have a motion?
Charlie Bostwick
Can I comment on that?
Mayor Lockwood
I don't know, Ken?
City Attorney Jarrard
Really, this is an opportunity, we have been questioning...
Mayor Lockwood
Yes, but if there is a specific question, Charlie?
Councilmember Kunz
Yes, I would like to hear what Charlie has to say. Sorry, I would just like to hear all sides of what
everybody has to say. So, you are saying 35 homes instead of the...
Charlie Bostwick
What I am hearing is that what the council would prefer is to figure out how to drop some lots.
We have studied this and we have a plan that as much as we wouldn't want to go this way and we
were hoping it wouldn't go this way tonight, we have a plan with 38 Iots on it without the extension
that we can live with.
Councilmember Kunz
Could you remove three of the lots on the front row by Ebenezer and put them somewhere else?
Councilmember Lusk
Or, just delete them.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 86 of 116
Councilmember Kunz
Or. just delete them. Three lots for 47 instead of 50.
Charlie Bostwick
If you asked me for two, I would say yes.
Councilmember Kunz_
Okay, two.
Charlie Bostwick
Yes.
Councilmember Kunz
So, 48 instead of 50 and you can spread those homes out a little further.
Charlie Bostwick
I would be willing to do that.
Councilmember Kunz
Everyone has given me the cues how to do this over the years so...
Charlie Bostwick
Specifically, along Ebenezer, we could lose two which would make those 1.25 square foot lots
which is the width of AG -1 lots so we would have AG -1 width homes further and bigger set back
and fewer homes than AG -1 will allow if that is what it takes.
Councilmember Mohrig
Can you clarify again, what did you say? Can you clarify what it is that you said you had a
secondary plan that would do what?
Charlie Bostwick
We have a plan if this is what would make a difference to save this property...
Mayor Lockwood
Ken, I don't know if I feel comfortable with a separate plan or something that has not been
published.
City Attorney ,larrard
Well, we have to go back to the issue of what does the plan do; is it in fact less acreage and Iess
density?
Mayor Lockwood
Well, obviously, if it is less acreage then it would be less density but is it equal density to this other
one or is it substantially less dense would be the question, right Ken?
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2416 at 6:00 pm
Page S? of 116
City Attorney Jarrard
Yes, that is the question.
Councilmember Lusk
Well, if that were to happen, could we make that a condition of approval that the density would
not be any greater than what is proposed in this original application?
City Attorney Jarrard
Yes.
Councilmember Lusk
The answer is yes.
Councilmember Kunz
I think that if a developer runs a business and they are looking at all options to see what they can
do, if you look at what it might look like based on plus or minus 50 homes, I'm sure you have done
those analysis, that is what you are saying, right? So, if there is a way as a council that we reduce
the number of lots that we can be comfortable with, I guess the question is, is it worth conserving
the greenspace that we have here in order to be able to achieve an objective based on our
comprehensive plan. I guess that is my question. That is really the vision that we have to have as
a council. Is there a place where we can meet in the middle or do we chose not to in order to be
able to achieve this objective? I don't know.
Mayor Lockwood
I think from what I am hearing you would eliminate lots and land.
Councilmember Kunz
I'm just trying to understand.
Councilmember Mohrig
The only reason I even said, and again, I am not going to draw up a plan, this isn't my property, I
am just wondering about the concerns and perceptions about how many homes are on that parcel.
So, that was my question to say, okay, Mr. Bostwick, is there a way, if that is what the community
is concerned about, what is the option to try to reduce the total number to build on that or spread
some over into the other area. And, that is my question, Are you willing to, is that a proposal you
want to put forward because I don't think I can propose to you; only you can decide to do that.
Charlie Bostwick
We are not willing to move homes across the creek. We are willing to drop to 48 and keep the
existing land like it is and the other conditions; drop them off Ebenezer and make wider lots. We
are also willing to submit a plan for 38 lots on the 49 acres and remove the 14 acres that are off of
Sweet Apple. We've got that plan with us and we are willing to submit that and you accept that if
you can.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2416 at 6:00 pm
Page 88 of 116
Councilmember Hewitt
I just don't think we can accept that...
City Attorney Jarrard
If there is going to be the submission of an alternative plan, then you need to take that under
advisement. It is one thing to drop lots; that is fairly easy but a whole new plan; I'm not suggesting
that we have to do the hearings all over again, I am suggesting that we at least defer to be able to
look at it.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, if we did that, are you saying that we would have a formal change plan come forward to
consider?
City Attorney Jarrard
I am just suggesting to give staff enough time to review it.
Councilmember Hewitt
And, we will have to do tonight's process, to some extent, over again and public comment. So. it
would come back a month from now or whatever in the same format.
City Attorney Jarrard
I am not suggesting another public hearing.
Mayor Lockwood
Mr. Bostwick, did you have something you wanted to add to that?
Charlie Bostwick
Two points I want to make; first of all, essentially all we have done on the new plan is taken the
homes off of Ebenezer; it is not a whole new plan. It doesn't have to go through much process
just the homes that staff has asked us to take off and put in the panhandle instead of just taking
them off all together and not doing the panhandle. Number two, the seller has already given us
two extensions on this process, reluctantly, and is refusing to give us another extension on this so
we wouldn't be able to defer.
Mayor Lockwood
If you reduce the lots and remove the panhandle, then you really don't have, that is not the intent,
then you don't have the green area and walking trails.
Charlie Bostwick
We would still have 50% greenspace and no, we don't get two miles of walking space but we think
we can get about a mile and half. We would still have a huge amount of greenspace; it still protects
the most sensitive areas on the property. It still protects every specimen tree that has been located.
It still protects the rural view shed that matters so much to Milton.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 89 of 116
Councilmember Mohrig
So, if that is what, because I hear you saying that is one proposal that we haven't seen, but you are
saying that you've got that proposal with you. If you eliminated that fourteen acres, you say that
on that existing plat, you would still have 50% greenspace and it would go down to approximately
38 homes on that same plat.
Charlie Bostwick
That is correct.
