HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 05/15/2017 - MINS 05 15 17 REG (Migrated from Optiview)I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page I of39
Thi s summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, m edia , and staff It is not
th e intent to tran s cribe 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 M eeting proceedings. Official Meetings ar e audio and video rec orded.
The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on May 15,
2017 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Jason Howard , Stonecreek Church , Milton , Georgia
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Thurman , Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember
Lusk , Councilmember Hewitt, Councilmember Longoria and Councilrnember Mohrig.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by Mayo r J oe Lockwood)
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
(Agenda Item No. 17-106)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Meeting Agenda w ith the
following changes :
• Move Agenda Item Numbers 17-085 and 17-086 , the two zoning items from U nfinished
Business , to the Zoning Agenda.
• Move Agenda Item umbers 17-134 , "Greenspace Advisory Member Appointments " and
17-135 , "BZA Nomination" to after the Consent Agenda.
• Move Agenda Item umbers 17-130 , "General Ob li gation Bond Resolution " and 17-133 ,
"North Fulton Community Improvement District" to after the BZA omination after the
Consent Agenda.
Regular Meeti ng of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 2 of39
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
PUBLIC COMMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of the April 24 , 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No.17-119)
(Su di e Gordon, C ity Clerk)
2. Approval of the May 1, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 17-120)
(S udie Gordon, C ity Clerk)
3 . Approval of the Financial Statements and Investment Report for the
Period Ending April 2017.
(Agenda Item No. 17-121)
(Bern adett e Harvill, Fin an ce Director)
4. Approval of a Work Order between the City of Milton and VC3 , Inc . for
New and Replacement Servers at City Hall.
(Agenda Item No. 17-122)
(David Frizzell, IT Mana ger)
5. Approval of the First Extension of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Provision of Animal Control Services between the City of Milton and
Fulton County.
(Agenda Item No. 17-123)
(Ken J arrard, C ity Attorn ey)
6. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement for the Milton Downtown
Wayfinding Signage Project between the City of Milton and CIB International , Inc . d/b/a
CanAm Signs and Imaging.
(Agenda Item No. 17-124)
(Kathleen Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Director)
I
I
I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 3 of 39
7. Approval of a Resolution and Agreement for Transportation Enhancement
Activities with the Georgia Department of Transportation and Authorizing
Related Procurement Actions .
RESOLUTION NO. 17-05-430
(Agenda Item No. 17-125)
(Carter Lu cas, Assistant City Manager)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember
Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousl y (7-0).
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
l. Proclamation Recognizing Memorial Day 2017.
(Bill Lusk, Co un cilm emb er)
FIRST PRESENTATION
1. Consideration ofT17-02NC17-04 -12910 Highway 9 by Pinnacle Towers , LLC -To
Remo ve Existing 180 Foot Wireless Communications Tower and Replace with a New
180 Foot Wireless Communication Tower and Shift 14 Feet to the North and Request
Variance to Reduce Tower Setback from 270 Feet to 165 Feet [Section 54-6(d)(2)].
(Agenda Item No . 17-126)
(Kathleen Field, Co mmunity Develop ment Direc tor)
2. Consideration of an Amendment to Ordinance No. 17-04-307 , Creating the Milton
Greenspace Advisory Committee (MGAC) [Number of Members].
(Agenda Item No. 17-127)
(Ken Jarrard, C ity A tt orn ey)
3. Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend Appendix A , Parks and
Recreation Fees and Other Charges, Chapter 34, Section 24 of the Milton
City Code.
(Agenda Item No. 17-128)
(Jim Cregge, Parks and Recreati on Director)
4. Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend Appendix A Related to Chapter 4 , Alcoholic
Beverages of the Code of the City of Milton , Georgia.
(Agenda Item No . 17-129)
(Sarah laDart, Economic Develop men t Manage1)
Re g ular Meetin g of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
P age 4 of39
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the First Presentation Items .
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
PUBLIC HEARING (No ne)
The following Agenda Items were moved to the Zoning Agenda by Motion and Vote during
Approval of Meeting Agenda:
ZONING AGENDA
1. Consideration of ZMl 7-02NC17-02 -980 Birmingham Road zoned C-1 and AG-1 by
The Contineo Group to modify condition 2 .a . (2004Z-0043) to modify site plan for
additional parking and move dumpster pad and a concurrent variance to allow parking
past the building (Sec. 64-1323(a).
ORDINANCE NO. 17-05-317
(Agenda Item No. 17-085)
(Firs t Pres entation at April IO , 2017 R egular City Council Mee tin g)
(Deferred at th e April 24, 201 7 R egular City Co uncil Mee tin g)
(Kath leen F ield, Co mmu nity D evelopment Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Good evening Mayor and members of the City Council. You have in front of you the subject site .
The current zoning is C-1. The applicant is requesting to modify condition 2a which is a rezoning
petition 2004Z-043 to modi fy the site plan for additional parking and to move the dumpster pad.
Also , a concurrent variance to allow parking past the building under section 64-1323(a). Staff
recommend s withdrawal of this item.
Mayor and City Council deferred this item on April 24, 2017 to the May 15 , 2017 regular city
council meeting based on the public notice sign not being placed in the correct location. That
deficienc y has now been corrected.
This is the revised site plan submitted on May 12 , 2017. I have some pictures showing the area
under application. It shows a view of the location and opposing driveway. You are looking north
with the Village Green to the left and the Publix behind . A v iew from the internal driveway into
the Village Green looking west where the proposed driveway would be located . Additional view
of the Village Green existing driveway looking west. The dumpster area will be removed and
replaced wit h a potential new dri veway. A view of the impacted parking lot to be reconfigured.
History and background: The subject site was rezoned from C-1 (Community Business) and AG-
1 (Agricultural) on
November 3, 2004 by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. This site is one corner of three
corners of the Birmingham Crossroads that was zoned pursuant to RZ04-116 (subject site) and
RZ04-43 (n ortheast and southeast corners zoned C-1 Conditional).
The final conditions approved for all three quadrants were derived from numerous meetings
between the original developer, AG Armstrong an d the community using the
I
I
I
I
I
I
Re gu lar Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , Ma y 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Pa ge 5 of39
Birmingham Crossroads Plan (Amending the 2015 North Fulton Comprehensive Plan) which was
approved by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners on March 3, 2004. In addition , the
Birmingham Crossroads of the Northwest Fulton Overlay District was approved on March 3, 2004.
This newly created overlay also guided the ultimate outcome of what was approved for the three
quadrants of Birmingham Crossroads.
The central premise of both the Plan and the Overlay was that the Birmingham
Crossroads should be a neighborhood node consisting of 27.l acres which at that time
recommended up to 100 ,000 square feet of commercial uses , up to 100,000 square feet of office
uses , and up to five (5) residential units per acre.
Since the time of the rezoning in 2004 , the northeast quadrant has been developed as approved.
