The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes CC - 06/20/2016 - MINS 06 20 16 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6:00 pm Page I of 49 This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim . Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice . Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form . This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded. The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on June 20, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION Remco Brommet, Chaplain for the City of Milton Police and Fire 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 (via telephone). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Agenda Item No. 16-137) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following changes: • Move New Business Agenda Item No. 16-115, "Consideration of an Amendment to the Charter for Homestead Tax Exemptions" to after Public Hearing. • Move New Business Agenda Item No. 16-144 , "Consideration of a Resolution Regarding calling of an Election" to after Reports and Presentations. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7 -0 ). Regular Meeting of the Milton C ity Council Monday , June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 2 of49 PUBLIC COMMENT Noel Carpenter, 15 230 Highgrove Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Good evening council. As a matter full disclosure I am a former member of Milton Planning Commission. I have been a vocal critic of misinformation and subversive practices being employed by those on both sides of the conservation issues , currently being discussed. I believe these deceptive practices to be counterproductive and are often being ut ilized to confuse the public , divide the town for political gain. I didn't believe the ends justify means under any circumstance for both sides. I am here tonight to address some misinformation about my resignation from the Planning Commission. I di dn 't believe the information was d i stributed, in actual nature to deceive nevertheless I felt I should set the reco rd straight. The actual reason for my resignation from the Planning Commission was due to frustrations with staff, the Mayor and Council and the overall process. I met with many of those internal to the process along the way an d prior to my resignation. They first time I informed the Mayor and the Planning Commission Chairman of my decision was July 14 , 2015 , just about a year ago . However due to those same procedural issues the work involving the AG 1 enhancement ordinances delayed my exit until Apri l ofthis year. For the record my resignation didn 't have anything to do with the actual voting on the CSO or the Ebenezer Road rezoning. Additional misinformation states that I am helping bring r es idents to the prop erty that is the subject of tonight's rezoning hearing. In fact I have been to the site 3 occasions, 2 of those was officially sanctioned b y the City of Mil ton. I visited the site one other time alone to take pictures for the Planning Commission, my meetings there. To my knowledge those are the only times I visited the site. I don 't recall ever inviting anyone else to go out there with me. Although I am sure along the way, I probabl y h ave told a lot of people that they should at least visit the site if they are going to make decisions that affect it. It is possible I have forgotten something, but at this time that 's all I really remember about it. I thank you all for allowing me to set the record straight. Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the Financial Statements for the Period Ending May, 2016. (Agenda Item No. 16-138) (B ernadette Harvill, Finan ce Manager) 2. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement for Fire-Rescue Structural Personal Protective Equipment between the City of Milton and Munic ipal Equipment Company. (Agenda Item No. 16-139) (R ob ert Edgar, Fir e Ch ief) 3. Approval of a Change Order# 1 between the City of M ilton and Baldwin Paving Company, Inc. for the R elocation of a Water Main at the B irmingham Road and Hopewell Road Inte rsection. (Agenda Item No. 16-140) (Carter Lucas, Assis tant City Manager) Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 3 of 49 4 . Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Dynatest North America, Inc . for PCI Evaluation of the City 's Streets . (Agenda Item No. 16-141) (Ca rter Lu cas, Assistant City Manager) 5. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Ed Castro Landscape, Inc. for Sod Installation of Fire Stations 41 & 43. (Agenda Item No. 16-142) (Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager) 6. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Tunnell , Spangler & Associates, Inc., dba TSW, for Master Plan Downtown Milton/Crabapple . (Agenda Item No. 16-143) (Kat hleen Field, Community Develop ment Director) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Mohrig was not available for the vote. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. MDA City of Milton Firefighter Appreciation Proclamation. (P resented by Mayor Joe Lockwood) FIRST PRESENTATION (None) PUBLIC HEARING 1. Consideration of an Amendment to the Charter of the City of Milton, Georgia for the Purpose of Clarifying the Income Limitations Applicable to the Homestead Tax Exemptions Available to Seniors Age 65 and Over and Disabled Persons with Moderate to Low Incomes. (Agenda Item No. 16-115) (Discussed at May 9, 2016 City Cou ncil Work Session) (First Presentation at May 16, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting) (First Public Hearing at June 6, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting) (Ke n Jarrard, City Attorney) Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday , June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 4 of 49 Ken Jarrard, City Attorney This is a public hearing that will potentially modify the charter for the city. It will clarify the mechanism by which we calculate applicable senior homestead exemption to ensure that it is applicable to seniors with income of $63 ,366 as opposed to $126 ,672 . This has been discussed a numerous meetings . All municipalities in Georgia has the homeroom power to modify their charters . We have had this item on mu ltiple agendas . Councilmember Lusk I have some questions from one of our citizens, Travis Mills , who first brought this issue to our attention . He has made the statement, "Fulton County has an appeals process with three methods of appeal based on the value of property , uniformity of assessment , denial of exemption, and taxability." How would Milton handle an appeal based on denial of exemption? And, could it be appealed to the superior court as it is in Fulton County? Aaron Meyer, Attorney Fulton County , like all counties , has a statutory appeals process . The process there is the taxpayer 's first file of appeal of their tax bill that goes to the county board of assessors . The board of assessors then considers the appeal and they can make the change if warranted , if not, they automatically forward that appeal to the county board of equalization. The county board of equalization is appointed by the grand j ury and if they do not make a change , then the taxpayer can then appeal to the county superior court. When it comes to a local homestead exemption for a city or county , the appeals process doesn 't go directly through the county board of assessors and the county board of equalization. An appeal from a local homestead exemption goes directly to the superior court. So , there is a process and it is a little more streaml ined. City Attorney Jarrard The clarification that we have proposed for the Milton Charter will not affect the way that Milton has calculated the homestead exemption since Milton has existed. We want to ensure the citizens and taxpayers that we are not imposing something different and the method in which the senior homestead exemption is calculated with be the same. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 5 of 49 ZONING AGENDA 1. Consideration of Vl 6-003 -The Reserve at Providence , Providence Road, the Providence Group of Georgia Custom Homes , LLC to Reduce the Front Setback from 60 feet to 50 feet, Lot 21; 60 Feet to 45 Feet, Lot 3; 60 Feet to 40 Feet, Lots 4, 22 , 23 , 30; 60 Feet to 20 Feet, Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19 , 20 (Section 64-416.b) and to Allow A Height Increase from: 28 Feet to 33 Feet , Lots 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9 , 19 and 20. (Section 64.114.c.1). (Agenda Item No. 16-131) (First Presentation at Jun e 6, 20 16 R egular City Co un cil Meeting) (Ka thlee n Field, Co mmunity Developm ent Direc tor) Kathleen Field, Community Development Director This map shows outlined in red all of the parcels under discussion for this evening. The current zoning for this is AG-1. As you can see , it is a subdivision, The Reserve at Providence , which is along Providence Road near Bethany Road . The future land use map shows this area to be agricultural equestrian residential. The site plan here that was submitted on May 24, 2016 , shows the lots requesting a setback reduction are outlined in red. The lots requesting a height variance are indicated by a red asterisk. You can see them all along the site plan. Here are just some pictures to show the topography , this shows lots 1-3. This is a picture showing lots closer to the cul-de-sac with an extreme slope to them. There is a stream at the bottom of the slope. The subject site is The Reserve at Providence subdivision located at the southwest intersection of Bethany Road and Providence Road. It contains 52.748 acres located in the Rural Milton Overlay. The site is zoned AG-1 and is located within the Agricultural Equestrian Residential designation of the City of Milton 's Comprehensive Plan . The 36 lot subdivision currently has 13 lots that have already been built. Nine of these houses are currently occupied. The petition before you is due to Section 64-1888 .b which states that the following primary variances shall be heard by the Mayor and City Council. A request for a variance from any zoning ordinance provision that involves more than five lots, or 10% of the lots in a subdivision , whichever is greater. This petition involves 13 out of 36 lots. The petition is as follows : The applicant is requesting the following variances per Section 64-416 .b and Section 64.114.c .1. The reduction of the front setback on these lots from 60 feet to 50 feet for Lot 21; from 60 to 45 feet for Lot 3; from 60 to 40 feet for Lots 4, 22 , 23 , and 30 ; 60 Feet to 20 Feet , Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19 , 20 and to allow a height increase from 28 feet to 33 feet for Lots 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9 , 19 and 20. The Design Review Board met on June 7, 2016 and offered the following comments : The DRB is concerned about what the development will look like from Providence Road as well as the impact on existing homeowners in the subdivision. They don 't want to see extremely tall homes or retaining walls along Pro vidence Road. The applicant should obtain buy in from the existing homeowners. Standards of Re v iew: Relief if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the ordinance. The applicant's response to this standard is as follows: Building the houses at the required setbacks and height would place the houses roughly at the same level with the road along with extensive retaining walls along Regular Meeting o f th e Milto n C ity Council Monday, June 20201 6 at 6:0 0 pm Page 6 of 49 Providence Road . This would not support the spirit or intent of the ordinance. Staffs response: The lot subject to the varian ces will be different from the ex isting homes ; ho wever, the approved variances will all ow the homes in the subject lots to be custom fitted to the property. This will allow a finished pro duct that is complimentary to the existing homes . There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of the ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to si ze, shape , topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. The applicant's response is that severe topography creates a hardshi p condition on the lot submitted for this variance. The topography drops from the fr ont curb to the rear of the lot in excess of 60-80 feet on many of the lots . Specifically , 40 fe et or so across the bu ildable pad for the homes on Providence Road. The topography results in a situation with no useable rear yard area and a fully exposed basement on a massive sub wall. A reducti on in the front setback will allow the homes to move forward on the lot and will create le ss rear exposure for the face of the homes along Providence Road. Staffs response is that th e existing extreme topography of this property create s an extraordinary and exceptional situat ion . As development proceeded, the applicant realized that the current product would require mas si ve sub walls and retaining walls and/or extens iv e decks, especially along Providence Road. Relief if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. Appli cant 's res ponse: approval of the variances will benefit the subdivision's appearance and fun ction without negative impact