Councilmember Lusk
Yes, I would like to make a motion. I move to approve RZ 16-02NC 16-01 to rezone from AG -1
(Agricultural) to CUP (Community Unit Plan) to develop 48 Single Family Homes on 63.57 Acres
at an Overall Density of 0.79 Units per Acre and a Concurrent Variance to Increase the Maximum
Lot Coverage from 20 Percent to 50 Percent for Each Individual Lot [Sec. 64-1141(d)(1)(b)]
including the conditions recommended by staff and I entertain any other conditions that we might
have.
Councilmember Longoria
Before that gets seconded. before that gets seconded, 1 think your math is wrong. Because you
said .79.
Councilmember Kunz
It is .75.
Councilmember Lusk
Sorry.
Councilmember Kunz
That's what he said is .75.
Councilmember Lusk
I did mistake it.
Mayor Lockwood
Just for clarification, Ken, as Councilmember Lusk said, you made him state his motion and then
he said with any other conditions or whatever. But, does he need to specify then someone seconds
it or.
City Attorney Jarrard
Right, so what will have to happen is that notwithstanding, there needs to be a second and with
respect to any other amendments will need to come from the councilmembers.
Councilmember Kunz
Second.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 90 of 1 l6
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, we have a motion for approval from Councilmember Lusk and a second from
Councilmember Kunz.
City Attorney Jarrard
And, Councilmember Lusk, just to confirm with respect to the ratio, what was the ratio we decided
on?
Councilmember Kunz
It was .75 units per acre which is 63.57 divided by 44.
City Attorney Jarrard
Councilmember Lusk, is that what you...
Councilmember Lusk
I stand corrected.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, any Burt.
Councilmember Hewitt
Why is it not .79 units as it is in the...
Robyn MacDonald
Two less lots.
Councilmember Kunz
Two less lots.
Councilmember Hewitt
So, it is just taking it down to the same density ratio as it is now?
Mayor Lockwood
No, I believe he said...
Councilmember Longoria
No, it said 50 in the proposal.
Mayor Lockwood
He is saying 48.
Councilmember Longoria
Bill is suggesting 4$.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 41 of 116
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, any comments, again, I certainly don't think this is, I can't support this. I think we are
certainly going against our camp plan, the look, the feel, of the area, and setting a precedence here
but that is my opinion. So. I certainly can't support it. Are there any other comments?
Councilmember Longoria
Yes, I have been, we have been talking about this for a long time tonight and over the past couple
of weeks and I am concerned about what the density really would be if this was developed in AG -
1. Now, I know we've got engineers saying one thing but being an engineer myself, I know that
you can give two engineers the same problem and they come up with two different solutions and
that is pretty much always going to happen. So, I was thinking that the difference between the
stated density and what we should be thinking about approving is more like a net loss of four
homes as opposed to two which would make the density .718 units per acre. So, I could easily talk
more about that but I think two isn't necessarily enough movement and it certainly doesn't take
into consideration some of the challenges that we talked about tonight. But, I am willing to
continue to discuss that.
Councilmember Mohrig
I guess we are putting our cards out on the table. I am probably more comfortable with the proposal
that they had offered to actually go down to only 38 on that parcel. I know we lose 14 acres of
greenspace. At the same time, we are still preserving along the front, along the sides, for that
reduced acreage of 50 some acres, but it brings the total density down and it also then affords us
down the road to have less density on that portion.
Councilmember Hewitt
My thoughts are that two lots are not enough. I think we need to, four doesn't get it to me, I'm
thinking more along; seven, eight, nine lots, so I am not in favor of this.
Mayor Lockwood
The only thing I would say about that even two, four, six, eight; still the rest of it is a total change
from what the area is now. Alright, if I hear no more I'll ask for a vote, All in favor, please say
aye.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, I'm not, just to go back to Rick's point. I'm not in favor of changing anything as drastic as
taking the 63.75 or 64 acres, whatever it is, and changing it into something else, because then it
just looks like the whole exercise is bait and switch where we were presented with one thing and
in reality it was the other thing that was needed. And, so, that kind of drastic change I am not
interested in at all. But, if the parcel, the proposed lot, total lot acreage stays the same and we
change the density, then I am interested in that. I don't think two houses is enough.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, I guess the process that we've got, Matt, do you have a comment? We have a motion and a
second.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 92 of 116
Councilmember Kunz
Yes, discussion on that too. I agree with Joe. I don't see the point in trying to change and get rid
of that extra property. We have had residents abound trying to tell us to preserve greenspace left
and right, and to say that we are going to just deny that on this is driving me nuts. On the reduction
of homes, I am still trying to understand, as much as we have people trying to say it should be less,
I don't understand the factual evidence of that just yet. I have seen that from others but I am just
trying to understand that.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay, my definition of that...
Councilmember Kunz
We have it on both sides. I wouldn't tell you as an engineer how to do your job and you wouldn't
tell me as a financial advisor how to do mine.
Councilmember Longoria
I agree. I agree.
Councilmember Kunz
My concern, though, is that even though we have that argument, we still have loss of land with
AG -1 property which is a non-agricultural use which is still taking away our rural preservation
area and at some point, the look and feel of where it is, that is changing our community away from
the rural vision of what we have and we need to make a decision on our vision. That is just my
viewpoint as it is so if we decide not to do this, we are basically effectively saying we don't want
equestrian, barns, contiguous land in this area.
Mayor Lockwood
I respectively disagree with that but hold on Bill, then let's see, Joe, Rick, and then Bill.
Councilmember Longoria
The only thing I would say, Matt, is that the four homes, as opposed to two, is what I would say is
the uncertainty of it all.
Councilmember Kunz
Why four? That is the question. And, I understand the 38, I understand the 50. Now, we are
going to something in the middle and where's the four coming from? He told us to why not six,
why not eight, so we are coming up with numbers.
Councilmember Longoria
Well, it is so arbitrary.
Mayor Lockwood
It is arbitrary.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 93 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
So, the four to me sounded like closer to being 10% which is a material difference as opposed to
two which is less than 4% and is not material.
Councilmember Kunz
Or, a material difference which could be 50 homes which is AGA, which is what he could go
ahead and do.