The applicant is requesting to modify Condition 2a. to revise the site plan dated October
28, 2004 pursuant to 20042-043 with the revised site plan received on May 12 , 2017. The purpose
of the modification is to provide additional parking and to provide an additional acces s to the
internal driveway that accesses Birmingham Road. It is the applicant 's goal to provide easier
access to the businesses in the southwest portion of the site. To achieve this , the applicant proposes
to delete three parking spaces and add eight parking spaces for a net increase of five. In addition,
the dumpster will be relocated. This is accomplished by decreasing the village green area from
23 ,567 square feet to 21,941 square feet based on the revised site plan that was submitted on May
12 , 2017. This is a total decrease of 1,626. I want to break down for you all the square footage
requirements as it relates to the variance plans and overlays. As I mentioned , the requirements for
this northeast quadrant was per the Birmingham Crossroads Plan Overlay. And , in that plan and
the subsequent overlay this Village Green was required to be 13 ,000 square feet. The site plan
that was submitted under the plan for the overlay for the actual shopping center ; the site plan had
on it that the area shown was to be 18 ,2 16 square feet. Approximately, 5,000 square feet more
than what was required in the original plan overlay. When the existing Village Green was built,
however , it was built out at 23,667 square feet. We now have the modification to that number by
the recent application. They are proposing to change that to a total square footage of 21,94 7 square
feet. So , essentially, what they are requesting is the modification to 2(a) which is shown here
which is to change the site plans from the original one on October 28, 2004 to the new one
submitted on May 12 , 2017. That is essentially what this application is about. Staff notes that the
Birmingham Crossroads Overlay District requires Village Green in the northeast quadrant to be a
minimum of 13 ,000 square feet. With the proposed changes , the site plan provides for 21 ,941
square feet , therefore , the site remains in compliance with this requirement. Staff notes that the
applicant proposes to replace the trees to be removed as well as an additional four trees for a total
of eleven hardwood trees. Based on the reduction of the Village Green and the deletion of mature
hardwoods , staff proposes a condition to provide a minimum of two benches or picnic tables and
a trash receptacle in the Village Green area. In addition, the placement of the new trees on the site
shall be approved by the City Arborist. The design and placement of the outdoor furniture and
trash receptacle shall be approved by the Design Review Board. The placement of the proposed
new driveway meets Chapter 48 requirement of 100 feet from the Birmingham Road (A ctual
length is 110 feet.) and therefore provides sufficient distance from Birmingham Road for cars
entering and exiting the site based on the existing uses within the shopping center.
It is Staffs opinion that the proposed site plan modification does not negatively impact the existing
development and meets the intent of the Birmingham Crossroads Overlay. In addition , these
improvements may further enhance the usability of this quadrant of the Birmingham Crossroads.
Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Pa ge 6 of39
Therefore , Staff recommends Approval Conditional of ZMl 7-02 . Based on the location of the
proposed additional parking, it appears that it meets the requirement s of the Birmingham
Crossroads Overlay District which states "Parking lots shall be located behind and to the side of a
building." Therefore , Staff recommends that V C 17-02 be withdrawn.
Councilmember Lusk
The presentation on April 24, 2017 , the greenspace was calculated at 18 ,000 something square
feet.
Kathy Field
That is correct. And , we worked with our Public Works Director looking at that plan and we felt
that it was incorrectly measured and so we asked the applicant to re-measure and we also measured
and that is how we have come up with this new number which we feel is more accurate.
Councilmember Lusk
So , when this plat was recorded back in 2004 , it was stated that it w as 18 ,000 plus square feet. Is
th at correct?
Kathy Field
Yes , that was the number on the plat.
Councilmember Lusk
But, it is actually 23 ,000 square feet.
Carter Lucas
It is the way it was drawn so on the original plat the y had identified that the area was 18 ,216 square
feet. When you go back and look at what was actually built; it was a little bit bi gger than that. So ,
we measured it to the exact greenspace that is there today which is the number that is on the site
plan today.
Councilmember Longoria
On that question of greenspace , is that contiguous space ? Is it all one spot or are we counting this
spot here and another spot over there ?
Kathy Field
It is all contiguous .
PUBLIC COMMENT
Th e follo w in g indiv iduals submitted a public comment card:
Allen Gordon, 6003 Veterans Parkway, Suite 317 , Columbus , Georgia 31909
Ron Crump , Contineo Group , 3081 Holcomb Bridge Rd., Suite A-2, Norcross, GA 30071
Jason Lawson , Contineo Group , 3081 Holcomb Bridge Rd., Suite A-2 , Norcross , GA 30071
Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase , Milton , Georgia 30004
Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road , Milton, Georgia 30004
I
I
I
Re g ular Meetin g of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 7 of 39
I Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton , Georgia 30004
I
I
A ll en Go rdon
I am with Slate Asset Management and we are the owners of the shopping center located off of
Birmingham Road in Milton. We are seeking approval for this project. We bought the shopping
center roughly a year and a half ago and have had some challenges with leasing the property . In
particular, with this area of the shopping center. We currently have roughly 4 ,200 square feet of
vacancy. We have interested tenants and have letters of intent but the issue is parking and how to
access the space. We have 8-10 parking spaces now. This is parking for a shipping store , a
chiropractor, and a dentist. Those parking spaces are taken up by these tenants with no additional
parking spaces for prospective tenants. This is the main reason we are requesting this change is to
generate some more parking and make it easier to access those businesses from the main drive.
We are seeking your approval to add additional parking in hopes of leasing the vacant buildings
and generate some more economic activity for Milton.
R on Cru mp
I am with Contineo Group . Kathy did a great job. I would like to bring up the first slide that Kathy
showed. I want to just briefly talk about some of the greenspace because greenspace is one of the
main concerns. There is a lot of greens pace on this property; 44. 7% of the property is greens pace .
When you look at all of that greenspace and talk about the reduction we are asking for , we are only
asking for a .6% reduction in greenspace in the entire property. That brings it into perspective.
Other issues that Kathy mentioned , we do meet the code ordinance of the driveway distance.
Further, if it is not broken ; don 't fix it. We purchased this "as is." What we are proposing to do
is really a maintenance issue. And, even if you buy a house "as is " you don'tjust let it rot into the
ground. You maintain it. We don't want to see this shopping center go empty . We don 't want to
see tenants leave. This is a maintenance issue that is really required to bring this back into a grade
A shopping center that is going to really attract some great tenants. Traffic flow and safety; we
will work with staff and law enforcement. If there is something that we can add to the safety of
the area, we will certainly consider it and be willing to work with you throughout the process and
the life of the shopping center. We are here to be a member of the community and be a part of
Milton. This is really a hardship. We need this connection. The parking is causing a hardship for
the tenants and we feel that this is going to alleviate a lot of that pain they are feeling. We will
add the benches , the picnic tables , and trash receptacles to the Village Green area to make this an
inviting area. We want to energize the center. We are requesting approval of this request.
Coun cilm em be r T hu rman
My question is on the calculation of the amount of greenspace that is being removed. How do we
really know the exact amount of greenspace we will be losing?
Carte r L ucas
Staff attempted to figure out the exact square footage from the original configuration submitted in
2004. The new configuration is a little different square footage with around 27 ,000 square feet.
Reg ular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 8 o f 39
Councilmember Longoria
The applicant characterized this as being just a maintenance request and I find it hard for us to get
in the way of someone trying to maintain their property. Do you think that is a fair characterization
of this situation?
Kathy Field
When we talk about maintenance we talk about the maintenance of the buildings and the
maintenance of the economic viability of the property and that is really what this goes to. I don't
pretend to speak for the owner but I think there is an economic development function here .of how
to reuse some of these vacant stores that have been in existence for some time. Having the owner
relook at the circulation pattern and the greenspace which is affected by that is what we are talking
about.