on the public good and surrounding properties . Staffs response : rel ief if granted would not cause a substant ial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties . The applicant has stated that he is willing to work with staff to build a product that not only respects Milton's rural v iew shed but will also be high qual ity as the current homes in the subdivis ion thus protectin g the property va lues and quality of life. That the public safety, health, and we lfare is secured and that substantial justice is done. The applicant's respons e is that public safety, health, and welfare has in no way been compromised with this variance . Staffs re sponse: approval of these variance requests wi ll not impede public safety , health, and welfare but will actually create quitter, safer, and more usable rear lots as well as creating a more ple asing vi ew along Providence Road . This is some typical home elevations that will be utilized should this variance re quest be granted. This is an example of the front elevation that the applicant proposes to build and then the next slide will demonstrate the changes t hat the applicant is willing to do to the rear of the homes along Providence Road. And, that is the next slide and you can see changes . Th e applicant has worked with the City Archi te ct to effectuate these changes to minim ize the size of the structure and the look of it from the re ar. Also , I sho uld note that this is a subdivision that is grandfathered in and does not have a rura l view she d requirement. But, should this variance be granted, we would attach as a condition the rural vi ew shed requirement. So, the conclusion is based on the anal ysis that staff recommends app roval with conditions. And, these condi tions are as follows: Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 7 of 49 • The lots along Providence Road shall maintain the 60 foot rural viewshed , including the 40 foot undisturbed buffer. The design of these houses shall meet rural viewshed requirements. • On the lots subject to height variances , the soffit shall be set at the ceiling of the first floor , causing the second floor massing to be achieved through dormers. The vertical plane should be broken in order to reduce the height impact on the massing of the building. • The houses subject to the reduced front setback shall include 8 foot deep porches. • The design of all houses subject to variances shall be reviewed and approved by the City Architect prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Approval should be per the revised site plan dated May 24, 2016 . That is my presentation and I am certainly open to any questions . Councilmember Lusk This development was obviously permitted under AG-1 development code. Could you run through the application process in AG -1 development area; what is required for submittal , land disturbance permit then the final permit for a house construction. Kathy Field With you permission, I would like to invite Jimmy Sanders up who is our staff person and oversees those submittal requirements . Jimmy Sanders, Plan Review Engineer The process under AG-1 is basically that the way we were doing it at the time this was done , this was permitted probably about a year and three months ago. The developer probably came in , we might have had several conceptual meetings before they actually submitted for their LDP. Once they were satisfied that they knew what the requirements were going to be , they submitted plans which were reviewed by the various divisions within the city. Then, once those were observed to meet all of the various requirements; zoning , transportation, fire , site , arborist, then the LDP was issued. Councilmember Lusk Was a topographic map issued at that time? Jimmy Sanders Yes , it was. Councilmember Lusk What was the discussion surrounding the differential and elevation between whatever interior road that is parallel to Providence and Providence Road? I noticed there are notes in here that indicate that there is a 60-80 foot differential between those two road elevations. What was the discussion that was held at that time? Regular Meeting of the Mil ton C ity Co uncil Monday , June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 8 of 49 Jimmy Sanders Well , the topo obv iously has not changed since it was permitted . And, when we reviewed the plans, all of that has remained the same. We saw that it was steep at the time . It is what it is and as we reviewed it , it was indicated to us that they were fine with that. The engineer basically laid out the plan for the lots. Now, whether the y were using a strict area criteria; that is really up to them. If they tell us the y can fit a house on the lot when they submitted for an LDP , then it is permitted. But, we don 't go through a review to see if they can actually site a house because we don 't know what house they are going to build. And, at this time , when they permitted it, they didn't know what house the y were going to build either. But, again , has the steepness or anything changed since the plans were drawn , they have not. Councilmember L usk Would you identify the slope that we are talking about he re as steep slope , as defined in our development code ? Jimmy Sanders I can't say that it meets that definition because we technically don 't have a steep slope code. Councilmember L usk So , the developer at the t ime of submittal , indicated that he could build a house on that site and in partic ularly on those slopes that we are talking about right now. Jimmy Sanders Well , they submitted a site plan to us which we reviewed . Nothing was hidden. It is what it is . The slopes are there . They were as steep then as they are now. And , we permitted it. Now, if the y can 't get a house on it for some reason, I can 't explain that. But, after we issue an LDP , we then subsequently issued a plat. Councilmember L usk I guess , what I am working toward , is this appeal based on hardship ? How would you define a hardship in this case ? Jimmy Sanders I am having to kind of guess here , but the guess would be that. .. Councilmember L usk Hold off on that answer J immy, maybe I will ask the applicant. Councilmember T hurman I have a question fo r staff. M y understanding under our code, the BZA can only approve variances based on a hardship . And , that hardship cannot be self-imposed . Which is actually a little bit more stringent than it was when I served on the Fulton County Board of Zoning Appeals. Is that a true fact that you have to have a hardship? I know for the BZA to approve variances but is that for us to approve variances? Does there also have to be a hardship? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 9 of 49 City Attorney Jarrard The answer is yes. Milton has some fairly stringent variance standards and one of them, of course , is a hardship. And, one of the requirements is that it should not be self-imposed. Councilmember Thurman So , I guess this will be a question for the applicant when they come up. What has changed, we haven 't moved roads , we haven 't moved trees , and we haven 't moved slopes; to create the hardship since the time that the application was originally put forth. PUBLIC COMMENT Warren Jolly, 11340 Lakefield Drive, Suite 250, Johns Creek, Georgia 30097 I am with the Providence Group . I would like to point out the hardship so we can get on to what the issue was. We started developing the property, as you well know, Milton has septic tank, the road that parallels with Providence Road and so basically what compounded the issue is that road had to be lifted up because we blasted the rock because you can't put septic in rock . So, the grating changed and ended up compounding the lots on the bottom hill side. The houses that we built there are very large ; three car garage, that show on the septic plan to have a pool along with five bedrooms so we would like to keep with conforming what we are building there. And , so the question is not, can we put a house on it , we would like to keep the quality of the neighborhood and the values that are there going forward. Chris is going to speak. He has been meeting with the neighbors several times and he can give you an update about where we are at with negotiations with the neighbors . Chris Willis, 11340 Lakefield Drive, Suite 250, Johns Creek, Georgia 30097 I am with the Providence Group. As Warren said, one of the things since February, I have been working with the homeowners in the neighborhood. From our DRB last week, we have 8 of the 9 who have signed off on a revision which I would like to bring to the table and revise some of the variances but the compromise is working the streetscape out, trying to keep these homes up high enough, trying to meet the ordinance. The hardest part of the ordinance, to me, is the height on the rear. When you have tree coverage and you have a stream buffer, all you are doing especially across Providence Road where a number of these lots are with heavy tree coverage, you are pulling trees down to try to get retaining walls and to get some semblance of a quality product out there . And , the homeowners who I have worked with since February , obviously want to maintain the same quality of the product that they live in. With that, I would like to say that our revisions have been sent to staff. It happened late today so your packages were already out. Lot 3 we are revising the request to 50 feet ; Lot 4 the request is for 40 feet, we are in agreement with them on that ; Lots 5, 6,7 , and 8 to 30 feet; Lot 9 to 40 feet; Lot 19 to 50 feet ; Lot 20 to 45 feet; Lot 21to50 feet ; Lot 22 to 40 feet; Lot 23 to 50 feet ; Lot 30 to 45 feet. Again, these revisions have been sent to staff and we have a marked up site plan with those revisions on them . Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 10 of49 Warren Jolly Also , to make note , a lot of these comer lots have 60 and 40 foot side yards anyway so we only have about five of them that go below the 40 feet. There are homes that are built at 40 feet in there now that are comer lots . We would like to reserve our time for rebuttal. Dan Irvine, 16437 Waxmyrt le Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 As I have listened to the comments on this agenda item, it just sounds like there are a lot of issues with it. To make these changes from a 60 foot buffer to a 20 foot buffer, sounds like a drastic change. I moved here from San Diego about two years ago with my family and the reason why we chose to mo ve to Milton is because we liked the rural feel of Milton and we moved from San Diego which is also a very n ice area but we moved there because we were looking for a community that allowed us to have some space and better quality of life . These agenda items , to me , as I read through there just seems like there is an issue of developers trying to come in and encroach on really what the benefit of Milton and the quality of life that Milton currently offers . I think that most people in this room would agree with me that we want to preserve that rural feel here in the community. To have these developers come in and make these changes like this , it just seems pretty obvious that a lot of it is being done to get a few extra houses in on these developments . I can 't be in agreement with that. I don 't think it is right. I think it benefits all of us as homeowners in Milton to try to preserve that rural feel of the community . And, if we just try to cram in a whole bunch more homes into Milton, then it basically takes away what Milton has to offer. I moved from San Diego two years ago to live here in Milton because I thought that the quality of life was really good , the schools are rated well , and if we cram in a bunch more homes into these developments , then we are basically like most of the other neighborhoods around Atlanta. Right now, we have something unique in Milton which is that rural feel with nice big lots , etc. I would like to preserve that and most of the people I have spoken wi th about this , I would say 99% have been in agreement with me. We don 't want that to change . We want t o preserve what Milton has to offer. Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Providence Road is an AG-1 subdivision yielding 36 lots on 53 acres . It probably should have been less lots based on this varianc e request. Supposedly , the topography creates an exceptional condition. I think the de veloper should have done a better job placing the roads , perhaps resulting in few lots and no need to request 13 lot variances. Seven lots now need 20 foot front yards. This seems like a reall y big mistake if you are a professional and understand Milton 's AG-1 requirements. I simply want to point out that variances approved by council can contribute to the undermining of our AG-1 standards. I encourage council to start ho ld in g the line on our AG-1 standards. Perhaps , when we get developers that pay attention to Milton's severe topography , we will have a better result. Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I believe the lots in the subdivision need to be worked out between the developer and the nine residents who have bought homes there who were not expecting any variances . With respect to lots 3, 4, 5, 6 , and 7 that back up to Providence Road , I do support this change. I believe it will help protect the rural view shed. You can see the cul-de-sac. You can se e the road from the street; we are in the summer now but in the fall you will be able to see the back of those houses . Moving Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 11 of49 the houses closer to the internal subdivision street will protect Providence Road from a very unsightly backside of houses . I support that if the developer will agree to add what he is taking out of the front yard to the back yard and not clear additional land. So, he doesn 't get a smaller front yard and a larger back yard. I also believe lots 1 and 2 additional plantings should be required to protect the view shed. They are open lots with very little planting . I believe the developer would be open to additional plantings and protecting the view shed by not allowing additional clearing in the back of the lots. Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 I oppose tonight's variance request. I was at the Design Review Board meeting where this variance was reviewed. The first reason that I oppose this variance is because the developer failed to reach an agreement with the current residents , although , it sounds like they have now made some progress. Those residents bought into a subdivision expecting it to be developed a certain way. The developer now wants to change the rules. The current homeowners need to be made whole so a variance without the support of existing residents should generally be denied. And, in fact , the DRB directed the builder and homeowners to work it out. I also oppose this variance for public policy reasons. A builder who buys land, takes a risk with that land . He assumes he can develop it with a certain number of homes. If he cannot, that should be on him , not the citizens . Builders need to do their due diligence. If they do not , then they should not come to the city with hat in hand for relief. Granting variances is one of the drivers of rampant development in Milton and one of the drivers of higher density. At the DRB meeting , the city architect warned that Milton was going to get more variance requests as more marginal land comes into play. Accordingly , city council needs to send a clear message to developers that citizens are not going to pay the price for a developer 's mistakes . I recommend denial of this variance request. Warren Jolly As mentioned earlier, these lots that back up to Providence Road , there is no current buffer under AG-1 the way it is proposed . We want to adapt these lots to a rural view shed which is not only a buffer but the architectural requirements on all four sides. We met with the homeowners and they are the most effective besides us as a property owner as far as the investment. We have eight of the nine homeowners in agreement to the plan. They are in support of this and we have given the revised plan to staff with their signatures to the exact same numbers as before; there is a variance process. The reason we are here before you guys is because we have over fi ve lots so it is not uncommon that there are other subdivisions that have similar situations that are in Milton that have gone up to 20 feet. So , we are looking at the general aesthetics of the whole neighborhood. We have outlined that with the homeowners that live there and eight of the nine are in agreement with us that they are okay with the variance . If there are any questions , I will be happy to answer them . Councilmember Longoria You made a couple of statements that I need to call you out on and the first one has to do with your concern about quality . You are stating that you need these variances in order to maintain the quality of the home that you are going to put on the lot. Is that not true? Re g ular Meet ing of the M ilton City Council Monday , Jun e 20 20 16 at 6 :00 pm Page 12 of 4 9 Warren Jolly No , basically , when I say quality, the marketability of the home is better if you place the house closer to the stre et and not be looking at the roof. It has nothing to do with the quality of the house. Councilmember Longoria I understood quality in th is case to mean the quality of the product ; the whole product, the placement of the house , the de velopment of the house , where it sits on the lot , the whole package. Is that an acceptable und erstanding ? Warren Jolly Well , I wouldn 't call it quality ; quality would be the finished product. Councilmember Longoria I am us ing your words . I am not making it up . Warren Jolly What I meant was the marketability; the desirability of the homes. It will increase the value of what you can sell them for. It helps everybody . Nobody wants a home in a neighborhood that can 't sell. Councilmember Longoria Especially you ; I under stand. So , what I want to understand is the quality review process that went into the ori ginal de sign of the ne ighborhood. Because you are talking about a 40 % miss. You 've got 40% of the lo t s in this neighborhood which is way beyond acceptable in my book. 40 % of the lots can 't be de ve loped unless you get this variance . Warren Jolly That is no t corre ct. Councilmember Longoria 13 lots out of 36 . Warren Jolly We are asking fo r appro val of the lots. They are all different issues . Some of them are grading issues; som e are detention ponds that were added, but most of them have t o do wi th the grade in the cul-de-sac. Councilmember Longoria I understand , and I am not tryin g to pick on exactly what the variances are or what caused them . All these conditions exi sted at the point in time you developed the neighborhood plan and submitted it to us to gi ve you a l and disturbance permit. Nothing has changed since then. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 13 of49 Warren Jolly The grade of the road changed from the original design. We have an engineer, I don 't design these myself, a professional engineer designed this neighborhood to meet the standards that he thought was typical of the area . The gu y does a lot of work in the area. When we were building the street, that is when the rock was encountered, and , basically , the road grade rose almost eight feet. Councilmember Longoria Did you guys have to do a soil analysis to find out where you were going to put your septic tanks ? Warren Jolly Yes , we had to do that before we got our LDP. Councilmember Longoria So, did you know the rock was there? I would imagine that you did because you did the soil analysis. Warren Jolly We had a soil test done but we did not know where the rock was. All the lots perked and there was no issue with the lots but we did not know about the rock. We would have designed around the rock. As part of dealing with land and development, we did not know where the rock was. It was just a vein that ran through there . Councilmember Longoria I can understand that. Here is the challenge. You made a statement that the reason you are in front of us tonight is because of the number oflots and I smiled at you when you said that. And, I would agree . That is exactly why you are in front of us because the normal process doesn't anticipate more than five lots being out of whack in a particular de velopment. You have 13 lots; or 40% of the lots have some kind of issue that you are asking for remediation on. If I were to tell you that I would grant you 5% of that, or five lots , whichever is greater, would you agree to that? Warren Jolly We came in with staff and I think we had five or six lots that we wanted to ask for variances on. Then , we went back and forth with several different variations and they even asked us to maybe look at rezoning this at one point, to CUP , to get all the setbacks , and we said there is no way, we have nine homeowners out there , that is not going to happen. This thing has gone back and forth . If that is what you think , we are fine with five lots . We can make some other lots better without it. We went through this whole process with staff and so that is where we are at with 13. Councilmember Longoria I am not trying to put words in your mouth and I am not trying to argue just to argue. I am trying to figure out how we got here. You guys should have known what was going on. You should have known exactly what was going to happen. Regular Meeting o f the Milton C ity Council Monday, June 202016 at 6 :00 pm Page 14 of 49 Chris Willis I will give you part of the give and take on how we got he r e. Obviously, the City of Milton and one of the gentlemen that spoke earlier, the major concern is Providence Road. My homeowners ' major concern is inside the gates. Rural view shed compliance, and this is as I think you have heard Kathy say this is grandfathered in and not part of the rural view shed , that it grew because you want consistency across Providence Road and they wanted rural view shed across Providence Road. That did not sit w ell with the homeowners because of the number of lots . We have dropped a good number of those. The heavy topo lots , again , are on as Warren pointed out, this end of this cul-de-sac. When you look at that situation where you get into rock and you look at the overall topo , these houses sit way above curb and the other ones sits way down below curb . I don't know if anyone li ves in Lake Have n but what we are trying to prevent is driving in and looking at the top of a roof. It isn 't from a streetscape , it is not really attractive . Also , when you are dealing with these lots and every single one on this end of the neighborhood is on a stream buffer so there is a 75 foot stream buffer in there and is pretty good as far as someone who has done some research understands these lots down here are pretty bald. So , the heavy vegetation and the heavy tree lines across here ; that heavy tree line obviously helps buffer against Providence Road. And , again , I think it grew from a staff perspective because of the rural view shed compliance . Councilmember Longoria So , what you originally came to the city for and what it has turned into; the component of that is based on staff recommendat ions to you ? Chris Willis Some of it. The CUP didn 't work for us. Councilmember Longoria The CUP has no place here. Chris Willis Okay. Councilmember Longoria You developed it as an AG-1 subdivision; correct? Chris Willis Yes. Councilmember Thurman I am still trying to figure out what your hardship is. What has changed since you originally bought the property? I understand you found rock. You should have found rock before you had it initially laid out. If there is that much rock there , it should have been found earlier. You should have done some type of soil test. I am concerned because it seems like now that bringing the houses that much closer to the street ; septic tanks , I assume , are going to have to be in the back yards? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 202016 at 6:00 pm Page 15 of49 Chris Willis They were in the back anyway. Less trees have to be cleared in the back. Councilmember Thurman But, you are still going to be clearing a lot of trees to put in a septic tank; the reserve tank and everything that has to be put in. It looks like to me that you are trying to squeeze in the maximum number of lots as possible into this subdivision and maybe you have something that doesn 't quite fit. You may need to reduce the number of lots to make it fit without having to get these huge variances. Going from 60 feet to 50 feet; that doesn 't change the whole look of a subdivision. Going from 60 feet to 20 feet or even 30 feet; that changes the whole look of a subdivision. And, ifl lived in that subdivision, I don't think I would be very happy about it because it will change the look of the subdivision much more than I believe people realize. I don't know how many feet are between you and me but it is not that many. Those homes are going to be almost on the street. If a subdivision is built and all the houses are that way; that is one thing. That is the look of the subdivision. But, in this subdivision where you have houses that are 20 or 30 feet off the street on one side of the road and 60 feet off the street on the other side of the road; that doesn 't look right, it is mismatched. I am still having a hard time figuring out what your true hardship is. The streets haven't changed, the topography hasn't changed; maybe there was rock there that you didn't know about but is that a hardship or is that something you should have discovered before you laid out the initial subdivision? Chris Willis Well, I believe that topography is a hardship because everything is developed at some stage at some grade. Then, there would never be a hardship if that is what you are saying. Councilmember Thurman A hardship should be when you have a piece of property and you think you have as stream buffer that is one thing and the state comes in and changes your stream buffer to something larger. That is a hardship because that is something you did not have any control over. In this situation, I'll ask the City Attorney, how do we define hardship? Is a hardship because you have a topography that you have always had there and nothing has changed? Or, is a hardship only if something changes. Chris Willis What changed is that we found the rock since the