Councilmember Longoria
Hold on, time out, we don't have to hold our breath and wait for AG -1 development to happen. It
is going to happen if we don't approve this. So, I am not worried about that. We shouldn't worry
about that. It will happen.
Councilmember Kunz
Which is 50 homes.
Councilmember Longoria
What we should be worried about is what is the right use of a CUP rezoning.
Councilmember Kunz
I agree.
Councilmember Longoria
We've got 25, at least, subdivisions out there that are developed like AG -1 property; one acre
homes. This would be number 26 if we develop it as AG -1. There is nothing special about that.
We are looking for something special, okay?
Councilmember Kunz
I tend to think that all of our contiguous land is special. It is just a viewpoint that I have as well.
Mayor Lockwood
Rick, you had a question or comment and Bill had a question or comment.
Councilmember Mobrig
Again, when we get into how many do we reduce, is it two, is it four, is it five, what will the
developer even offer? That is where, I guess what I looked at is, what is the total impact of homes
on this space today? If he offered that up as one option, if that finger went away, you are down to
50 now. Now, the total impact of homes on that, still preserving the rural viewshed, still preserving
the pasture, still preserving 50% greenspace in that designated lot, it goes down to less impact on
Ebenezer Road for a total number of homes if you take that away. If then, this parcel is left out
down the road realistically, if there is no interconnectivity, then Ebenezer Road becomes your
access point.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 94 of 116
Councilmember Lusk
We are throwing numbers around here and I think we need to come to some consensus here. I am
willing to entertain an amendment to my motion to reduce the number. If it is three, if it is four.
Mayor Lockwood
Ken, is that, process wise, we are playing with somebody's development.
City Attorney Jarrard
The council, of course, can make that by way of a condition. Now, whether or not the applicant
will accept it.
Mayor Lockwood
So, right now we have a motion and a second for approval with two less lots.
Councilmember Kunz
So, I have to remove my second. Is that right, or how does that or add an amendment?
City Attorney Jarrard
Right now, there is a motion and a second.
Mayor Lockwood .
There is a motion. We can vote on it or.
Councilmember Lusk
I can make an amendment. So, I would entertain an amendment if that is the consensus. Here is
four.
Mayor Lockwood
That is not my consensus.
City Attorney Jarrard
What may need to occur, Councilmember Lusk, if the second just wants to remove the second,
you can restate your motion.
Councilmember Kunz
I will remove my second.
Councilmember Lusk
I will revise my motion. And, it is the same motion, in lieu of 50 single family homes as stated in
the agenda, I would propose 45 single family homes and also to include all of the recommended
conditions as proposed by staff.
Councilmember Kunz
.723b
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 95 of 116
Councilmember Lusk
.7236 units per acre.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, I have a motion for approval.
Councilmember Kunz
Second.
Mayor Lockwood
With 46 lots versus 50 from Councilmember Lusk with a second from Councilmember Kunz. Any
comments.
Councilmember Mohrig
I have a question. How would this work out as far as the site plan and everything else because
now we just changed...
Mayor Lockwood
Where are you taking the loss from?
Councilmember Mohrig
I am trying to understand how this and, I don't know if it is appropriate to ask the applicant if he
would even entertain that.
Councilmember Longoria
Well, we better rather than waste time voting on it.
Councilmember Lusk
Well, it is not going to take long to vote on it.
Mayor Lockwood
Ken, let's look for a little direction here. Again, now we are going back as a change, substantially,
and I say substantially, I know it is just four lots but is it; are there lots back here, along the road...
City Attorney Jarrard
Removing the number of lots to make the project less dense does not concern me from a due
process respect. I think it is very appropriate to ask the developer what their position is going to
be on that before this council takes action as the legal course of law.
Mayor Lockwood
Alright, Mr. Bostwick, you heard the motion and the comments.
Charlie Bostwick
I did. If we can have the flexibility as to where we remove these lots so that we can do it the most
economically feasible way, we will accept the voices.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2416 at 6:00 pm
Page 96 of 116
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, any other comments? Again, in all due respect, I've seen your work, you do a fine job, you
guys have an upstanding great reputation, but I just, I still have heartburn even if we took ten lots
out based on these size of lots, where it is at, based on our comp plan, AG -1 and all that, I still
cannot support that and strongly hope that the majority of the council wouldn't either. That is my
comment and if I don't hear anymore, I will leave it up, we'll vote, I've got the motion and a
second for approval with 46 lots versus 50.
Councilmember Hewitt
I was just going to say that, I appreciate your willingness, but that doesn't pull the trigger for me
in this aspect, especially with not knowing which lots they would be trying to protect that Ebenezer
viewshed. In my mind, you need to take off eight lots and I understand and that is not probably
feasibly economically for you.
Councilmember Mohrig
Can I ask a question on process? 5o, if this were to be voted down in its present form, then does
it come back for another motion? Or, does this end?
Mayor Lockwood
We could go all night, couldn't we Ken?
City Attorney Jarrard
At some point, we either have to take some sort of action to address the zoning or we have to
decide that we are at an impasse. And, you asked me how many votes we have to take before it
passes? I think we will all know it when we get there.
Councilmember Hewitt
When we have had this before, we have had a motion and it was tied and then the opposite motion
was made and it was tied and that was the end of it.
City Attorney Jarrard
And, that is right, so when the council runs out of steam and it feels like no one has anything else
to offer, when we get a sense that nothing is happening and feasible or viable tonight, we will
move into the next agenda item. The take away will be that we will not have any effective result
of this item.
Councilmember Lusk
It is now 11:30 p.m. We are now running up to our midnight mandatory adjournment time.
City Attorney Jarrard
Yes, the council rules mandate that we end at midnight unless an emergency exists as established
by council.
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 97 of 116
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, I am going to ask for a vote. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Those opposed,
please say nay.
City Attorney Jarrard
That was a tie vote on the susceptive motion.
Mayor Lockwood
I don't normally make a motion, but I would like to make a motion for denial of this application.
Do I have a second?
Councilmember Hewitt
I will second.
Mayor Lockwood
I have a motion by myself and a second by councilmember Hewitt for denial. Any discussion?
Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed?
City Attorney Jarrard
So, the matter continues to be on the table.
Councilmember Mohrig
Then, I would like to make a motion that we accept Mr. Bostwick's revised proposal of going with
38, if that is what the yield plan allows, for the main block of properties still having the same
restrictions of 50% minimum greenspace by reducing the total number of lots to 38 without the
last 14 acres off to the side.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, I have a motion but now, procedurally, I haven't seen a plan. I don't think anybody has
seen a plan so I don't know how we...
City Attorney Jarrard
Councilmember Mohrig, I will stand behind my position that that is required per zoning procedures
laws that has to be re -advertised. I respectfully request that if we are going to do something like
that then we at least defer it.
Councilmember Lusk
So, how do we do that?
Councilmember Longoria
Well, first of all, you need a second on that motion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 98 of 116
Councilmember Lusk
I will second that motion.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, I have a motion from Councilmember Mohrig, second from Councilmember Lusk-, we
haven't seen a plan but I believe it is 38 lots and it was removing the thing. I will open it for
discussion. My issue with that is that is not going to substantially change anything as far as folks
that live on Ebenezer, the view, the whole deal with the development. It is just going to take away
some more greenspace; it does reduce the number of lots but again, from the neighbors and from
the city's perspective, I don't see where that makes any change.
Councilmember Hewitt
I'm not comfortable voting on something that we have had two minutes to look at.
Mayor Lockwood
Anybody else? All in favor..
Councilmember Lusk
Ken suggested that it go back to staff for review, can we move on this and approve it contingent
upon staff's approval?
City Attorney ,larrard
Councilmember Lusk, I can't tell you what the council can do, the council has that discretion. My
respectful recommendation would be not to approve it conditionally. I would request that if you
were going to do that, you need to defer it and put it on the next agenda and give the opportunity
for staff to review it.
Councilmember Lusk
Could we put it on the next regular meeting in one week?
Charlie Bostwick
The seller just informed me that he would accept an extension if that would be necessary.
Councilmember Lusk
Did you say he would or would not?
Charlie Bostwick
Yes, I walked to the back of the room and the seller has agreed to an extension long enough to do
that. We are only talking about one to two weeks.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, do we table this or do we make it a deferral?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2015 at 5:00 pm
Page 99 of 116
City Attorney Jarrard
You would withdraw it and make another motion.
Councilmember Lusk
I withdraw my second.
Councilmember Mohrig
I make a motion to defer.
Councilmember Kunz
Second.
Mayor Lockwood
Procedurally, Ken, making a motion to defer but that is the assumption that the applicant is going
to bring another plan in and have the staff review it and council and bring it back?
City Attorney Jarrard
That is correct. Make a motion to defer and bring it back at the next regular council meeting after
staff has had an opportunity to review it.
Mayor Lockwood
In only one week? And, the public too.
City Attorney Jarrard
They will have a public comment opportunity.
Mayor Lockwood
The problem I have with that is that it is a different plan and again we are taking away greenspace
but that is my personal opinion. So, we have a motion for deferral from Councilmember Mohrig.
Do I have a second?
Councilmember Lusk
I want to clarify that it is a deferral for one week until the next regular city council meeting on
May 2".
City Attorney Jarrard
Staff has advised that it needs to be the week after; two weeks, so they will have a chance to look
at this.
Robyn MacDonald
The next meeting is in seven days.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, that would allow the applicant to put in a revised plan based upon what was discussed.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 100 of 116
Mayor Lockwood
I want to do things in the proper procedure. Does that, in your opinion legally, because if it is a
revised plan...
City Attorney Jarrard
That's right. From the standpoint of what the council wants to do is different than if you can
legally do it.
Mayor Lockwood
I've got a motion from councilmember Mohrig for deferral. Do we have a date? May 16th; would
that be your motion? And, then I believe you seconded it, Bill.
Councilmember Lusk
I did.
Mayor Lockwood
Any discussion? I personally don't like doing this of trying to go back through and have another
plan without much public time.
City Attorney Jarrard
You could vote against the motion.
Councilmember Kunz
I agree with you as well. I think we should come to a conclusion on this tonight.
Mayor Lockwood
All in favor of the motion for deferral, please say aye. Any opposed?
City Attorney Jarrard
So, it is 4-2. So, at this point it is back on the table.
Mayor Lockwood
It remains on the table to what point? At this point, with no action it would basically be deferred
if we didn't go any further than this, correct? I mean not deferred but denied.
City Attorney Jarrard
Remember, our forecast is that we retrieve when we feel like we have exhausted our ability to
reach a consensus. If we feel like we are at that point right now...
Mayor Lockwood
That is what I am saying; we can still move on but at this point if we all packed up and went home,
it would be effectively denied.
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2416 at 6:00 prn
Page 101 of 116
City Attorney Jarrard
Yes.
Councilmember Longoria
Doesn't parliamentary procedure pry for a motion that is not denied or approved to remain on the
table to the next meeting?
City Attorney Jarrard
You could make that motion to defer it.
Councilmember Longoria
No, I am saying that if we can't come to a decision and the meeting has to end, it remains an open
item.
City Attorney Jarrard
It remains and open item but to what end?
Councilmember Longoria
We would have to pick it up as unfinished business in the next meeting.
City Attorney Jarrard
Are you talking about the timing?
Councilmember Longoria
No, I am saying without any changes, without any additions or subtractions, it is just we start this
part of the process at the next meeting. In other words, we don't get an option of listening to the
public talk about it or anything else. We pick it up right from where it left off right now.
City Attorney Jarrard
For what purpose?
Councilmember Longoria
To completely get frustrated.
City Attorney Jarrard
My point Councilmember Longoria is that you have an even number of councilmembers and that
is not going to change between now and the next meeting.
Mayor Lockwood
What you are saying is that if the same opinion didn't change and we all voted the same way.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Page 102 of 116
City Attorney Jarrard
There is either going to be a motion to approve this zoning or a motion to deny, which has already
failed. There has now been a motion to defer, which has failed. And, my question is, at some
point, we have to assume the item is defeated.