Councilmember Longoria
Did the app licant provide you with any supporting data for his plans for what they wanted to do
with the property? In other words , on the surface what they are saying is that there is a parking
I
problem. But, there really isn 't a parking problem ; that is not the problem. The problem is a I
leasing problem. They can 't get people to lease a particular space because there is not parking
directly in front of it. So , this would seem to be aimed at solving a leasing problem. Did the
applicant gi ve you any data that supported the rat ional for putting in the cut through and adding
these parking spaces that revolved around the lack of parking spaces and the problems that we are
having with traffic circulation?
Kathy Field
As it related to the site that he is looking to lease. That is the reason given for the reconfiguration
of this site plan for this zoning modification.
Councilmember Longoria
Someone mentioned that the greenspace is suppo sed to be in a conservation easement. Do we
have an y evidence to support that ? Was that a requirement , and if so , how come it has not been
done ?
Kathy Field
We searched the records to look for that easement and this was originally done back in 2004 under
Fulton County and we could not find one. We have not done a legal search. We went online and
looked at the Fulton County easements and could not find one.
Councilmember Longoria
Is it listed as a requirement as part of the site plan or part of the zoning that was granted to do this I
work?
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 9 of39
Steve Krokoff
There is language in the original conditions regarding placing the park area in a conservation
easement. The park area is in a specific track that is located on the overall site plan; track one.
There is supposed to be some type of path that goes up through the middle of that greenspace on
the east side and that was designated as the park area throughout the entire 2004 process. There is
no mention of the Village Green in the conservation easement which is within track two on the
map. The green area that we are discussing was not included in the initial site plan. I can read it
to you verbatim. Section (1 )( d) -provide an executed copy of a deed of conservation easement
between the landowner and a third party which maintains the park in perpetuity prior to the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy for development. If you go back to the minutes of the
meeting , the park is the area that is in between septic fields one and two.
Carter Lucas
The ones I have highlighted in orange on that map are the three distinct tracks that have been
discussed. Track one and three are on the right and left and track two is in the middle.
Councilmember Thurman
And, it is track three on the right that you think was supposed to be in a conservation?
Carter Lucas
Tracks one and three.
Steve Krokoff
Actually, I am not showing that track three was supposed to be placed in there. I am showing the
park in track one; track one and three were supposed to be converted to AG-1 which they were. If
you look on the map , you will see an island of AG-1 and another was a C-1 zone.
Councilmember Thurman
They are septic fields so it is not like you can do a whole lot with them anyway.
Steve Krokoff
The only mention I was able to find regarding the conservation easement was the park.
Councilmember Longoria
So, as far as we can tell right now, the Village Green area is not under the requirement to be part
of an easement and so , therefore, it's current state is acceptable in terms of the development itself.
So , in other words, we don 't have to worry about putting that into an easement at some point and
then by virtue of the fact that it is in an easement we wouldn 't be having this discussion at all.
Steve Krokoff
Regular Meeti ng of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 10 of39
You wouldn 't be but absent other information that was not in the packet from 2004, if there is
other information that exists that would include the Village Green , obviously that would have an
impact but n othing in that packet, and it was a thick packet, it was all regarding the park.
Councilmember Longoria
So , Ken, obviously this pre-dates the city. What i s the responsibility of the city in this particular
case to make sure that this is attended to or is it addressed as it was required originally when the
parcel was developed .
City Attorney Jarrard
To the extent that there is a zoning condition that h as not been fulfilled yet, that upon becoming
aware of it, t he city needs to make sure it is complied with. The first step would be to find out
exactly what we believe is supposed to be in a conservation easement and upon determining that
then reach out to the property owner and have them dedicate it.
Councilmember Longoria
I have some questions for the developer. So , you heard my comments a little bit earlier. Can you
help me understand what problem you are really trying to solve here .
Allen Gordon
I think you hit the nail on the head . It is a leasing issue . It is a leasing issue because we actually
do all third party leases so this is the second leasing company I have hired to help us fill the
shopping center up. As they reach out to prospects , parking is the main issue that is coming up.
We do have a letter of intent with a company right now to operate 1,400 square feet. They are
willing to sign that letter of intent and proceed toward a lease if he can get more parking. That is
his concern. All of our prospects concerns are where are their customers going to park.
Councilmember Longoria
In the eighteen months since you have owned the property, has that space or the problematic spaces
been leased?
Allen Gordon
They have never been leased since we bought the property.
Councilmember Longoria
So , you were aware of this situation when you purchased the property that it was going to be a
challenge?
Allen Gordon
Correct. And, the feedback from our brokers is that parking is one of the main reasons why they
can 't lease those spaces.
Councilmember Longoria
I
I
I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page II of39
So , let's pretend for a second that you were able to put additional parking. I'm not trying to
challenge the analysis that you have done but I'm worried that allowing this change to go through
doesn 't really solve the problem . How do we know that this is going to solve the problem ?
A llen Gordon
It creates more parking and I think that essentiall y solves the problem for us as we are trying to
lease the center to potential prospects because now they wi ll see additional parking rather than one
or two spaces that are available now.
Councilmembe r Lon goria
When you bought the property , were you aware of any req u irements for conservation easements?
Allen Gordon
o.
Councilmembe r T hurman
How many spaces are actually vacant?
Allen Gordon
Three contiguous 1,400 square foot vacancies.
Councilmembe r Thurman
So, if yo u leased a ll three vacanc ies , you wo uld defi ni te ly need more parking spaces close by. It
looks like, from what we have been to ld, that the space that was supposed to be in a conservation
easement are just the two side parcels where the septic is . Is that correct? Would you be willing
to also put the rest of the Village Green in a conservation easement so that all three parcels would
be in a co n servation easement?
Allen Gordon
If we can do this project ; absolutely.
Councilmember Mohrig
If parking i s th e big issue , why do you want to have a new drive coming off of Birmingham
Highway?
Allen Gordon
It would make ease of access to those particular parking spaces . I don't know if it is an absolute
necessity but I think it wou ld he lp the flow of traffic .
Councilmembe r Lu s k
How many properties do you manage?
Allen Gordon
Reg ular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council
Monday, May 15 , 20 l 7 at 6 :00 pm
Page 12 o f 39
We own 75 in the United States. We own 7 in the Atlanta Metro Area.
Councilmember Lusk
How long have you been in the industry?
Allen Gordon
I have been with this company for 4 years and I have been in commercial real estate for 10 years
now.
Councilmember Lusk
In your other 75 properties in the United States have you run into a similar situation like this which
has created an economic disadvantage?
Allen Gordon
No .
Councilmember Lusk
The existing access behind the buildings comes off the western most entrance to the development
and you make a right tum heading east bound, I didn't count the number of handicap parking
spaces.
Allen Gordon
There are two currently there.
Councilmember Lusk
One is van accessible which is the one closest to th e dumpster pad. That seems like a bad idea to
me . I don 't know how anyone could navigate around that. If this gets approved , how many of the
new parking places will be handicap accessible?
Allen Gordon
We plan to keep the number at two.
Councilmember Lusk
So , you will have better accessibility by putting this road through .
Allen Gordon
The two handicap places will be placed in front of the store rather than off to the side by the
dumpster.
Councilmember Hewitt
Would it be okay if you got the parking but didn 't get the curb cut?
Allen Gordon
I
I
I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 13 of39
I would love to have the parking and if we didn't have the curb cut for easy access it wouldn 't be
the end of the world but it would certainly help us.
C ouncilm e mb er Hew it t
What about sliding the dumpster to the west to tuck them in . Is that a possibility?
A ll en Go rd on
I think that would still impact parking.