original plans were submitted. City Attorney Jarrard Councilmember Thurman the Milton Zoning Code, Section 64-1883 defines unnecessary hardship due to the size, shape, or topography. But, then it leaves open some discretion because obviously these are quasi-judicial decisions that you all are making and there is some discretion left to the council due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations. So, I think one of the touchstones of a variance requirement is that variances are supposed to be a stop gap measure intended to mitigate against some sort of exceptional circumstance that should be rarely used . That is the point of variances. Your buffer requirement is a great one. That is a very typical sort of variance requirement when you have the state or a government imposing some sort of restriction on property Re gular Meeting of the M il ton Ci ty Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 16 of49 that therefore results on the property being basically without economic value. A variance is a great way for a governm ent to he dge against what is called a regu latory tape in that situation. I don 't want to replace your judgement from mine. Different jurisdictions assign different meanings to these sort of terms so I will have to leave it to the counci l whether in this situation there are extraordinary and exceptional facts surrounding this request for relief such as would warrant a variance in this si tuation . But, I do think the touchstone continues to be , because it is interesting how the language says that it is supposed to be due to the size , shape , or topography or other extraordinary and ex ceptional situations. I think that is interesting language linking the size, shape , or topography back to exceptional circumstances. Councilmember T hurman Another problem I am hav ing w ith this is what was originally before us has now totall y changed and I don 't even have a map , I've got it written down , that shows me now what you are asking for. Because what yo u w ere a sking for befo r e i s very different than what you are asking for now. And , I have a problem with suddenly now everything changing right before it comes to us for a vote and not even hav ing a m ap show ing which houses are what height and setbacks and all that. I guess I can kind of put two and two together but it would be more helpful if we actuall y had a map that showed what you are asking fo r now compared to what it was. Chris Willis Do you want us to go over the site plan? We just got this worked out with the neighborhood . We just got approval fro m the las t BZA meeting to go work with the neighbors and that is what we have been doing and just got it resolved with them last night. There were 8 or 9 neighbors and it took them awhile to ge t bac k with us. We can go through each lot , the biggest variances ; most of them are under 4 5 fe et and we alread y have side yards on homes that are already built that are 40 feet. The ones that are at 30 fee t start at lo t s 4 , 5, 6,7 , and 8 which are the most dramatic ones that have the stream bu ffer along wi th the view shed. The neighbors all walked up that street and they agreed with us on site that they would rather see those homes put up the street because they have seen houses at Lake Haven and some other neighborhoods . And , some have lived in homes that were similar to what we are describing and said they would rather see them pushed up and that is when we negotiate d 30 feet. Now, there is an 18 foot right-of-way plus the 30 feet so the house is actually 48 feet fr om the road. So , it is not 30 feet from the road , it is actuall y 48 feet with a 30 foot variance. Councilmember Hewitt When you encountered the ro ck on the road , did you consider shooting it? Chris Willis Yes , we shot some of it. Wi th septic tanks , if we lowered the grade, it would have caused some problems with fill an d some lots it would have been a problem with septic tanks . We shot most of it but we still had a lo t of roc k there . Councilmember Hewitt You said you had already had your lots perked so you assumed they would sit on the grade that you were planning on which is the 8 feet below the road surface . Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 17 of49 Chris Willis The septic would stay at the same grade now with or without the variance. Councilmember Hewitt So, what does shooting the rock in the road have to do with; you raised the road because you didn't want to shoot all the rock. You can shoot the rock if you wanted to all the way down to what you needed and bring it back up with fill if necessary. Chris Willis Our site guys and engineers thought it would be a problem. Councilmember Hewitt Economically or physically? Chris Willis Physically, as far as the septic and what we would end up with. So, there is a grade change. We can pull the plans and show you what the design plans were and the changes that were done out there. Councilmember Lusk To that last point, in order to analyze anything like that, at least in my mind, I would like to see that comparison. You are talking about an 8 foot increase in grade. Does it increase the whole length of that road? I have to have some frame ofreference. Chris Willis It is not the whole road. Councilmember Lusk So , it is back to design grade? Chris Willis It would be that much above design grade. We can get a profile and show you. We have to tie in the entrance way. Councilmember Lusk When did you realize you had an issue? Chris Willis This project is not a year and a half old. It is probably three years old from the time we started development. So, we realized when we got the lots developed, we had an engineer go back and look. Like I said, we can build the lots it is just marketability. Is it better to protect the rural view shed and have these houses pushed back with no buffer against Providence or is it better to move Regular Meeting of the Milton C ity Council Monday , June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 18 of49 them up closer to the street which the neighbors that live there don 't mind them being pushed up. There is the difference. Councilmember L usk There was the elev ation of one house that was in the presentation in the package. I would like to see cross sections through each one of those lots and showing the rear elevation as it appears from Providence Road. What is the name of the road that parallels Pro vi dence in your development? Chris Willis Haven Terrace . Councilmember H ewitt What is the grade change from the front of the house to the back of the house? Chris Willis 30 feet. Councilmember Lu sk So, that is a 50% grade. Warren Jolly This represents a stream buffer in the back. As you saw in the slides, the trees really go all the way up through that right -of-way so it is pretty heavily lined with trees all the way down through here. So , the hard part is tryi n g to meet average grade and height wi thout building retaining walls. Councilmember L usk You just described the grade there. It is about 50% grade. So, the percentage of grade has not changed it is just that you have raised the road and increased the he ight of the center line of the road and instead of going back with the re gu lar set back, you are pouring up closer to the road, but it is the same slope . Warren Jolly If you set this back 30 feet , for example , actually in this case 40 fee t , the map works out below grade . Councilmember L usk What is the horizontal distance between Havens Rest and the right of way of Providence Road? Chris Willis 220 feet. Some of the lots ar e bigger than a one acre lot. Councilmember L usk I would li ke to se e elevations of all of your proposed houses in those 3, 4 , 5, 6 , 7 , and 8. Those are the ones that border Providence. You are starting out at lot 3 with a 50 foot setback and lot 4 with 40, and lot 5 with 30 so you are stepping the houses closer. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 202016 at 6 :00 pm Page 19 of49 Warren Jolly That is what we are trying to do . Establishing the 30 foot setback then blending the streetscape . Councilmember Lusk How about lots 1 and 2 ? Chris Willis They are 60 . Councilmember Lusk The y will be 60 ? When you did your site in vestigation, I assume you did that, did you take an y boorings or test pits on the site to determine if there was any rock on the site ; particularl y on the roads you were going to put in ? Chris Willis Yes , a good size of it and it was spotty and w e had all the soil samples for the septic and we didn 't have an y issue there . The vein that ran right through it , we missed either side of it. Unless you drill the whole road , you can sometimes miss it , and we didn 't drill the whole thing. We probably would have done it if it had been sewer but with septic we wouldn 't do that. Councilmember Lusk I understand ; I've been there my self. Councilmember Thurman Looking at that plat right there , there are dotted lines going through the middle ; what are the dotted lines going through the middle of that plat? Warren Jolly That is a 75 foot impervious setback and that is a 50 foot stream buffer. Here is the center line of the creek; it reall y runs down behind these lots. Councilmember Thurman So , ho w far is it from the impervious setback to the street? Is it even possible to put a house on that lot if you don 't bring it closer? Chris Willis This is the septic plan. You can look at the houses and the drain fields and these are all houses ; there is plenty of room to put the house it just depends on how you put it on the lot. Councilmember Thurman For some of these , the setback goes right through the middle of the lot. Regular Mee ting of the Milton City Counci l Monday, June 20 201 6 at 6 :00 pm Page 20 of 49 Councilmember Lusk I am sitting here counting the ceiling ti les and I am 20 feet away from you and that is the distance that yo u were originall y asking for. I am 20 feet away from the drawing that I haven 't seen. I don't think it is reasonabl e for us to sit up here and talk about something that; I have great vision , but I am having a diffi cul t tim e see ing that drawing. Mayor Lockwo od I would like to say som ething. Unfortunately, you engineer something and draw it on paper and it seems one way and yo u fi nd that conditions later may change it. It sounds like even though the applicant could probably build houses within the existing development there and the standards , they are looking at ways that not only benefi t them but also on the Providence Road side possibly benefit the city as far as vi ew shed and setbacks etc. That being said, and you mentioned something about the latest plan, I want to ask Kathy , has staff looked at the revised plan that was submitted where they talked about di fferent lot sizes? Kathy Field We advertised fo r the original setbacks. That is what we are responding to today . Mayor Lockwood My point to that is that it sounds like it some of these it may be a benefit to the community. Some of these sounded a who le lot d ifferent than a 20 foot setback, going from a 60 to a 20 , some of them were 60 to 50 mayb e 60 to 40. But, that being the case, I would not feel comfortable making any dec ision on anythi ng like that if we haven't seen it and been proposed so I am only going to make the sugge sti on that if that were the case that it were substantially better, there is always the option of deferring that and bringing it back when there is more time for the council , staff, and the public to look at it. I do see where , even though there may be some hardships, but also a change may be better for the community too with more tree cover and a better loo k from the road and the view shed. I would be wi ll ing to consi der looking at it again with some more information. Councilmember Longoria I would support d eferring it to next month's meeting if that would allow us to see what is really being proposed ri ght now. It is getting difficult to do your research prior to a meeting then have something change when you show up to the meeting and I do n 't think it is fair. Councilmembe r Mohrig (via telephone) I guess I will branch off of what Joe Longoria said , I obviously can 't see the drawings, but when something changes at the last minute , even if staff has had a chance to review it, council does not have a chance to r evi ew it in ord er to make a decision without having the time to actually look at it. This is not a minor change; thi s is not a variance of 5% or less of the lots, this is a major change to the entire subdivision. So , thi s is something that has to be considered very carefully before a variance is granted , esp ecially for this size. Councilmembe r Thurman I was going to make a motio n to defer if there is no further discussion . Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 21of49 Mayor Lockwood The reason I brought that up is because it sounds like the applicant has looked at some much better options but we are just getting them so it may help everybody. Councilmember Longoria I just want to check with the applicant to make sure that is okay with them. Chris Willis Yes , honestly we would like to answer all the questions and like we said , we apologize for the last minute . We were directed to go talk to the neighbors and come back , we got 8 of the 9, so we would like to come back with some more information for you. Mayor Lockwood And , again, you might want to keep in mind as you are looking through, what is a win-win for the community and the city and also make the neighborhood nicer for the folks that are there. Councilmember Mohrig This is just a question and maybe looking toward the future. I am in agreement with what we are talking about doing , I guess I would suggest, and maybe staff can help us, what is a realistic cut- off. I know right now our meeting allows people to make these changes and bring them in at the last minute and it makes sense sometimes but I think what we have just seen , there are a few that come in with big changes and try to get us to make a decision at the last minute. I think we need to give the public a chance to actually review it and give council a chance to review it as well. Maybe staff could look, going into the future, at making changes to how we accept or when we allow major changes to be made at the last minute and possibly have to postpone it to a later meeting. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to DEFER Agenda Item No. 16-131 to the July 25, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Regu lar Meetin g o f the Milto n City Council Monday, June 20 20 16 at 6 :00 pm Page 22 of 49 2. Consideration of RZ1 6-02NC16-01 -To Rezone from AG-1 (Agricultural) to CUP (Community Unit P lan) to develop 48 Single Famil y Homes on 63.57 Acres at an Overall Density of 0.7 55 Unit s per Acre and a Concurrent Vari ance to Increase the Maximum Lot Coverage from 20 Percent to 50 Pe rcent for Each Indi vidual Lot [S ec. 64-114l(d)(l)(b)]. (Agenda Item No .16-086) (First Pr esentatio n at Jun e 6, 20 16 Regular City Co uncil Meeting) (Kathleen Fi eld, Com munity Developm en t Director) Ken Jarrard, City Attorney Mr. Mayor and members of the counci l, thank you very much. I know we are about to have a public hearing on thi s zoning item. So , I know that most of the counci l understands how we got here and probab ly most of the citizens in the gallery do as w ell , but with respect to the April 25th meeting, obviously , that w as a very lengthy public hearing that resulted in a motion to approve that did not beco me operat ional and the law based upon the veto. It is my position that the legally required public heari ng , requ ired by the zoning procedures law, has already occurred in this case , however , the co uncil exercises discretion in wanting to have another publ ic hearing which is perfectl y appropriate and admirable. I would ask that we go over a few ground rules on the front end of the publi c hearing as opposed to during . Maybe the deliberating of the voting stage just to go over some of these thi ng s while we are fresh and everyone can hear them and understand them . Mayor Lockwoo d Councilmember Thurman had requested recusal. Should she recuse now or after your statements ? City Attorney J arra rd Good point, Mr. May or. Councilmember Thurman, to the extent that yo u w ant to announce , I think it would be appropriate now. Councilmember T hurman Because one of the current landowners is a client of my firm , I feel like I need to recuse myself based on my co nvers ati ons with the City Attorney. It is my understand in g that although our procedures allo w for me to sit up here , I think based on some of the comments that were made last time , I am going to come j oin the audience so there is no question whether I am participating in any manner. So , ifthat is okay, I am going to stay in the room. I want to hear what everyone has to say and , therefore, und erstand the decision that is made but I am going to go sit down with the audience. City Attorney Jarra rd So , wi th respect to some of these ground rules before the public he aring be gi ns , I will be very brief. The first one is equal time. It is my expectation given the number of individuals that are here , that the co uncil is going to set some sort of established time limit both for those in opposition and those in favo r. That is fi ne , obviously, the council understands the ti me limits should be the same for both sides . And , to the extent that there is time remaining for either side, the council will allow individuals who wish to speak, who have time remaining, to speak during those blocks of time . After the publ ic hearing is closed , and you saw a litt le bi t of this during the last public Re gular Meeting of the Milton C ity Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Pag e 23 of 4 9 hearing but I just want to emphasize it again , after the public hearing is closed, it is appropriate for the council to ask questions. That is very common and customary. Howe ver , I would ask and remind the council that once a question is answered , the individual or individuals who answered the question, return to their seat. Ob viousl y, it may be that there is a series of questions that you have to ask , that is appropriate as well , but once that opportunity for questions is over , the individuals that are at the podium will be asked to return to their seats. Again , this falls in line with a perception issue. The perception is that the public hearing is over and it trul y is simpl y an opportunity for the council to ask and have questions answered . This applies to both those in opposition , you may have questions of those that live near, and would appl y to the applicant as well. With respect to voting ... Councilmember Longoria Ken , I just want to make sure I understand what you said . It is allowable for an ybody on the council to ask questions of any body in attendance at this meeting. Is that what I heard you say? City Attorney Jarrard Yes , that is what you heard me say. With respect to voting , and for Councilmember Mohrig who is able to participate by phone , we have an ev en number of councilmembers that are participating and I just want to re-emphasize that a tie vote results in a failure of whatever the motion was that received the tie vote . That means that motion did not pass. Finall y , I want to discuss another issue and that is the motion to declare impasse. Again , I do not pretend to know the direction of the council this evening or where council will ultimatel y end on this , but one of the issues I want to present to you , we had one of these at the April 25th meeting , was the motion to declare impasse . Understand that a motion to declare impasse ; and neither I nor the City Manager will let you know when that time may be ; it is not our place to stop your discussion , but if you recognize that you have reached a point that there is not going to be a majority vote , then a motion for impasse would be appropriate. A motion for impasse is simply a recognition of stalemate . If that is how we end tonight , then that will be a defacto denial. Kathleen Field, Community Development Director The subject site contains 63 .57 acres and is undeveloped although one of the parcels did have a single famil y 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 48 single family residences at an overall density of 0.755 units per acre. 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 follo ws : The number of lots in a CUP de velopment shall not ex ceed the number of lots that can be reasonabl y created within an AG-1 zoned de v elopment at the same site location . The following items shall be submitted to determine the lot yield for the subject property : Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday , June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 24 of 49 (1) Indicate all bodies of water and the appropriate buffers; (2) Provide a level 3 soil analysis ; (3) Provide a tree surve y 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 lo t. The applicant has submitted all of the above listed items dep icted as a "traditional" AG-1 (Agricultural) district subdivision. Based on these parameters, the maximum number of lots that can be developed is 48 lots. Staff also refers to this plan as the "Yield Plan". DEVELOPMENT STANDARD S-SEC. 64-897 -CUP (Community U nit P lan) 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 i s 11 ,250 sq. ft. conditions Minimum CUP development size shall The CUP development size is 63 .57 acres be four acres Maximum densi ty allowe d is 5 units The density of the subject site is 0 .755 units per acre* per gross acre Minimum lot width (at build ing line) 72 feet per conditions Minimum CUP development frontage Exceeds the m inimum shall be 3 5 feet Minimum lot frontage shall be 20 feet 20 feet minimum adjoining a street Minimum heated floor are a as 2,400 square feet specified in conditions Minimum perimeter setback as Per the site plan-States 50 foot buffer specified Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 25 of 49 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. 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 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 plan submitted on May 31, 2016 does show two "possible" detention areas and one detention area 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 northeast portion of the site and also possible septic drain field area just east of the entrance and lot #48 on the site plan submitted on May 31 , 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. Regu lar Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , June 20 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 26 of 49 It is Staff's opini on 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 propo sed si te plan: 1) Conservation Area (size) -The overall amount of open space or conservation area is 50%. The maj ority is located in the northeast portion of the property and it is Staff's opinion that this northeast portion of the property should be developed in order to preserve the rural vi ew shed along Ebenezer Road. 2) Small rural enclave or hamlets -The development pattern appears to be more suburban in charact er than enclave or hamlets. 3) Small res idential no des -There are three areas but two of the thre e areas dead end and do no t connect. 4) Consider this parcel as part of a larger overall p lan for the area -Potential for connecting with adjacent parcels that may be dev el ope d in the future has not been shown on the si te p lan. 5) Pres erve rural character from the roadway(s) -Although there is approximately 100 feet of viewshed w ith additional area on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Ebenezer Road , mo re of the development should be pushed away from the road to protect the existi ng pastureland and placed in the north east section of the site. 6) Vehi cu lar and pedestrian inter-connectivity -It appears there can be easy pedestrian inter-connectivity, but vehicular inter-connectivity is not shown to adjacent parcels . 7) Naturalized detentio n area(s)-It appears that the existing pond will be uti lized but further details w ill be needed. 8) Intern al trail ne twork-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 bui ld ing permit appro val by the City Architect. 10) Pres erve exist ing vegetation and topography to the extent possible when siting homes. The ap plicant has indicated that he is in agreement for the City Arborist to approve each lot 's site plan for removal of vegetatio n which is not subject to the Tree Preservati on Ordin ance. 11) Variable lot si zes and building locations on the lot -Although there are different size lots , they are div ided up into four locations instead of creating pods of home sites so that there is the opportunity to locate homes based on topography and vegetation . This method would preserve sp ecimen trees and or stands of trees on the site. It is Staff's recommendatio n not to support the applicant's revised site plan submi tted May 31 , 2016 because it does not m eet the above si te plan objectives and provide the best solution for developing the subject site . Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2 016 at 6 :00 pm Page 27 of 49 The applicant submitted a set of architectural conditions on April 19 , 2016 for the proposed development. If this petition is appro ved , Staff is in support of them and are included in the Recommended Conditions. VC16-01 -To increase the maximum lot coverage from 20 percent to 50 percent for each individual lot (Sec. 64-l 14l(d)(l)(b)). The applicant has requested the above concurrent variance to increase the maximum lot co verage based on the fact that the lots are small in size and would not meet the maximum 20 percent requirement which is typically attainable when one acre lots are de veloped. Staff does not recommend the submitted site plan 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. 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. The applicant included the specimen trees on the yield plan . At the time of submittal of a land disturbance permit, more detailed evaluation of the specimen trees will be made . 