Mayor Lockwood
Can we make a motion, the same motion, and vote on it again and hope for different results?
City Attorney Jarrard
Yes, that is what I was getting to.
Mayor Lockwood
I will make another motion to deny this.
Councilmember Hewitt
I will second it.
Mayor Lockwood
I have a motion for denial from myself and a second by Councilmember Hewitt.
Councilmember Longoria
Let's have some discussion on that.
Mayor Lockwood
Yes, we can discuss it until Bill gets back. Bill, I have made a motion for denial and Burt has
seconded it. I will open it up for discussion. Joe, you wanted to say something.
Councilmember Longoria
Guys, look, I had some support for this primarily that this is a predictable outcome versus an
unpredictable outcome with AG -1 or I guess you could say a predictable outcome that is not as
advantageous to us as what was being presented. I had some questions related to the density and
I wanted to address those, And, actually, I thought that would be enough to get council to support
it but if the council can't support it, then that is a problem. And, to me, it should have been obvious.
It should have been a no-brainer. And, making a rezoning issue some kind of device that we
squeak in or we finagle in; that is why I am not really in favor of lobbing off parts of the parcel or
anything else because that was not really what this was supposed to be about. I don't think it
makes sense for us to try to fit a square peg in a round hole and we certainly cannot go on in an
infinite tie. So, I don't want to see that happen.
Mayor Lockwood
Let me just one more, again, I know folks are using the AG -1 as the fall back and the bad thing
and all that and the reality is whether that true number that we will never know unless it were
developed AG -1; 45 lots, 42 lots, 50 lots; but when you talk about having a number, that is the
worst case scenario as far as, you know, somebody could come in and develop it with 5 acre lots;
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04 pm
Page 103 of 115
3 acre lots, you know, other neighborhoods like that are very successful. So, it is not the worst
case in the world if it stayed AG -1.
Councilmember Longoria
No, I am not saying that at all, Joe.
Mayor Lockwood
This is not directed at you.
Councilmember Longoria
No, I get it but the likelihood; Iet's face it, we have seen this time and time again. When we leave
stuff AG -1, we go to sleep one night with a big pasture and we wake up the next day with a bunch
of one acre homes. Okay, and there is nothing special about that. And, this was supposed to be
about making Milton special. Milton is not special if that is what we do, okay. And, I want the
end result of our decision making to support people that want to recognize that Milton is a special
place and our specialty comes from being a great place to live. We are a residential community.
That is the only thing that sets us apart from the surrounding cities. The fact that, you don't carne
here because you want to start a business. You come here because you want a nice place to live,
okay, we don't have the commercial base that Alpharetta or Roswell, or Johns Creek or any place
else does. They don't have the residential capability that we have so I want to make that special.
And, to me, making that special is offering something that nobody else has. Everybody has AG-
I development; one acre homes. Nobody has what we were trying to do tonight. And, that is what
I wanted to see if we could do but it is less risky to leave it as is in favor of something else
happening later on. And, it is, and that is a more difficult decision for me to make, personally, but
the reality is that 64 acres of land in Milton is not going to get developed into three acre homes; it
is just not. If this was 20 acres, maybe we would have a chance because there is less you can do
with it. And, the Chambers who live on Ebenezer; I have talked to them a lot and they made a
decision to buy 5-10 acres, whatever it was, but we don't have somebody making that decision on
this property and somebody is going to figure out that if this fails tonight that I can put those three
parcels together and I can do a one acre per house subdivision without getting any approval from
the city. And, we will go to sleep and we will wake up the next day and that is what it will be.
Mayor Lockwood
The only thing I would say to that is that is the worst case scenario. Somebody could do three
acres or five acres. Look at Rivers Edge that just went in, 3-5 acre lots; they could have done one
acre lots. Somebody that looks at that area and realizes the value and beauty could certainly do
that and sell the homes for a lot more and come out the same less development costs. What I am
trying to get at is we could go back and forth with the "what ifs."
City Attorney Jarrard
The applicant has indicated to me that they are open to a deferral to the next meeting even if we
are not looking at a modified site plan just for purposes of taking care of it tonight. I offer that to
you not to say that you should or should not do that but just to say; you may recall, at first we
heard there were some contract concerns.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 prn
Page 104 of It 6
Mayor Lockwood
Matt, I have a motion and a second. Do you want to comment on that or?
Councilmember Kunz
Yes, real quick, the motion and the second. I'm not in favor of a denial on this. I think that we
can come to a reasonable conclusion at some point so I will say no to that and I will talk after the
motion.
Councilmember Mohrig
My comment is similar. I think there is merit to what we have been talking about. That we actually
protect the rural view shed. I hear the concerns about the density and the sheer number of homes;
not the density that is why I was open to what Mr. Bostwick has said as far as an alternative. And,
I am not for an outright denial. I think there is still work that can be done.
Councilmember Lusk
I will go along with Joe Longoria's comments and the Mayor's too. If this reverts or stays as AG-
I, there is no telling what we are going to get. We could get three acre homes, or three acre lots
or five or maybe five ten -acre lots but we don't know that. If it stays AG -1 and we don't know
how it is going to be developed, we are not going to go through this same vetting process like we
have tonight. Neighbors down there won't know what is going in there; they are not required to
post it publicly. There is no public commentary required for that. We have heard the difference
between AG -1 development process and the CUP process. There are about three steps in AG -1,
your LDP, your hydrology plan, and whatever. And, as long as the developer meets those three
requirements, community development will stamp it and the next morning the developer will be
out there doing whatever he wants to do. You talk about leaving something to fate. That is really
leaving something to fate when we have a process here that engages the community, fully
transparent, you know what the developer is going to do; lot by lot. You know the steps and the
processes he goes through to complete the requirements of the CUP; what more could you
absolutely ask for in a vetting process that he has proposed doing here tonight.
Mayor Lockwood
That is a good point and the only thing I would say if I Iived next door or if this was proposed next
door to my house, I would rather wake up and have AG -I happen than have quarter acre lots that
I've got to vet through and hear from everybody.