M ayo r L oc kwoo d
In listening to everyone, we are all passionate about greenspace. This shopping center has always
had some issues. Eight or nine years ago I offered to meet with the owners to talk with them and
asked them what they thought would make the center better. They were surprised the city reached
out to them but they never responded to us. Greenspace is a big quality of life in Milton but
accessible services is also a part of quality of life to our citizens that needs to be considered. We
have heard that there is plenty of parking but some stores may be using more than others. I think
if this decision does not have a huge impact on our greenspace it could be good for our citizens .
Councilmemb e r Kun z
It is an important shopping plaza for many people in the northern part of the city. We want it to
continue to be an economically viable part of our city. I called Carter about the right out only and
I can see how that would work. There is greenspace but the trees are dead and the owner has
agreed to add eleven trees. In talking with the bu siness owners that are there , you do a great service
for the people in that area. They have all been for this and everyone wants to see success in the
center. I think this needs to be done with the staff recommended conditions and a right out only
option on that road.
Co uncilm emb er Mo hrig
Carter, can you talk about the traffic flow in that area and any safety issues there may be by adding
another turn in there .
Cart er L uc as
The internal drive meets the requirements. The way our requirements are set up , the parking has
to be 100 feet from the travel lane on Birmingham Road so the location meets the current standards.
Co un cilm e mb e r Mo hri g
Also , can we clear up the square footage question on greenspace and whether or not there ever was
anything dictating the conservation easement?
Steve Krokoff
There is another piece that existed in 2004 . It is not part of the zoning conditions. It is a zoning
support agreement which was entered into between AG Armstrong and two of the adjacent
landowners at which point they discussed certain parts that would be indigenous as to what would
be incorporated into the easement. So , Ken and I are focusing on what impact does the zoning
Re g ular Meeting of th e Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Pa ge 14 of 39
support agreement, which is not signed by the county, between AG Armstrong and two neighbors
and what impact does that have on the mention of the park.
Mayor Lockwood
Ken , is this an opportunity where the property owner now, they said they would do an easement
on that if thi s was approved, could something be done contingent on that?
City Attorney Jarrard
It could be . This would be a good time to clean this up to the extent there was some type of third
party conservation easement that were not entered into. We might want to give some consideration
as well to the notion that there is this zoning support agreement. I seem to recall the last t ime this
came up years ago , it wasn 't on this parcel , it involved four different parts of the intersection up
there but with respect to this separate zoning agreement and whether we needed to alert the
individuals because it is binding to us but it is clear to me by the zoning conditions that there was
at least some attempt to bring some of these protections into the actual zoning when it was done.
And , the city manager and I were discussing whet her some of the zoning conditions can only be
understood by cross-referencing them against this private agreement. And , that is probably what
was intended in 2004 and didn 't get perfected quite as nicely as we would have liked . This stuff
should have been put in a conservation easement p r ior to the certificate of occupancy being issued.
Yes , this w ould be a really nice time to go ahead and clean this up and we may want to let the
I
pri vate indi v iduals who are the beneficiaries of this agreement know what is going on because they I
were intended to be protected b y this .
Councilmember Hewitt
This might not necessarily be our mess to clean up . It is not included in the separate support
agreement.
Councilmember Thurman
And , the separate support agreement was not a condition of the zoning.
City Attorney Jarrard
In th e short time I have had to look through this , I do not see it in the zoning conditions .
Councilmember Thurman
U sually, the separate support agreements are put in as a condition of the zoning.
City Attorney Jarrard
There is a lot of cross-referencing of the language but I don 't see where it states this zoning is
subject to every letter of this agreement.
Councilmember Longoria
So , how does that impact our zoning? If it is not referenced in the zoning, not referenced as part
of the deed or something like that then how would we even know to apply anything and in which I
cases to apply it ?
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monda y, May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 15 of39
City Attorney Jarrard
At some point, we have talked about what does the c ity do now that we are aware that there were
supposed to be conservation easements protecting the property , and they are not based upon the
preliminary title work that has been done by staff, I think we have an obligation to make that
happen now becau se i t is part of th e zo ning condition . Th e issue t h at the city manager and I were
trying to address was what precise property is supposed to be in the conservation easement whether
it is just those areas that Carter was alluding to that are between the septic fields , that appears to
be fair ly clear the case , but what about the Vi ll age Green area? Is that a lso supposed to be in the
conservation easement and in the five minutes I have had to look at this , I cannot answer that
question.
Councilmemb e r Thurman
But, we can make it a condition of the zoning modification now if we wanted to.
City Attorney Jarrard
That is correct. So , when you do a zoning condition mod ification , not only do you have the ability
to modify the conditions but yo u also have th e abi li ty to further tweak the zoning as a whole to
mitigate any adverse impact on third parties.
Councilmember Hewitt
But , we don 't have any authority to tweak this third party agreement.
Ci ty Attorney Jarrard
Correct.
Councilmemb e r Hewitt
Does the third party have the obligation to reach out to these people because they could get all of
this in play and those people could find out about it and they could have a bigger issue on their
hands.
Ci ty A ttorney Jarrard
The last time this situation occurred , we asked the appl icant to reach ou t. At the end of the day , it
is a private contractual right between the developer and the third parties but we thought it was
better practice of government to ask that they were at least mindful of what was occurring.
Ma y or Loc kwo od
Could th at be something that could be contingent?
Ci ty Attorn ey Jarrard
Correct.
Motion and V ote : Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No . 17-085 with the
fo ll owing staff recommendations:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 16 of39
3. To the owner 's agreement to the following site development considerations:
g. There shall be a minimum of eleven trees. The type of trees planted within the area of
construction is depicted on the site plan received on April 10, 2017 and within the "Village
Green" in the northeast quadrant and shall be approved by the City Arborist.
h. Provide a "right only" allowed for a new driveway as depicted on Revised Site Plan
received by the Community Development Department on April 10, 2017.
i. Require a conservation easement for any greenspace (including "Village Green")
outside of septic fields in tracts #1, #2, and #3 as referenced in the site plan dated 8/9/04
of RZ2004-043.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-3). Councilmember
Hewitt, Councilmember Longoria and Councilmember Mohrig were in opposition.
2. Consideration ofRZ17-02 -12800 , 12830 and 12850 Hopewell Road by Fuqua &
Associates -To Rezone from AG-1 (Agricultural) to R-4A (Single Family Dwelling) to
Develop 17 Single Family Lots on 14.6 Ac res at a Density of 1.16 Units per Acre.
ORDINANCE NO. 17-05-318
(Agenda Item No. 17-086)
(Firs t Pr ese ntation at April I 0, 2017 Regular City Co un cil M ee tin g)
(Deferred at th e April 24, 20 17 Regular City Coun cil Mee tin g)
(Kathlee n Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Direc tor)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
This is the parcel outlined in red in front of you and some pictures showing the subject site. The
request is to rezone from AG-1 to R-4A on 14.6 acres in order to develop 16 single family homes
at a density of 1.09 units per acre. This is one home less than what was previously submitted to
us. The 2035 comprehensive land map indicates agricultural equestrian estate residential for this
site. The current zoning is AG-1 and the future land use map shows the AEE on this site. In terms
of history , the planning commission on March 22 , 2017 recommended denial 6-0 based on the fact
that the development is inconsistent with the 2035 comprehensive plan map. The Mayor and City
Council deferred the item on April 24 , 2017 until tonight in order to allow the applicant to revise
the site plan which he has done. This shows the revised site plan with 16 lots with a common area
to preserve the trees which is located on the top left-hand comer of this site plan. The CZIM
meeting was held on February 28 , 2017 and there were 15 people in attendance. It was stated at
the time that the proposal was inconsistent with the 2035 future land map and that there would be
an increase in traffic and that it may impact future development adjacent to the Brookshade
I
I
I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , Ma y 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 17 of39
subdivision. The public participation meeting was held by the applicant on February 24, 2017 and
there were three people in attendance . They stated that it was too dense , the rear setbacks were
too small, and the separation of the homes and the size of the home was an issue . The applicant
changed the site plan with larger setbacks, separation of homes , and clarified size of homes . The
DRB held a meeting on March 7 , 2017 and they questioned if the lots that included the stream
buffer were large enough to accommodate a swimming pool without any variances in the future.