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. The applicant held their Public Participation meeting on Monday, February 15 , 2016 at the Kroger Community Room at12460 Crabapple Road. There were ten residents in attendance. Attached at the end of the report are the questions and concerns raised at the meeting . The applicant pro vided the required Public Participation Report on February 19 , 2016 via e-mail. The Design Review Board conducted a courtesy re v iew on April 5, 2016 . Comments regarding revised site plan submitted March 17 , 2016 : • Biggest concern is the adjacent neighbors and neighbors down the street. • Community septic , I personally don 't disagree that it 's a better system. • Overwhelming concern , is what the road view is going to look like. Have a stakeholders meeting and do this same presentation . • I like the idea of people getting older, and the y don 't want to have so much yard to take care of. I think that 's a great idea. Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty C ouncil Monday, June 20 2 016 at 6 :00 pm Page 28 of 49 • A great pitch is that. .. ., you are building the subdivision and house to fit the land , not the land to fit the house . • When I started with this , I was not supportive ... I thought it was a money issue. It 's going to cost you $300 ,000 to build a bridge or $300 ,000 to put the septic in. When you educate the public on the funct ional ity of the technology and how its evolving .... educating people about that is a good thing. Moving the houses off the road ... you 're being a good ne ighb or. I think you are doing the right thin g that would be of the best interest of the neighbors . I'm starting to believe that this is a good idea for this particular piece of land . Standards of Re view ; (Section 64-2104) Planning Staff shall , with respect to each zoning application , investigate and make a recommendation with respect to factors 1 through 7, below, as well as any other factors it may find relevant. 1. 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 48 lot single famil y residential subdivision developed at a density of 0.755 units per acre is inconsistent with adjacent and nearby properties which are scattered sing le family residences on large lots . The proposed lots are less than one acre in size but are a minimum of 50 feet adjacent to the AG-1 properties. It is Staffs 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. 2. Whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property? It is Staffs opinion that the proposal adversely affects the existing use or usability of the adjacent properties based on the location and size of the lots to the west , east and along Ebenezer Road . The parcel 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 portio n of the site . In addition , there can be groupings of lo ts with greenspace in between and the ability to site each house to preserve an y appropriate vegetation or topography . 3. 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 currently zoned AG-1 (Agricultural). Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 202016 at 6 :00 pm Page 29 of 49 4. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools? Staff does not anticipate a significant impact on public services or utilities. The estimated number of new students for the proposed rezoning will have a minimal impact on the Crabapple Crossing Elementary, Northwestern Middle School, and Milton High School. Although all three schools are enrolled over the capacity, the schools are made aware of the demographic changes occurring in the region. The proposed subdivision, if developed with the Recommended Conditions regarding transportation may not have a negative impact on exciting streets, transportation facilities, or utilities if developed with the Recommended Conditions. 5. Whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan? 2030 City of Milton Comprehensive Plan: Agricultural , Equestrian, Estate Residential Proposed use /density: Single Family Residential at 0.755 units per acre 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 . 6. 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 Staffs opinion that the revised site plan submitted on May 31, 2016 by the applicant does not provide the best site plan for the subject site considering the site's pristine, rural character. 7. 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 ofRZ16-02 and VC16-0l. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 30 of 49 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. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulations and offerings contained in the Letter of Intent, these conditions shall supersede unless specifically stipulated by the Mayor and City Council. 1) To the owner 's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows: a) Single famil y detached dwellings and accessory uses and structures. b) No more than 48 total dwelling units at a maximum density of 0 .755 units per acre , whichever is less , based on the total acreage zoned. Approved lo t/units totals are not guaranteed. The developer is responsible through site engineering (at the time o f application for a Land Disturbance Permit) to demonstrate that all lots/units within the appro ved de velopment 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 following: a) To the revised site plan submitted on May 31, 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 propo se d 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. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 202016 at 6:00 pm Page 31of49 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 -50 feet j) Minimum perimeter setback for the development -Per the Site Plan k) Prior to issuance of building permit, the City Architect shall have the right to review the exterior elevations to ensure that the exterior architecture is in general conformity to the Architectural Conditions as outlined in Conditions 5a. and 5b. 1) Prior to issuance of the Land Disturbance Permit, Owner shall have concluded and presented to the City of Milton Arborist for comment only a tree report of the subject site. m) Provide a minimum of 50 percent open space. n) Maximum lot coverage of 50 percent for each individual lot. (VC16-01). 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, with the exception of removal of invasive species or establishment of nature trails (of mulch or natural materials only). Existing pasture areas may be maintained to keep in pastoral state (removal of privet or invasive species, intermittent mowing, etc). 4) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedications, and improvements: a) Dedicate at no cost to 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 1. 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 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 Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 32 of 49 future interparcel connection as requi r ed and approv ed by the City of Milton Public Works Department. Such interparcel access shall not be the primary entrance to future development unless otherwi se approve d b y th e Owner and the City of Milton. c) Access to the site shall be subject to th e ap proval of the C ity of M ilton Public Works Department and the City of Roswell Department of Transportation , prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit. d) It is the desire and intenti on of the owner and surrounding property owners to maintain the rural look and feel of E b enezer Road and Sweet Apple R oad. In Furtherance thereof, Sweet Apple Road should rem ain a s a gr ave l road without improvement. Ebenezer Road should si m ilarly re main as presently con figured. As it is intended that the interior road s fo r th e de velo pm ent b e public, the owner agrees to dedicate at no cost to the C ity of Milton prior to the plat reco rding, sufficient land as required by the City of Milton Pub li c Works Departm ent for a spine road accessing the subject property from Ebenezer Road with the first 200 feet being improved as a rural road secti on in keep ing w ith the rural feel of Ebenezer Road. The interior neighborhood ro ads shall be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk as should be requi re d by th e C ity of Milton Public Works Department. 5) To the owner 's agreement to the follow ing build ing development considerations : a) Historically insp ired American sty le h omes u si n g rural an d small town vernacular architecture. b) Fac;ade and Exterior Finishes: 1 . Cladding shall consist of a mix of: i. Natural Stone -no synth etic stone IL Lap Siding to be fiber cement bo ard 1. Smooth finish board s 2 . Variety of siding exposure wi dth s m . Board and Batten iv. Natural Wood Shake v . Variety of traditional brick co lors and textures found in rural and small town America. 2. Front porches (minimum 8 feet deep) or wrap around p orches : i . Approp riately sized col umns ii . Columns using classical orders Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 33 of 49 3. Windows sashes to include muntin patterns of six lights over six, 3/1, 411 , 6/1, 919, 111 or 2/2 . 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 11. Architectural Asphalt Shingles m. 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. 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. 11. 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 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 34 of 49 Trustee is willing and capable of the responsibilities established by the Trustee Indenture. 111 . Owner shall submit to the city , prior to issuance of land disturbance permit, 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 if regulated by Fulton County. 1v. City shall have the right to review and approve the design of any community septic system proposed fo r 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 those shown on the approved site plan shall be added to the community septic system. Neighborhood covenant s shall be prepared and recorded that provide that the system shall not be expanded to serve lots or deve lopment outside of the lots on the approved site plan. d) Shall reserve not less than 50% of the total bu ildable area as Open Space , which Open Space shall be placed in a permanent conservation easement or other similarly binding instrument or arrangement as approved by the Community Development Director, in order to preserve the Open Space against future de v elopment. Councilmember Longoria There are at least two piece of property that are coming together for this particular proposal. One of them is adjacent to Sweet Apple Road . Sweet Apple Road is a dirt road and there is a requirement that states that any parcel that is adjacent to a dirt road has a minimum lot size requirement of three acres. We are combining that piece of property with a piece of property that is adjacent to Ebenezer Road. There is a question about whether or not those two pieces of property actually allow for the change to be a one acre minimum or does it require the change to be a three acre minimum. Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager That particular requirement is in two locations. One , in the subdivision which in the zoning ordinance does not have the adjacent to language. If it is located on a gravel road , it would require a three acre minimum. Traditionally, the ordinance has been interpreted that a three acre minimum would apply to those lots that have access to the gravel road and not necessarily adjacent to; but have frontage and access from another road. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 202016 at 6 :00 pm Page 35 of 49 Councilmember Longoria So, you are comfortable with the fact that the lot minimum is one acre and not three acres for all the lots that would be part of an AG-1 development if this proposal was put together that way? Carter Lucas Yes , that is how it has historically been done. Kathy Field Yes , and I would agree . Councilmember Lusk To support that , White Columns on the northern border is next to Nix Road which is a gravel road. PUBLIC COMMENT Charlie Bostwick, 230 Hammond Drive, Sandy Springs, Georgia 30328 I would like to start with a quote from Pierre Howard , our former Lieutenant Governor and the long term President of the Georgia Conservancy. He said, describing this project, "Such a development strategy results in allowing for growth , preserving conservation values, and improving the quality of life of our people . You have a unique and limited opportunity to preserve significant green space while protecting landowner rights ." We have a choice tonight between a CUP plan and an AG-1 plan. The CUP plan is an amazing opportunity for the best way to develop and keeping with Milton values and rural aesthetic . It has the following benefits that follow exactly to the Comprehensive Use Plan and the language there: • Preserves the rural look and feel of this area on Sweet Apple . • Protects environmentally sensitive areas. • Creates a lifelong community setting . Milton and Brightwater share many values including the ones I just listed. Brightwater Homes are environmentalists who happen to make their living with home building. Preserving rural Milton aesthetics and values is achieved with greater buffers with an average of almost twice the allowed amount in AG-1. It preserves thousands of trees as determined by engineers. It is the only way to protect the rural nature of Ebenezer Road. AG-1 would destroy its natural beauty. It preserves buffers , it preserves 35 acres of natural area in permanent protection . There are two miles of nature trails . AG-1 would