Councilmember Kunz
That is what has happened next door to our homes and that is part of the problem too. We are
sitting here looking at this. Here is the challenge. We, as a council since I have been on this thing,
we have done a lot of great things. I mean, form based code, TDB's, Little River Farms. so many
things we have done, City Hall, etc. I think we can figure out a way to make this work.
Mayor Lockwood
Does anybody else have any comments? I've got a motion and a second for denial. Okay, so that
fails 3-3. Where are we at this point, Ken?
1-1
.-I
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:40 prn
Page 105 of 116
City Attorney Jarrard
Going back to earlier comments, we have a couple of options. We have ten minutes until the next
day. So, at some point, the council needs to make a motion to continue the meeting. Secondly,
you have the right to defer it if there is any possibility to Councilmember Longoria's suggestion
to continue discussing it at the next meeting right where we left off; the applicant has agreed to it.
Or, we can simply decide that there is no more action that can be taken.
Councilmember Longoria
Something didn't happen quite right on that last vote and I wanted to tali for a roll call vote because
we had the same outcome with people voting differently and so I am a little bit confused about
what happened. I voted to deny but I didn't vote to deny the first time.
City Attorney Jarrard
Councilmember Mohrig changed his vote.
Councilmember Longoria
So, you flip flopped.
Councilmember Mohrig
I voted against denial both times because I want us to consider the other option that is out there.
Mayor Lockwood
At this point, if we left it right now it is basically denied just by default. There is the option if
somebody wants to make another motion.
Councilmember Thurman
I think if you leave it like this it is not denied; it is tabled.
Mayor Lockwood
Confirm that with me Ken.
City Attorney Jarrard
In due process, if it is tabled then it is effectively denied.
Councilmember Thurman
I thought tabled automatically comes back.
Mayor Lockwood
The definition of tabled is that it kind of just goes off the shelf unless the majority wants to bring
it back so it can be both. Right now, it is sitting on the table. The majority of the council could
bring it back.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 146 of 116
Pete Hendricks
I believe that someone who voted against the motion on the reduction of the four lots; if they voted
against that motion, I believe they have the right to bring that motion back again.
Mayor Lockwood
With all due respect, Pete, I will make sure Ken guides us on that.
City Attorney Jarrard
The action to take now would be effectively if the council would like a clear mind to think about
this at the next meeting, that would be the typical thing but before we give up by not taking any
action at all, you might be better to defer it to the next meeting.
Mayor Lockwood
I am not in favor of deferring it and I am not going to make that motion.
City Attorney Jarrard
The only thing I can think of from the standpoint of just clearing up the issue now would be some
sort of neutral motion to declare a tie. The inability to achieve a consensus; which is effectively a
denial.
Councilmember Kunz
I have a question for Rick. We have that property on the east side and Burt, how many homes did
you say you would be on there if they were a quarter an acre.
Councilmember Hewitt
If it stays as it is now, 4-5 homes.
Councilmember Kunz
And 37 on the other side; so 42 would not be in your purview. 37 plus 5 because what would
happen if we don't have that large contiguous land, it is gone, that will become 4-5 homes anyway.
I would prefer that we have that way preserved if we have 42 on that end as one thing, just a
thought, but if we can do that; is that a possibility. I am just searching. If it goes 37, those 5 homes
will still be there on a gravel road, they don't go away. The number of homes density if it is 37
plus the five it becomes 42 so that is the reduction of eight units; I know that is a lot but would
that be a possibility and then Rick, would you support that because that would still be the five
homes that would be up there on the upper east side; those don't go away just because we get rid
of it.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, what you are asking is that the total density would be 46 acres reduced down to 42.
City Attorney Jarrard
Someone needs to make a motion to extend the meeting past midnight.
1
1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 107 of 116
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria made a motion to extend the meeting past 12:00
midnight and continue the meeting into April 26, 2016. Councilmember Kunz seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Councilmember Kunz
So, again, going back to that question. If we conserve land on the upper east side, it stays, the
density remains the 37 plus because if you got rid of that instead of going 42 that would be the
number of units that would be there any way. He would still conserve greenspace just shift those
homes over to the left, would that be something that would be amiable that we could work on.
Councilmember VIohrig
Wouldn't that be up to the applicant?
Councilmember Kunz
And, that is a question for the applicant. I am just trying to search.
Councilmember Longoria
Matt, with all due respect, right now is not the time to start trying to negotiate another solution.
. What we should be focused on right now is making sure we can just move this matter to the next
meeting so that we can vote on it.
Councilmember Kunz
With all due respect, I am trying to see what I can do on this end to just understand what we can
might due when we go to the next one because if there is a possibility that we can solve it tonight,
I would love to try to do it but from this perspective, I am just asking a question. I've been patient
while everybody else asks questions; just let me ask a question.
Mayor Lockwood
With all due respect, I am not interested in deferring it. I would like to make the decision tonight.
Councilmember Kunz
Charlie, my question, I'm trying to think about what Rick was saying and what would be there if
we have all this contiguous land preserved if we have a density problem, how do we handle that?
Charlie Bostwick
If we were to reduce this to 37 lots on the 49 acres and the five lots on the 14 acres, as long as we
are not required to do all of that, that can work for us. In other words, if we have the ability to not
do the 14 acres, somebody else can do 4-5 lots later on that if they want but they are going to be
restricted to that anyway so it is essentially the same thing, but the land is too expensive for us
today under our current contract to put only 5 lots on that but if we can separate the two in terms
of what we are required to do, then I would like 38 instead of 37; does that make sense; does that
answer your question?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 108 of 116
Councilmember Kunz
So, you owning the property might be one thing but you might do a joint development with
someone else? Am I hearing that right, or not? So, you are not doing a joint development with
someone else so you are obviously asking if somebody else can do the additional five units.
Charlie Bostwick
As long as we are not required to buy that 14 acres then essentially you are saying you can put 5
lots on it now as long as we are not required to buy it and try to absorb that money into the 42 lots;
that is just too much to go through.
Mayor Lockwood
Here is the problem I have with that because I think without that 14 acres; I think that land has
been brought forward before and the number was like in the mid 30's as to what it would go for.
Councilmember Hewitt
Your question Matt was keep the footprint that we see right here with 37 and 5.