They also asked if the large specimen trees could be saved. In terms of the Board of Education,
the total impact of 16 single family lots; the estimated number of additional students would be
anywhere from 5-18. The proposed development based on the applicant 's revised site plan
submitted to the Community Development Department on May 10 , 2017 , staff offers the following
considerations:
a) Minimum front yard -35 feet
b) Minimum side yard as follows:
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
i. Adjacent to interior line: 7 feet
11. Adjacent to street: 20 feet
111. 25 feet between homes
Minimum rear yard -50 feet
Minimum lot area as follows :
1. 15 ,000 sq. feet.
ii. 1 acre adjacent to Hopewell Road
Minimum lot width shall be 85 feet
Minimum lot frontage shall be 35 feet adjoining a street.
Minimum heated floor area shall be as follows:
1. For one story -3 ,000 square feet
11. For two story -4 ,000 square feet
h) Lots 1 and 16 (adjacent to Hopewell Road) shall be incompliance with the Rural
Viewshed pursuant to Sec. 64 -416(k).
In addition, to the owner 's agreement to abide by the following requirements , dedication, and
improvements:
a) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton prior to the approval of a Certificate of
Occupancy, sufficient land as necessary to provide the following :
1. All necessary right-of-way and easements for the proposed future
construction of the Milton Trail along entire property frontage Hopewell
Road
11. All necessary right of way and easements for the future construction of
tum lanes , even if tum lanes are not warranted
Regular Meet ing of the Milton C ity Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 18 of39
b) Provide a minimum 20 foot wide cross-access easement free of any structures or above
ground utilities for pedestrian inter-parcel access on the north property line as approved
by the City of Milton Public Works Department.
c) Access to the site shall be subject to the approval of City of Milton Department of Public
Works, prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit, Subdivision Plat or Certificate
of Occupancy (whichever comes first). Entrance(s) shall conform to Chapter 48 Streets ,
Sidewalks and Othe r Public Places of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances , or be
reconstructed to meet such criteria as required by the Department of Public Works.
d) A stormwater management concept plan shall be submitted and
approved by Milton Public Works Department prior to submission of land
disturbance applicati on.
The applicant has provided open space in the rear to preserve three specimen trees and recompense
will be required for any impacted or removed trees on the site. The Intergovernmental Agreement
for the Extraterritorial Provision of Sewer Service with Fulton County and the associated map
indicates that sewer service infrastructure was fu ll y installed prior to the date of the agreement.
This recognition shall not be construed as allowing new sewer connections within this area and
new sewer service shall not be authorized within such areas.
I
The proposed 16 lot subdivision consists of lots between 16,566 and 24 ,930 square fee t in size. I
There are one acre lots that abut Hopewell Road. To the north is Vickery Crest subdivision which
has developed lots between 15 ,000 and 20 ,000 square feet in size adjacent to the subject site with
the average house size of 3 ,800 square feet. To the east, is Glenhaven Subdivision zoned T-3
(Transect Zone) developed with large common areas along Hopewell Road and minimum 5,000
square foot lots. And , further to the north and northwest of Vickery Crest is Brookshade
subdivision zoned R2A and R3A , respectively. They include lots ranging from 2 ,800 square feet
to over an acre in size. The average house size is 3,800 square feet. The proposed development is
consistent with adjacent and nearby developments in the area. It is Staffs opinion that the proposed
development may adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property based
on the fact the 2035 Future Land Use Plan Map recommends that the subject site be developed
AEE (Agricultural, Equestrian and Estate Residential) which requires one unit per acre and one
acre lots . The subject site may have a reasonable use as it is currently zoned AG-1 (Agricultural).
It is Staffs opinion that the proposal may cause a burden on existing streets and schools if
approved. The proposal is inconsistent with the land use plan policy which states that 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. The proposed development is inconsistent with
the plan map recommendation of AEE which requires a minimum of one acre lots. Based on the
number and size of specimen trees to be removed , it is Staffs opinion that the proposed use may
be environmentally adverse to the natural resources , environment and citizens of the city. The
proposed 16 lot single family subdivision is inconsistent with the City of Milton's 2035
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for "Agricultural , Equestrian, and Estate Residential".
Therefore, Staff recommends DENIAL ofRZ17-02 to rezone from AG-l(Agricultural) to R-4A I
(Single Family Residential). A set of Recommended Conditions are included if the Mayor and City
Council chooses to approve this petition.
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 19 of39
If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, the rezoning of property located on
Hopewell Road it should be approved for R-4A (Single Family Residential) CONDITIONAL
subject to the owner's agreement to the following enumerated conditions.
To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
Single family detached dwellings and accessory uses and structures.
No more than 16 total dwelling units at a maximum density of 1.09 units per acre.
To the revised site plan received by the Community Development Department on May 10 , 2017.
All areas which are not part of an indi vidual lot and held in common shall be maintained by a
mandatory homeowners association.
1)
a)
b)
I.
11.
111.
c)
d)
I.
11.
e)
f)
g)
To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
Minimum front yard -3 5 feet
Minimum side yard as follows:
Adjacent to interior line: 7 feet
Adjacent to street: 20 feet
25 feet between homes
Minimum rear yard-50 feet
Minimum lot area as follows :
15,000 sq. feet.
1 acre adjacent to Hopewell Road
Minimum lot width shall be 85 feet
Minimum lot frontage shall be 35 feet adjoining a street.
Minimum heated floor area shall be as follows:
1. For one story -3 ,000 square feet
11. For two story -4 ,000 square feet
h) Lots 1 and 16 (adjacent to Hopewell Road) shall be incompliance with the Rural Viewshed
pursuant to Sec . 64-416(k).
4) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements , dedication , and
improvements:
d) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton prior to the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy,
sufficient land as necessary to provide the following:
11i. All necessary right-of-way and easements for the proposed future
construction of the Milton Trail along entire property frontage Hopewell
Road
lV. All necessary right of way and easements for the future construction of turn
lanes , even if turn lanes are not warranted
Regular Meeting of the Milton C ity Council
Mond ay, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 2 0 of 39
Provide a minimum 20 foot wide cross-access easement free of any structures or above ground
utilities for pedestrian inter-parcel access. Access to the site shall be subject to the approval of
City of Milton Department of Public Works , prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit.
A stormwater management concept plan shall be submitted and approved by Milton Public Works
Department. And , that is my presentation.
Mayor Lockwood
Are there an y questions from staff on this ?
Councilmember Lusk
Kathy , on the latest submittal , have they included any of the conditions that staff has
recommended ?