include mass clearing and grading. It also requires the destruction of the creek crossing . Our plan is a smart low impact development plan. It protects the ecologically sensitive areas of this property. It has many unique species that will be saved . The Oconee River Land Trust has walked the land and describes it as significant conservation value. It will create trails and amenities as well as high end housing options to include empty nesters. Brightwater Homes builds a high end product. These will not be cluster homes. Many people have compared our project to the one in Woodstock but our plan is density neutral. We are projecting 48 CUP homes . The Woodstock project has 200 homes on the same amount of land. Most of the homes we are Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 36 of 49 planning to build will be 75 feet wide which is a large home. They will have 3 car garage s and 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. This has been a thorough process with a lo t of community involvement. Our p lan is the only way to preserve the rural look and feel to protect environmentally sensitive areas and create a lifelong community setting. Staff has put 42 conditions on our project and we have accepted all of those conditions . We have agreed not to connect to Lackey Road. In addition , we are entitled by the CUP plan to 50 lots on this property. We create d a 48 lot plan. I hope you will approve this p lan tonight. The following individuals submitted Public Comment Cards: Jon McPhail , 10925 Pinehigh Drive , A lpharetta, GA 30022 Margaret Lootens , 3515 Peacock Road , Milton, GA 30004 Biju Eappin, 3505 Bethany Road , Milton, GA 30004 Abbe Laboda, 13825 Brittle Road , Milton, GA 30004 Lauren Laboda, 13 825 Brittle Road , Milton, GA 30004 Andrew Kimball , 15800 Freemanville Road , Milton, GA 30004 Marian Nolan, 127 Mt. Cal vary Road , Marietta, GA 30064 Susan Lindley , 4381 Skyland Drive, Atlanta, GA 30342 Laurel Florio , 790 Gates Mill Way, Milton, GA 30004 Margaret Lamb, 845 Hampton Bluff Drive , Milton, GA 30004 Joan Borzilleri , 540 Kings County Court, Milton, GA 30004 Stacy O 'Neill, 5566 Benton Woods Drive , Atlanta, GA 30342 James Wells , 330 Houze Way , Roswell , GA 30004 Bernard Wolfe , 1000 Lacke y Road , Milton, GA 30004 Alan Neal , 6410 Grove Meadows Lane, Cumming, GA 30028 Julie Pinckney, 218 North Park Lane , Milton , GA 30004 Francia Lindon, 14810 East Bluff Road, Milton, GA 30004 Amy Christiansen, 2195 Dinsmore Rd . Milton , GA 30004 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 37 of 49 Jack Lindon, 14810 East Bluff Rd ., Milton, GA 30004 Bruce Langston, 301 Providence Oaks Circle , Milton, GA 30004 Jane Meredith , 735 Ebenezer, Milton, GA 30004 Tom Meredith, 735 Ebenezer, Milton, GA 30004 William J. Albertson, 320 Crooked Stick Drive , Milton, GA 30004 Noel Carpenter, 15230 Highgrove Road, Milton, GA 30004 Vance McGaughey , 255 Meadowood Drive , Roswell , GA 30075 Mark Kubik, 735 Brickwood Lane , Milton, GA 30004 Laura Rencher , 1060 Birmingham Rd, Milton , GA 30004 Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlet Oak Trail, Milton , GA 30004 Juanita Barr, 218 North Park Lane , Milton, GA 30004 Marc Mazur , 3411 Serenade Ct. Milton, GA 30004 William Harkleroad , 3411 Serenade Ct. Milton , GA 30004 Ed Parsons , 1760 Redd Rd , Milton , GA 30004 Jennifer and Herschel Beker, 1200 Lackey Rd ., Milton, GA 30004 Joe Lamp 'l, 2330 Saddlesprings Drive , Milton, GA 30004 Philip Busman, 15620 Thompson Rd. Milton, GA 30004 Dottie Head , 800 Colonial Lane, Milton, GA 30004 David Daimiani , 935 Post Oak Close , Milton, GA 30004 Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase , Milton, GA 30004 David Gower , 825 Ebenezer Rd. Roswell , GA 30004 Evan Cohen , 16115 Segwich Dr. Milton, GA 30004 -----------~~~~-----------~~- Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :0 0 pm Page 38 of 49 Larry Covington, 16470 Freemanville Rd., Milton, GA 30004 Marie Tittle, 12875 Heydon Hall , Roswell, GA 30075 Hunter Young, 695 Ebenezer Rd. Roswell , GA 30075 Wanda Young , 695 Ebenezer Rd. Roswe ll, GA 30075 William Workheiser , 720 Eb enezer Rd ., Milton, GA 30004 Karen McAdams , 12945 Heydon Hall, Roswell, GA 30075 Scott Tittle , 12875 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Kurt Nolte , 825 Dockbridge Way, Milton , GA 30004 Mike Chambers , 715 Ebenezer Rd., Milton, GA 30075 Jennifer Pino, 175 Oakhurst Leaf Dr. Milton, GA 30004 Matt Capps , 690 Ebenezer Rd., Roswell , GA 30075 Bill Schellhorn, 225 Orchard Bend Trail , Milton, GA 30004 Monica Chambers , 715 Ebenezer Rd., Milton, GA 30075 Heather Creran, 325 Taylor Glen Drive , Milton, GA 30004 Tony Outeda, 325 Taylor Gle n Drive , Milton, GA 30004 Pamela 0. Elmore, 13450 Bethany Rd ., Milton, GA 30009 Lisa Cauley , 14680 Freemanville Rd., Milton , GA 30004 Jason Anastasia, 15285 Be ll Park Rd , Milton, GA 30004 Arnold Moore , 395 Canterbury Lake , Milton, GA 30004 Vincent Taylor, 15670 Canterbury Chase , Milton, GA 30004 Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Mi lton, GA 30004 Gary Cochran, 470 Ebenezer Rd., Roswell , GA 30075 Jan Ligon , 1925 Dinsmore Rd. Milton, GA 30004 Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday , June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 39 of 49 Richard Hurd , 1985 Drummond Pond Rd., Milton, GA 30004 Paula Korowin , 165 Oakhurst Leaf Drive , Milton, GA 30004 Lauralyn Mustaki , 1820 Bethany, Milton, GA 30004 Meaghan Bybee , 14325 Morning Mountain Way, Milton, GA 30004 Matt Gonsalves , 110 Ariel Ct. Roswell , GA 30075 Sarah Nerswick, 334 Deerfield Point, Milton, GA 30004 Barbara Taylor, 1950 Drummond Pond Rd, Milton, GA 30004 Martin Lock, 14140 Freemanville Rd., Milton , GA 30004 Scott Sawyer, 787 Quarterpath Lane, Milton, GA 30004 Rose Prestianni, 105 Providence Oaks Pointe, Milton, GA 30004 Kim Home, 415 Wade Glen Ct., Milton, GA 30004 Debbie McHugh , 145 Oakhurst Leaf Drive , Milton, GA 30004 Michael Rosenthal , 265 Oakhurst Leaf Drive, Milton, GA 30004 Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road , Milton, GA 30004 Alfred Soldavini , 15395 Thompson Way , Milton, GA 30004 Bill Hosmer , 235 Weatherwood Circle, Milton, GA 30004 James Stubbs , 14905 E. Bluff Rd., Milton, GA 30004 Gary Jacobs , 14805 E. Bluff Rd., Milton, GA 30004 Lloyd Whittall , 2005 Drummond Pond Rd., Milton, GA 30004 Richard Velloff, 15750 Canterbury Chase , Milton , GA 30004 Jeff Letturman , 12922 Donegal Lane , Milton , GA 30004 Ned McCauley , 16427 Waxmyrtle Rd, Milton , GA 30004 Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 40 of 49 Sharon Mays , 15160 Highgrove Rd., Milton, GA 30004 Baylor Johnson , 126 Rose Mi ll St., Milton, GA 30004 Crystal Matusevich, 15570 Birmingham Hwy., Milton, Ga 30004 Dan Irvine , 16437 Waxmyrtle Rd ., Milton, GA 30004 Clint Winter , 15055 Thompson Rd ., Milton, GA 30004 Kelly Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton , GA 30004 Joe Whitle y, 1250 Birmingham Rd ., Milton, GA 30004 Ceyda Sezer, 509 Ebenezer Rd., Roswell , GA 30075 Matt Gonsalves , 110 Ariel Ct., Roswell , GA 30075 Erin Harris , 12895 He ydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Gaye Washburne , 200 Tifton Lane , Roswell , GA 30075 Joey Harris , 12895 He ydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 John Washburne , 200 T ifton Lane , Roswell , GA 30075 Emily Gonsalves , 110 Ariel Ct. Roswell , GA 30075 Kirb y Sims , 12935 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Stephanie Sims , 12935 He ydon Hall , Roswell, GA 30075 Kevin McAdams , 12945 He ydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Kimberly Schmidt, 205 T ifton Lane , Roswell , GA 30075 David Sherwood, 120 Ariel Ct. Roswell, GA 30075 Jeannie Sherwood, 120 Ariel Ct., Roswell , GA 30075 Anna Bean, 12915 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Bert Bean, 12915 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Regular Meeting of th e M ilt on Ci ty Counci l Monday, June 2 02016 at 6 :00 pm Page 41of 4 9 Vann Holland, 12960 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Jan Holland, 12960 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Jennifer Rogers , 12870 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Christopher Rogers , 12870 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Ryan Schmidt, 205 Tifton, Roswell , GA 30075 Angela Cole , 12885 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Tess Fancher, 12905 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Jerry Diaz, 105 Ariel Court, Roswell , GA 30075 Anastasia Diaz, 105 Ariel Court, Roswell , GA 30075 Patrick McHugh, 145 Oakhurst Leaf Drive, Milton, GA 30004 Bill Chapman, 450 Ebenezer Rd., Roswell , GA 30075 Wanda Hurd, 1985 Drummond Pond Rd , Milton, GA 30004 Ann Moster, 15130 North Valle yfield Rd., Milton, GA 30004 Jeff Cole , 12885 Heydon Hall , Roswell , GA 30075 Scott Huddle , 195 Oakhurst Leaf Drive, Milton, GA 30004 Marc Fialdwi , 275 Oakhurst Leaf Drive, Milton, GA 30004 Betsy Chapman, 450 Ebenezer Rd., Roswell , GA 30075 Janie Slater, 13670 Bethany Rd., Milton, GA 30004 Charlie Bostwick, 230 Hammond Drive, Sandy Springs, Georgia 30328 I certainly appreciate everyone 's comments. I would like to clear up any misunderstandings . Highgrove is not a CUP; it is AG-1. CUP preserv es rural nature and true horse pastures. AG-1 causes clear cutting and destro y s pastures. We plan to hav e horses on this property. The next door neighbors hav e horses. There is plenty of space to have horses with CUP ; there is not space for horses w ith AG-1. We hav e agreed to no connection with Lackey Road. The petition that w as signed had a lot of incorrect information in it. In regards to community septic, our sy stem is treated -------------------................ .......,====--.., Regular Meeting of the Milton C ity Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 42 of 49 water. It has to be licensed and checked monthly. We have agreed to three years of funds for maintenance of the system. There is much more inspection on a community septic system than on an individual system. This is the only way to preserve this land. It will cost $300 ,000 to cross the creek to be able to access 15 lots. That is $20 ,000 per lot which is worth saving this land and preserving the eco logically sensitive areas. Thank you to all of the wonderful volunteers in Milton that have worked so hard to save this land and share in the value of preserving it. Doug Dillard, 12 30 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309 This is a difficult decision to make . Even though Staff has recommended denial , we have agreed to the suggested conditions . As you know, we have a constitutional right to use this property unless there is some harm to the publ ic. It is not up to the property owner to anticipate every conceivable objection that a local government might have fo r the use of their property but there is an opportunity for the local government to work with the property owner to achieve the highest and best use of their property. We feel like we have a compromise . It is density neutral. The truth of the matter is , what is the p ublic good that would be served by denying this application? Just to keep the area rural is not sufficient. 11 :32 pm Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to take a break. Councilmember K un z seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 11:50 pm Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to extend the meeting past midnight. Councilm ember K unz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Councilmember L u sk Kathy, is the CUP method of development in our development code? Kathy Field Yes , it is a zoning district that you can rezone to. Councilmember L u sk Did you review this applicati on based on the scope and intent of the section of the development code? Kathy Field Yes. Councilmember L u sk Was the height requirement met by the applicant? Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 43 of 49 Kathy Field The applicant has not indicated the height of the houses yet but he will be held to our development standards. Also, our City Architect will ensure that the height requirements are met. In addition , the applicant's minimum lot area size is shown as 11 ,250 square feet. The CUP development size is 63.57 acres . The development is .775 units per acre. The minimum lot width is 72 feet. The minimum CUP development frontage is 35 feet which this application exceeds. The minimum lot frontage is 20 feet adjoining a street and the applicant shows 20 feet. The proposed heated floor area is 2 ,400 square feet. The minimum perimeter set back is specified per the site plan. So , the applicant meets the development standards as they are listed in the CUP. Councilmember Lusk How long has the CUP development standards been in our zoning codes? Kathy Field It was part of the code that we adopted from Fulton County when the city was formed in December 2006. Councilmember Lusk Has the CUP been used in the city before? Kathy Field Yes, there are other developments that have used it but within the one acre minimum lot size. This is the first time it has been used for lots that are less than the one acre lot size . Two years ago, we changed the CUP to mandate that the yield plan must be submitted along with the application that tied to an AG-1 subdivision so that it would be a density neutral development. Councilmember Lusk Has the applicant submitted a yield plan and does it comply? Kathy Field Yes, staff has review it and it does comply. Councilmember Lusk Could you please name other developments in the city that are CUP? Kathy Field White Columns , Crooked Creek, Triple Crown, and Acaro. Councilmember Lusk Could you please tell me about Mr. Bostwick 's development, Highgrove. Was it originally AG- 1? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , June 20 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 44 of 49 Jimmy Sanders, Plan Review Engineer Yes, it was originally AG -1 and about two or three years ago changes were made to what the original permitting was. Councilmember Lusk Why was it converted to a CUP? Jimmy Sanders It has some rather steep lot s so they moved some of the homes closer to the street. Councilmember Lusk So, this type of zoning is nothing new in Milton. It has been used quite extensively throughout the city. It is not a new concept. Kathy Field Yes, that is correct but in the past we have used it for one acre non-sewered lots . This is the first request for sewered lots on less than one acre; however, it meets the density neutral requirement. Councilmember Kunz Carter, on the 48 lot yield plan that was submitted; from staffs best knowledge are these plans reasonable and if they are off, what is the magnitude that they could be off. We know that the yield plan is not really known until dirt starts moving. Carter Lucas It is probably impossible to know on any given plan. Usually, plans are not off by many lots and usually there are alternative s that can be done to make the lots usable . From our review, the plans that have been submitted are reasonable based on all the knowledge we have and our development standards. Councilmember Longoria We reall y won't know the exact density until dirt starts moving. 48 is the best case scenario. Do we have any idea what the worse case scenario would be? Kathy Field We have minimum standards in terms of what is submitted to us at the time . Through experience and a case by case basis we can only give a best guess. Mayor Lockwood There is a big difference between putting something on paper and actually bringing it to fruition. There are many variables that occur when developing a piece of property. I have a lot of respect for Charlie Bostwick and his company. They build a quality product. Howeve r, my position remains the same. I unders tand about preserving land but it has more to do with what people see when they are driving through Milton. If you just preserve land in the back of a piece of property Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, June 20 20 16 at 6 :00 pm Page 45 of 49 that no one can see ; that is not the look and feel that people are used to in Milton. Is there anything legal against the council with the comprehensive plan and looking at a conservation subdi vision? City Attorney Jarrard I do not want to get into directing the council as part of this legislative process precisely what the council can and cannot consider. However, the comprehensive plan is a planning tool. It does not have the force of law. The comprehensive plan is a plan and a vision to provide guidance on what you want Milton to look like . How you interpret the comprehensive plan and the amount of emphasis you place on it , is an individual decision made by each councilmember. Councilmember Lusk Could you please clarify how the 48 yield plan was determined? Kathy Field It is a requirement of the CUP that an applicant submits a yield plan based on AG-1 standards. Councilmember Kunz Se veral people spent countless hours working on de veloping the Comprehensive Plan. I would like for us to uphold that plan which includes CUP development. Councilmember Longoria We do not need to negotiate with ourselves at this time. We spent five plus hours discussing this proposal at the April 25th meeting. We are past all of that now and we need to focus on the proposal in front of us tonight. Mayor Lockwood I know we all want exact facts and figures. I know that with the proposed plan in front of us tonight we will get several homes built close to the road and that is not the look and feel that our citizens are used to or want. With AG-1 development, we know that we could get anywhere from one to 48 homes on one acre lots with trees , landscaping , etc. which is the look and feel of Milton now and what our citizens want to maintain . Councilmember Hewitt I would like to ask the applicant a question. Mr. Bostwick, why did you not come back to us with the 45 lot proposal that we had presented to you on April 25th ? Charlie Bostwick On April 25 1h , we were willing to accept the 45 lot proposal versus taking the chance of a denial. At that time , we had not run the numbers and did not know whether it would be economically feasible. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 46 of 49 Councilmember Hewitt AG-1 and one acre minimum lots has been something that the city has celebrated in this area for a long time. What I am see ing tonight is a watering down of what we have held in high esteem. I am not going to vote for anything less than one acre minimum lot zoning. It is simple math. We cannot afford another car on any intersection that we have in this city. Councilmember Kunz I want to repeat the facts . With a conservation subdivision, there is the potential for a horse pasture, 35 acres of continuous green space, 2 miles of walking trails, saves roughly 2,300 trees , loses 52 ,000 less square feet of asphalt, homes will be in the $700,000 to $1 million range. If we are doing what the spirit of a conservation plan actually does, don't we want to save green space and horse pastures. Mayor Lockwood I do not think the CUP plan is a way to save horse pastures. The only way to save our horse pastures is to make it easier for owners of horse farms to stay here and not be forced to sell their land. Councilmember Lusk Everyone has a different vision of what rural is all about. Many people want to preserve the rural look and feel of Milton and they are saying the way to do that is to preserve AG-1. Well, with AG-1 anyone can buy up land and convert it to a subdivision with AG-1 lots so the rural look and feel of Milton is disappearing and we have no control over it. People have the right to sell their property. AG-1 is a development by right. There is a minimum amount of review that is required to develop AG-1 land. And , once an LDP permit is obtained, the developer can begin clearing the land . Before long , there will not be any horse farms left in Milton and we wi ll be just like another suburb of Atlanta. We review our Comprehensive Land Use Plan eve ry 5 years. If we are not going to use it , then we sho uld just throw it out along with our development codes and everything else. We have had the CUP in our zoning codes for ten years; since the beginning of the city . It has been available as an alternative method of development. The land that we are discussing tonight is very unique in its terrain, streams, trees , ridges, and forest and fits the vision of what people think of when they see the rural character of Milton. We have an opportunity tonight to save that land. Mayor Lockwood As we have discussed tonight, AG-1 is the worse case scenario allowing one home per acre . Everyone is comfortable with that concept and knows that is the worse thing that could happen to the land; one home on one acre. Otherwise, we are not sure what the other option will look like. Councilmember Longoria I have spent probably 300 hours on this decision as well as many other people. We are not making a decision tonight on AG-1 development tomorrow; we are trying to make the right decision for what could be used to conserve land. If we give up our standard, the one thing that we value the most , in order to make this work, then who is going to pay for that? In order for us to give the Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6 :00 pm Page 47 of 49 builder what he is asking for we would have to ask our citizens to pay and I don 't think that is right; it is unacceptable. Councilmember Mohrig Like every other councilmember, I have also struggled with this decision. The only reason we tried to create a conservation subdivision ordinance is because so many of our citizens were angry about all the development occurring in Milton. However, we cannot stop development. People have the right to sell their land. There is no one perfect solution. The number of homes that the developer has proposed to build on this land is unacceptable to me ; regardless of what the yield plan says. I know everyone on council and no one is benefiting from this decision either way . I am tired of the bullying and assumptions . I have had people tell me that if I don 't vote a certain way, that I am not a leader. We must stop the divisiveness. We are a community of highly educated individuals with high incomes . We need to come together as a community. I have spent a lot of time on this issue and met with many individuals on both sides of the issue . Let's work together and not turn people against one another. Let 's use that energy in a positive way and try to come up with creative solutions to the problem. Councilmember Kunz I don 't think any property has come under more scrutiny than this property on Ebenezer Road. We have had citizens , non-citizens , city staff, county , state , and federal individuals, engineers , volunteers , planning commission members , city councilmembers , and the developer all looking at this project trying to find a way to make it work. I have walked this property; talked to numerous people , researched community septic , etc. etc. I made a promise to uphold our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the future of Milton is bright and we all need to work together to solve issues. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to DENY Agenda Item No . 16-086. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-2). Councilmember Lusk and Councilmember Kunz were in opposition. Councilmember Thurman recused herself from the vote . Re g u lar Meetin g of the M ilton C ity C ounc il Monday, June 2 0 201 6 at 6 :00 pm Page 48 of 49 The following Agenda Item was moved by Motion and Vote to immediately after Public Hearing. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Considerat ion of an Amendment to the Charter of the City of Milton, Georgia for the Purpose of Clarify ing the Income Limitations Applicable to the Homestead Tax Exemptio ns Av ailab le to Seniors Age 65 and Over and Disabled Perso ns with Moderate to Lo w Incomes. ORDINANCE NO. 16-06-277 (Agenda Item No. 16-115) (Discussed at May 9, 20 16 City Coun cil Wo rk Ses s ion) (First Presentati on at May 16, 20 16 City Co un cil Regular Mee ting) (First Public Hearing at Ju ne 6, 20 16 City Co un cil Regular Me eting) (Second Public Hear ing at J une 20, 20 16 City Co un cil Regular Meeting) (Ken J arrard, City Attorney) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No . 16-115 . Councilmember Kunz se co nded the motion . The motion passed unanimousl y (6-0 ). Councilmember Mohri g w as unavailable for the vote. The following Agenda Item was moved by Motion and Vote to immediately after Reports and Presentations. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a Resolution to Regulate and Provide for the Calling of an E lection to Determine the Issuance or Non-Issuance of City of Mil ton General Obligation Bonds ; To Provide for the Date, Maxi mum Rate of Interest and Schedule of Maturities that Said Bonds Shall Bear; To Provi de for the Levy and Collection of T axes to Service Said Bonded Indebtedness , if So Authori zed ; and for Other Purposes . RESOLUTION NO. 16-06-375 (Agenda Item No. 16-144) (Ken J arrard, City Attorney) Ken Jarrard, City A ttorney . This resolution wi ll set the stage for the calling of a referendum with re spect to the potential issuance of general obligation debt. This has been the product of several work sessions. Mr. Roger Murray is here tonight to ex p lain in detail this resolution . Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, June 20 2016 at 6:00 pm Page 49 of 49 Roger Murray This resolution calls for election on November 8, 2016 to decide the question whether or not the general obligation bond should be issued. We set forth a principal amortization schedule to be payable between 2019 and 203 7. The resolution calls for the publication of the call of the election and the notice of the election to give all citizens plenty of opportunity to be informed of what they are voting on . It also requests that the Board of Elections join in the call of the election as required by law. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 16-144. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6 -0 ). Councilmember Mohrig was not available for the vote. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS STAFF REPORTS ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 16-145) Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 12:30 a .m. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Date Approved: October 3, 2016 Joe Lockwood , Mayor