Councilmember Kunz
Well, not necessarily, if we can move 5 over and then it just continues on. 42 is the total on the
left.
Charlie Bostwick
We would have to separate it into the 37 on the 49 acres; that could work for us. The numbers
don't work with the 5 on the 14 as it is currently under contract. The seller may be able to sell it
for some unknown number in the future but as long as we are not required to buy those 14 acres
then yes, it can work.
Mayor Lockwood
So, are you talking about 37 lots on 50 acres?
Councilmember Hewitt
The other plan that he has basically.
Mayor Lockwood
Well, no that was less acres.
Charlie Bostwick
I can share this plan. This plan is identical to that plan it just has fewer homes on it.
Councilmember Kunz
Identical without the 14? Acres on the upper east side; is it staying or is that gone? I'm just trying
to understand. You say it is identical to that.
1
1-1
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 prn
Page 109 of 116
Charlie Bostwick
The modified plan just has few lots on it. It is only two acres that is back there but if we need to
move it up here then we can probably do that. The plan is identical; it just has fewer lots.
City Attorney Jarrard
For purposes of giving you options again. The option mentioned previously was deferral to the
next regular meeting. Then, of course, you have the ability to declare impasse based upon the
council's inability to obtain a majority vote. The motion for impasse ends decided. It would be a
denial of the zoning. A deferral would keep it alive.
Mayor Lockwood
As we sit now, it is tabled, correct? If we walked away now, this item is tabled.
City Attorney Jarrard
I am going to request that you take some action on the item even a declaration of impasse.
Mayor Lockwood
I make a motion for impasse. Do I have a second? I have a motion from myself and a second
from Councilmember Hewitt for impasse. Any discussion?
Councilmember Longoria
So, okay, this is basically a vote for denial; is what this is.
Mayor Lockwood
Technically, yes.
Councilmember Longoria
And, the rational for denial is because we can't come to terms with what we could approve tonight?
City Attorney Jarrard
That is correct. Thus far, this council was unable to make a motion that generated a majority vote.
Councilmember Lusk
So, if we were to defer restating what we talked about before. The applicant has an opportunity to
modify his application to do various things, dropping the panhandle and just concentrating all of
this development in the 50 or 49 acres or whatever as long as it is a reduction or not an increase in
density or land area. City Attorney, is that correct?
City Attorney Jarrard
That is correct.
Mayor Lockwood
The only question, and I will respect Sill on that point, but the only question I would have on that
is that if you are actually dropping land off, the 14 acres, then the density could be increasing.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 110 of 116
City Attorney Jarrard
That is exactly correct so it has to be density neutral.
Mayor Lockwood
I don't know, and then again this is all semantics, the property they are talking about dropping
right now has no homes on it. So, technically you could say that in the smaller area, the density
has gone up. It is not proportionately dropping.
City Attorney Jarrard
That is right. Staff will have to advise you that it is density neutral from the standpoint of any
reduction.
Councilmember Mohrig
I guess using that logic you are trying to look at it as if it were never part of it, and it is part of it
today. So, I think you look at the whole thing and if it is density neutral and what did they propose;
50. If it is gone then you have to look at what that plat would yield from a yield plan. You are
looking at apples and oranges. You can't count it two different ways.
Mayor Lockwood
What I am getting at Rick is that if you are taking the majority of the conserved land off of there
then you are going to have to take a whole lot more homes off of that to make it apples to apples.
Councilmember Mohrig
You are taking out the majority of the preserve. You are taking 14 acres out of what; they are
saving the total out of that 64; they are saving 50% greenspace out of the buildable property based
upon the yield plan. So, now you are taking 14 of those 64 acres and removing it and you have to
then support whatever the yield plan was if they reduce the footprint. That is all I am saying.
Mayor Lockwood
I respect all that but all I am saying is that from the citizen's perspective and what I see the vision
is from the citizens of Milton and what our people want; our citizens want, you are still getting the
same type of development, the same small lots and the same...
Councilmember Mohrig
I think the difference, Joe, would be that you would be potentially adding more of a buffer along
the front, along the sides, because you are going to add more greenspace as you reduce those
homes. You could potentially eliminate quarter acre lots.
Mayor Lockwood.
I get that. So, we have a motion and a second for impasse...
City Attorney Jarrard
Which would effectively be a denial.
[l
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 1 ] 1 of 116
Mayor Lockwood
Any more comments? All in favor please say aye. Any opposed?
City Attorney Jarrard
Even with the council not being willing to vote for an impasse, and I understand why you are
struggling with this, I would recommend deferral.
Councilmember Longoria
I make another motion to defer this matter to the next regular meeting at which point in time we
will pick up exactly where we left off. I've made a motion. If nobody wants to second it, that is
fine.
Councilmember Mobrig
I'll second it.
Mayor Lockwood
I have a motion by Councilmember Longoria for deferral just to pick up where we left off, same
application, same everything. Is that correct?
Councilmember Longoria
Correct. Right. What I want to make sure we are not doing is that we are not changing anything,
we are not adding new public comment; we are picking up right firom this moment right here.
Mayor Lockwood
So, your intent is basically just, because it is late now, to extend the meeting.
Councilmember Lusk
We talked about the next regular meeting which would be on the second of May.
Councilmember Kunz
I have extra stamina so I am all for keeping going.
Councilmember Longoria
I am all for keeping going but the problem is that we are not going to change anything.
Mayor Lockwood
The problem is that we are at a deadlock.
Pete Hendricks
I think what you can get out of a deferral because I know there was some concern but with the plan
that is in front of you right now if you worked to reduce those lots...
Councilmember Longoria
Why do we have comment coming from the applicant?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 112 of 116
Mayor Lockwood
With all due respect Mr. Hendricks. I have a motion to defer. Is one week enough? All in favor
please say aye. Any opposed"? We can do another motion.
City Attorney ,larrard
Let's just confirm where we are. A motion to deny the application has been denied twice. A
motion to approve has been denied. A motion to declare an impasse has been denied. A motion
to defer with conditions has been denied. A motion to defer without conditions has been denied.