Kathy Field
I believe some have in term s of saving some of the trees .
Councilmember Lusk
You menti oned access to the property on the north property line . Could you explain that?
I
Kathy Field I
It is an inter-parcel access requirement on the north side for pedestrians. It is a 20 foot wide
unobstructed pathway. Thi s was suggested by the public works department.
Carter Lucas
It is just to maintain some pedestrian connectivity through the neighborhood.
Councilmember Lusk
So , would it come in at the end of Donegal Lane and connect with the sidewalk system.
Carter Lucas
One of the condition s is to provide sidewalks within this neighborhood as well.
Councilmember Thurman
My issue is the fact that we really do not have a future land use map. We really just have a land
use plan map that is based on current zoning. We got rid of all of the future part of it when we re-
did the map during the comprehensive plan a while ago. I know this was originall y reflected as
medium density and now it has gone to AEE. Can you address that ? What do we need to do if
the planning commission is making recommendations for denial and you are making
recommendations for denial based on a future map that is not really a future map but actually a
current map , anything you try to do is going to be ; any re-zonings are going to be automatically
recommended denial becau se an y changes would be recommended denial. So , that is why I am
reall y struggling with this . Is the recommendation for denial by both staff and the planning I
commissio n is based on the future land use map? If so , then any re-zonings will be recommended
denial.
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 21 of39
Kathy Field
Well , I can only speak to this one particular incident.
C ouncilm e mb e r T hurman
This re-zoning was medium density until this last map.
Kath y Field
That is correct. Previously , before the comprehensive p lan was updated this past fall , when it was
updated , there was a lot of discussion on this particular area about how it should be shown on the
future land use map. At that time , I was determined to follow the zoning that was in place which
was AG-1 which meant that for low density zoning, it would reflect the AEE designation. And,
there was a lot of discussion on that for the planning commission as well and then the council.
That is the most recent map that we have as part of the comprehensive plan and that is what it
shows and we certainly use that as part of our report to you.
C ouncilmemb e r M ohrig
I am looking at the most current plan that the applicant submitted , and Carter when you are saying
that there has to be inter-parcel connectivity, we usually do that if there are going to be sidewalks
along the front of the subdivision. Do you mandate that you have to have access between two
subdivisions that are unrelated?
Ca rt e r L uc as
ot in all cases. I think when we looked at this and there is no vehicular connectivity between the
two subdivisions , we have tried to do pedestrian connectivity with varying levels of success.
C ouncilmemb er M ohri g
When looking at the current map, I don't understand how you would do that because Lot 8 abuts
to Donegal Lane so you would have to go through someone 's property or you would have to
change the configuration.
Carte r L uc as
That is correct. There would have to be an easement put on someone 's property.
Co uncilm e mb er M ohri g
Kathy , we have different character areas in the future land use map. What is the verbiage that goes
along with this character area?
M ich ele Mcintos h-Ross
This character area is Milton Lakes which states it should remain residential even though there
may be pressure to expand on residential uses into stable residential areas. Redevelopment of the
area to include high density , multi-family residential uses should be minimized and new residential
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 22 of39
development should primarily match the mix of housing and types of styles of established
neighborhoods. Existing recreational amenities should be preserved and enhanced and have
connectivity to the proposed Milton Trail and that should be encouraged. This area would benefit
from the creation of pocket parks and would save the neighborhoods that lack such amenities.
Neighborhoods should have buffers separated from intense development types. It abuts to the
form based code near Highway 9. The Milton Lakes character area contains a divers ity of
residential lot sizes and future residential development should reflect an average of the current
density and housing patterns. Enhancement such as scenic corridors and overlays and bicycle and
pedestrian trail options may augment existing development and mitigate the effects of
development.
Councilmember Lusk
Kathy , you mentioned in your report the density of the surrounding neighborhoods. What about
other neighborhoods in the area?
Robyn MacDonald
Those numbers were included in the staff report on page 19 there is a map of the adjacent property
owners . Andover North is in the City of Alpharetta zoned Rl 5 which means a minimum of 15,000
square foot lots and that is to the south and west of the subject site.
Councilmember Lusk
What is to the immediate south of the south property?
Robyn MacDonald
To the south is undeveloped in the City of Alpharetta but it is already zoned R15 .
Councilmember Lusk
A couple of years ago we did a review of the existing last parcels mostly on the east side of town
that were accessible to sewer. And , there were at least six of them. Why wasn 't this one included
in that clean up exercise?
Kathy Field
This parcel does have access to sewer but it is not on the sewer map which is an agreement between
the city and Fulton County to allow sewer.
Councilmember Lusk
That is the point. We went through that exercise two or three years ago where we identified several
of these parcels , primarily on the east side of town, that had accessibility and we revised our IGA
at that time to cleanup that whole issue and apparently, this parcel was not included in that exercise .
Councilmember Thurman
It is actually not just this parcel but the developed neighborhoods adjacent to it are not included in
it either.
PUBLIC COMMENT
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of 39
I The following individuals submitted a public comment card:
I
I
Scott Reece, 13685 Highway 9 , Milton, Georgia 30004
Richard Wernick, 3366 Carventon Lane , Alpharetta, Georgia 30004
Jennifer Pino , 175 Oakhurst Leaf Drive, Mi lton , Georgia 30004
Rick Bak, 215 Oakhurst Leaf Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase , Milton, Georgia 30004
Julie Zahner Bailey , 255 Hickory Flat Road , Mi lton , Georgia 30004
Laura Bentley , 2500 Bethany Church Road , Milton, Georgia 30004
Pam Bak, 215 Oakhurst Leaf Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
Barbara Notch, 565 Oakleaf Way, Mi lton, Georgia 30004
Nancy and Peter Hernandez, 155 Oakhurst Leaf Drive , Milton , Georgia 30004
Linda Bates , 330 Oak Hill Court, Milton, Georgia 30004
Scott Reece , 13685 Highw ay 9, Milton , Georgia 30004
Mayor and members of the council. I am Scott Reece w ith Brwnbelow-Reece and Associates. I
am here tonight representing Fuqua and Associates and Steve and Peggy Fell and their application
to re-zone their property located at 12800 , 12830 , and 12850 Hopewell Road from AG-1 to R-4A.
You wi ll see on your screen the proposed site plan for the re-zoning . The area hatched in green is
approximately five acres which we are proposing to dedicate to perpetual greenspace to try to enact
some of the recently passed ordinances of the city as far as the creation of greenspace. You will
also notice the surrounding areas we wrote in the zonings and we highlighted the areas in ye llow
where we have addressed the staff and neighbor 's concerns about the R-4A zoning . We have
increased the lot sizes from 12 ,000 square feet , we have added 50 foot rear setbacks, we have put
the rural viewshed into effect and one acre lots; a ll thi ngs that are not required in R-4A that we
tried to do to satisfy staff and neighborhood suggestions. This is a very unique piece of property .
It is surrounded by developed neighborhoods on all sides except to the south which is zoned R15
in the City of Alpharetta but it is an undeveloped piece of property . The City of Milton zoning
map shows that the property is an island surrounded by medium and high residential zonings . The
City of Alpharetta with its city zoning map of R l 5. Adjacen t and surrounding neighborhoods have
been developed in this general area are medium and high density residential. You will notice
across the street is the form based code so the city drew an imaginary line down Hopewell Road ;
everything on the right on the east side is the form based code T3 with a density of 5,000 square
foot lots , eight per acre . The City of Milton Comprehensive update from 2016 , the verbiage states
that this area is a high density residential development, opportunities exist in Milton Lakes and
Bethany , outside of these areas , the majority of the city is reserved for low density residential
development. This property is in the Milton Lakes character area. I asked staff to give me a list
of those areas that are reserved for high density and they were unable to provide me with that
information. The Milton Lakes character area you will notice our site is in the most southern
portion of the city. It is bordered on two sides by the City of Alpharetta. Development guidelines;
the verbiage created by staff and approved by you, how the Milton Lakes character area should be
developed states that this area contains a diversity of residential lots sizes and future residential
development should reflect an average of the current diversity of densities and housing patterns.
In our general area, instead of averaging the 5,000 and the 15 ,000 , we went with 16 ,000 square
foot minimum lots so our smallest lot is bigger than any other lot in close proximity. The City of
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Pa ge 24 of39
Milton Future Land Use Plan 2030, which preceded us , had a residential designation ; low and
behold , it got changed to AG-1. This is the sewer map that we have discussed with staff. It does
not make any sense to me. Years ago when this was supposedly created, we were told that if it
was serviceable by gravity flow, it was sewer, if it was a pump station or a prime or lift , it was not
gravity flow so it was not sewer. Mandatory sewer connection ; as you are all aware, the health
department issues septic permits, the state manual and the Fulton County Health Department
manual gives mandatory sewer connections based upon proximity to sewer lines. We are not
proximate to a sewer line , we have a sewer line through the middle of our property. So , it is not
just on the property , it is located all the way through the property and we are surrounded on all
four sides by sewer. The Fulton County Health Department , when we asked them, they gave us
these comments and forms and they sent us an email back that states that the property would be
required to be tied to sanity sewer and, in fact, the response that I got back from the plat that was
forwarded stated that sanity sewer is immediately available for thi s property. Just to go back
through the re-zoning site plan. We made many changes to try to address staff comments and
neighbor comments so we have ended up with 16 lots , a pocket park, and a common area set aside
as a perpetual greenspace for one-third of the property , and lot sizes are greater than 16,000 square
feet. We hav e agreed to the rural viewshed and w e have one acre lots. We are only going to take
out one specimen tree during construction and there is another one that will ha ve a fair amount of
critical root disturbance but we are hoping that the Arborist with selective pruning and
management that we can save all but one. In summary, the app li cants feel that they have produced
a site plan and a re-zoning request that is completely consistent with the neighborhoods and the
surrounding area. They have tried to satisfy all reasonable requests for nei gh bors and staff to
create a product that will be an asset to the city. They have reduced yie ld as low as they can
economicall y go . They are preserving one-third of the property for perpetual greenspace. They
are maintaining the rural viewshed and one acre lots along Hopewell Road. The applicants have
retained counsel and submitted their letter of constitutional property rights. They absolutely feel
that this re-zoning site plan is the best and most consistent use for their property. They contend
that requiring them to have an agricultural use for their property and its location and surrounding
uses, that other properties destroy their property's value. They don 't understand why their property
is being treated differently than surrounding properties . Their plan is the best situation for all
concerned.
Richard Wernick, 3366 Carventon Lane, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004
I would like to highlight a few things. I was the developer of Vickery Crest. The road that dead-
ends was always intended that this be part of the Vickery Crest subdivision. We were not able to
acquire the property at that time because the applicant's daughter was li ving there and did not want
to sell. Now, the applicants have decided to sell. The rural viewshed ordinance was not in place
at the time that Vickery Crest was developed. So , Vickery Crest does not have to comply with the
rural viewshed where this new development will. There will be a five acre area of greenspace
which does not include the area on the frontage of the property which are the one acre lots. There
will be greenspace there which will not be disturbed which is not counted in the additional five
acres of greenspace within th e property. We comply with Milton Lakes. We have pointed out the
definition of the Milton Lakes character and the density. The density in this development would
be 1.09 units per acre which is well below the average density in the surrounding subdivisions
which are in the Milton Lakes character area. At least 88% of the specimen trees will be saved
I
I
I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 25 of39
and will probably end up being 94%. The pocket park will be part of this subdivision and the
connection that Carter was indicating will actually go through the pocket park. We accept all of
the staffs recommended conditions and we believe that this development meets all of the criteria
for the Milton Lakes area and we would appreciate your approval tonight.
Co uncilm e mb e r Lo n gori a
Have you been involved wi th this property for a while or can you tell me when you became
involved with this property?
S cott Reec e
Prior to the recession.
Co uncilmemb e r Lo n gori a
So , you have been around it a while. I would grant you that there is some inconsistencies within
our Comprehensive Land Use P lan when the map says one thing and the language says something
else. You pointed that out. But, what I can 't reconcile is the fact that you knew that the property
designation changed.
Scott Reec e
I was a lerted to that fact prior to the Planning Commission and City Council and I spoke in
opposition at both of those meetings. I attended one of the community meetings and the language
that I was told was that there were no anticipated changes to the map . This is the only property that
I can find that changed on the two maps. I find it troubling that this designation was changed and
the landowners of the property were not alerted to the change. If we are only going to use the map
to classify land use, then it is in effect a zoning map. And, if you down-zone someone without
going through legal avenues then you have deserted their constitutional rights . If you are only
going to use the map and disregard the plan, and you down -zoned this property without notifying
the property owners. When I contacted staff, I was told that there were no anticipated changes
from the 2030 map to the 2035 map. And , this was the only property that changed on the map.
Councilm e mb er Lo n gori a
I like what Karen said at the beginning of this ; if the future map represents what is currently there
and we suggest to everyone that we can 't change it , then every time the staff reviews a zoning
change , it is going to have to be denied. Every time the Planning Commission reviews a re-zoning
it will have to be denied. So , how do we deal with this?
Kath y F ield
I would really just like to talk about this particular parcel because anything else out there we really
have not identified it and I am really not prepared to comment on it. In terms of this property ,
there was a significant amount of discussion at the CPAC hearings , which is the Comprehensive
Plan and Action Committee , and they discussed this a lot and this was a very continuous discussion
with the neighbors and the members of the planning commission and other members of the CPAC
to discuss the future land use for this area. ow, in the past, it had shown as medium density but
the discussion was that the neighbors and stakeholders for this area really felt that it should be low
density. So, that is really how it showed; low density. Our zoning which reflects the policy of the
Re g ular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 2 6 of39
land use; low density is designated as AG-1 which is one unit per acre. So , it went through the
CP AC , Planning Commission, and now to the City Council. There was a long discussion with the
neighbors.
Councilmember Longoria
Were the landowners invited to the meetings? Were they made aware of the possible change to
the zoning designation of their land ?
Kathy Field
We do not do that. We advertise in the paper which is our standard procedure. We do not zero in
on particular landowners for discussion purposes.
Councilmember Longoria
Do you think there is a disconnect between what the map states and the language that identifies
Milton Lakes ?
Kathy Field
We talked about that and the CP AC said to leave the description alone; that they were fine with
the description of Milton Lakes .
I
Councilmember Thurman I
I can clarify that because I was on the CPAC. This was originally reflected as low density. But,
the question was ; what is low density? Low density is approximately one unit per acre. Then they
asked if it was a minimum of one acre lots or is it one unit per acre . So , they changed it from low
density; approximately one unit per acre , to AEE which is a one acre minimum . And , CPAC 's
comment was that they didn 't want to be the one to make a change on the map and if the council
wants to make a change , then the council can change it.