All because they have not reached a majority. I have very few options left to give you.
Mayor Lockwood
Let me say this. Technically now this item is tabled, correct? I say technically if we were to step
away; if we were in the meeting. What that means if it is tabled is that it is sitting over there on a
shelf, correct? And, it could be brought back if the majority of the council wanted to bring it back
it could be brought back and started back up. If the majority of the council didn't want to bring it
back then it basically dies.
City
Attorney Jarrard
This is a due process exercise. The applicant has paid a fee so the applicant, and candidly the
public, deserves a result. And, Mr. Mayor, you are right but my only respectful position is that if
it is tabled, it effectively says that they are not able to exercise their right, for instance, to seek the
Appellate Court of Fulton County. So, before you think about tabling it and just walking away, I
would request a declaration of impasse or deferral. Taking no action is the functional equivalent
of a denial.
Councilmember Kunz
I think there is something out there. Let's just keep seeing what happens. Obviously, 42 is what
would be there if we move those houses over. We've asked the developer to come down so I will
make a motion to approve consideration of RZ16-02 VC 16-01 to rezone from AG -1 (Agricultural)
to CUP (Community Unit Plan) to develop 45 single family homes on 63.57 acres at an overall
density of 0.707 units per acre and a concurrent variance to increase the maximum lot coverage
from 20 percent to 50 percent for each individual lot [Sec. 64-1141(d)(1)(b)]. Agenda item number
16-086.
Mayor Lockwood
So, that was for approval of the application with 45 lots...
Councilmember
45 lots at a density of .707.
Mayor Lockwood
Do we have a second?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 113 of 116
Councilmember Longoria
So, I want to make sure I understand what you just proposed, Matt. It is exactly what the
proposal is but removing five homes from the equation. Is that what you are saying?
Councilmember Kunz
Correct. 45 units.
Councilmember Mohrig
Without a site plan to see the configuration.
Mayor Lockwood
If there is a second, we can discuss it. If we don't have a second...
Councilmember Lusk
I will second the motion.
Mayor Lockwood
I have a motion and a second from Councilmember Kunz and Councilmember Lusk for approval
of the application but eliminating five lots down to 45. Any discussion? My comments would
be. again it goes back to the same issues and the same concerns, you know, we could take 10 or
20 lots out but it is still, without a site plan, and without specifics the neighbors could be
negatively impacted just the same. I don't necessarily think arbitrarily taking; that is my opinion.
It is open for discussion. We have a motion and a second.
Councilmember Longoria
Ken, can I ask a question. When we make a change like this and we remove five homes from a
plan that has homes sited in specific locations, we have some kind of an approval in terms of the
revised plan so the developer has to go and make good on what we agreed to if he wants to
support it. Of course, it is his option not to if he doesn't want to. Let's say he says okay, I will
do that. He figures out where he is going to take the five homes out and we have to approve that.
When I say, we, meaning the city staff or somebody has to approve it.
City Attorney Jarrard
That's correct. Because what you have now, even the site pian in the application is a conceptual
site plan, so it is always anticipated that there are going to be differences in what the site plan
looks like and what is actually built on the ground.
Councilmember Longoria
I guess I am just confused because we are voting on a very specific application of homes on a
property and we have 64 acres where we have just said we will allow him to build 45 homes if
we were to pass it. We've got to know more than that. We've got to understand where those
homes are going to be.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 114 of 116
City Attorney Jarrard
Then the language in the application that states conceptual site plan is probably not going to be
something that you are comfortable with because it is the whole notion of a concept that
dissipates.
Councilmember Longoria
I'm just asking the question, thank you.
Mayor Lockwood
Any other continents? We have a motion and a second for approval of 45 lots.
Councilmember Mohrig
Just one last question. Is it even appropriate at this point to ask the applicant if that is even a
consideration?
Councilmember Kunz
So, 45?
Charlie Bostwick
So, particularly if you will add the submitted revised conditions that we added, I don't know if
you said that or not with your motion, and with that we will keep the plan very much the same
as it is, we won't be changing the plan, and we will accept it at 45.
City Attorney Jarrard
Just for the record, that is not the motion.
Councilmember Kunz
I would like to change my motion.
Councilmember Lusk
I withdraw my second.
Councilmember Kunz
I amend my motion to include the revised recommended conditions as handed to us by the
applicant.
Councilmember Lusk
Second the motion.
Mayor Lockwood
Any other discussion? Again, I would say the concern I would have even if I were supporting it
is that you are taking five lots out of there but where are you taking them out of? It may not
make any material impact difference on the look of the view shed or anything.
1
1
i
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 115 of 116
Councilmember Kunz
Well, it is a 10% reduction of the number of homes and it preserves greenspace and it has a horse
pasture.
Councilmember Lusk
That is a concept plan.
Councilmember Kunz
It is a concept either way.
City Attorney Jarrard
Just for the record, staff has told me that they have the conditions that were handed out but they
have not had a sufficient amount of time to review them.
Charlie Bostwick
It is the same as what was submitted to the Planning Commission a while ago.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 16-086 for 45
lots on 63.57 acres at a density of .707 units per acre with modifications to staffs recommended
conditions. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-2). Mayor Joe
Lockwood and Councilmember Hewitt were in opposition. Councilmember Thurman recused
herself from the vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW BUSINESS
I . Consideration of a Resolution to Restate Adoption Agreements between the City of Milton
and ICMA-RC as Required by the IRS for the City's 401 Defined Contribution Plans and
Allow for a Loan Provision in the Plan.
(Agenda Item No. 16-103)
RESOLUTION NO. 16-04-371
(Saar Trager, Human Resources Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item No. 16-103.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Page 116 of 116
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
The following Staff Reports were moved by Motion and Vote daring Approval of Meeting
Agenda to lite nest Regular Meeting on May 2, 2016.
STAFF REPORTS
Department Updates
1. Fire
2. Finance
3. Information Technology
4. Communication & Engagement
Human Resources
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 16-104)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 12:25 a.m. on
April 26, 2016. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
(7-0).
Date Approved: August 15, 2016
r'
Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk Joe Lockwo , Ml Mor
I�
1