Councilmember Longoria
Which is an important issue here and that is that the map is a suggestion or recommendation and
it is not actual zoning action.
Kathy Field
That's right. It is a policy but it is a very detailed policy that speaks to each parcel as opposed to
the description of Milton Lakes which is a general description to try to capture the intent. But, the
specifics are shown on the future land use map and you can see each of the parcels . When you
look at a zoning , we go to the future land use map to see what it says ; it is the land use policy for
the city. Our zoning tries to reflect that policy and if there is a re-zoning we look to see if it is
consistent or not. And , that is the process that we use.
Councilmember Lusk
I keep going back to the sewer issue . If it was to remain one acre parcels, which would dictate the I
fact that you would have to have septic on those parcels , how do we justify having one acre lots in
here with septic fields right over the top of sewer?
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 27 of 39
Kathy Field
Well, that becomes a real issue and I will turn that question over to our attorney because we asked
him about the consistency of the fact that there was sewer available but it was not showing on our
IGA sewer agreement with Fulton County . So, we asked for some clarification so perhaps the
attorney could answer this question.
City Attorney Jarrard
The City of Milton has an IGA with Fulton County with respect to the provision of sewer. It
generally divides the city up into three basic areas; areas that do not have sewer and will
presumably never have sewer, areas that have sewer and have been identified as sewer but do not
allow sewer expansion or extension, and then there are areas that are otherwise identified as
available for sewer extension. My understanding is that this particular parcel fits the category
where there is sewer on the property but no new sewer connections are allowed.
Councilmember Lusk
And , the reason being that we didn 't clean this up three years ago when we ..... .
City Attorney Jarrard
Councilmember Lusk , my recollection is that these various designations on the sewer map were
the product of decided council action that they were much debated and this is where the council ,
again , I understood , came to on purpose. We have molded our IGA with Fulton County to the
point that Fulton County has basically said, pursuant to the contract the City of Milton will just
tell us where they want sewer and as long as we have the technical and capacity to serve it , we will
serve it. So , they have really given us the unilateral ability to modify the sewer map as the city
believes is appropriate. I hope that answers your question.
Councilmember Lusk
In trying to recollect whether or not this parcel came up during that discussion and if it was not
brought up at that time , what was the reason for that?
City Attorney Jarrard
I don 't know but to your poi nt; I was meeting with the City Manager before the meeting today , we
were actually going over th ose precise issues, and I am going to look at minutes of prior meetings
because, I will agree with you that the council has gone back a few times and picked off some
parcels that by all measures seem to make good sense that they needed to be coded the right way
because of their proximity to sewer. But, this one has not been changed.
Councilmember Lusk
This is probably one of the more obvious cases out there that we probably discussed at that point
in time . Going forward , the question is , I will ask it again , how will we justify keeping these as
one acre lots here that wou ld mandate that they have an individual septic system and probably
most of them would be located right over the top of an existing sanitary sewer.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 28 o f 39
Mayor Lockwood
As some of you know, there was quite a bit of debate, probably seven years ago or so , it was a hot
issue , and I don 't believe the intent, I know mine wasn 't, to go in and find every parcel that could
be sewered and allow sewer but it was more of the fact that the boundaries that everyone was
talking about had a little bit of a different story so at that time we tried to capture what had already
been sewered and things that had been committed or promised by the county to sewer and what
was expected to be sewered. I am positive, I know from my perspective, we did not reach out to
every parcel that possibly could be sewered. We drew the line so there was an ex pectation that we
could stick to.
City Attorney Jarrard
That makes sense and it could just be that this one did not get specifically identified and was missed
or it was never called out because there was no pre ssing need to think about it. If you remember,
there were a handful of situations where owners have come to us and said you mis sed me , you
should not have missed me , think about it again , and the council readdressed the property.
Mayor Lockwood
I think we were focused on density and zoning ve r sus sewer. People probably wouldn 't have a
problem with sewer in three acre lots if the density was controlled.
Councilmember Thurman
On the sewer maps , since we are discussing sewer, is there any differentiation between how these
three parcels are reflected , our Vickery Crest is , Brookshade or even Crooked Creek reflected on
the sewer m ap compared to how these parcels are r eflected ?
City Attorney Jarrard
My recollection is that the subdivisions you just named are contiguous or adjacent. I seem to recall
from looking at the map earlier today that they were all the same color.
Councilmember Hewitt
My memory of the sewer map is that I think there were fourteen parcels that were not currently
sewered that were looked at and there were some negotiations and a judge said that these nine,
seven , or something should be sewered and we adopted those . I don 't remember the specifics.
City Attorney Jarrard
That was Justice Fletcher and it was part of the Service Delivery Strategy negotiations that the
City of Milton was negotiating with Fulton County . And , that is right , that was sort of our
compromise position but even since then , our sewer IGA with Fulton County has been morphed
to now Fulton County has basicall y taken the position that I mentioned earlier which is that the
City of Milton just tells Fulton County where they want sewer and we will provide it if it is
available. Fulton County has given the city the authority it needs and, of course, the city has been
reluctant to add more sewered areas.
Councilmember Mohrig
I
I
I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 29 of 39
Ken, just a couple of questions. In looking at this , does a change in the 2035 comprehensive plan
versus the 2030 plan; does that change reflect a zoning designation?
City Attorney Jarrard
No , it does not, in fact, the case law is very clear that planning is not zoning. Planning is supposed
to be followed by the implementation of that plan by way of zoning. The Comprehensive Plan is
not just about zoning but a variety of things including infrastructure, capital works , etc. No , your
question t is asking if it is a change to the zoning map or some nature of zoning. It is not. It is a
resource to be reviewed when staff and the council are reviewing a request to change zoning. It is
one of many factors. If you look in your city code, there are about eight or nine factors that are to
be considered; conforming with the land use map is simply only one of them.
Councilmember Mohrig
Kathy , what was the designation from a zoning standpoint and now what is it?
Kathy Field
Right now, it is AG-1 and it has always been AG-1.
Councilmember Mohrig
Ken , do we have any legal obligation to notify landowners if we are specifically re-designating
their parcel on the Comprehensive Plan?
City Attorney Jarrard
No , there is no legal requirement.
Councilmember Kunz
Carter, can you tell us what happens when there is mandatory sewer connection which was argued
by a developer two weeks ago. If you have a sewer line that is underneath the property , but you
also have a statement by the ETD to connect to that within a certain distance, do they issue land
permits to allow for individual septic systems to be on top of the sewer system when they require
a connection?
Carter Lucas
I would just have to reiterate what our city attorney said and that is that we have an agreement with
Fulton County and it states that they do not have the ability to offer sewer unless the city approves
it.
Councilmember Kunz
So , if the city approves it then does that mean they would allow them to put community septic on
top of sewer? I'm trying to understand the forceful aspect of that.
Carter Lucas
The city would have to approve a connection to sewer in order for the county to be able to provide
that service to the property.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 30 of39
Councilmember Kunz
Is there a ri sk that this property would not be able to be developed at all if we did not allow a
connection to sewer?
City Attorney Jarrard
This goes back to the issue that we have discussed numerous times which is; who wins, the DHR
regulation or the Georgia constitution. The Georgia constitution and the supplemental powers
clause provides that one government cannot provide a governmental service to include utility
service to another jurisdiction without its permission. Which is why we divided up where Fulton
County provides service, not only in the orange which is existing sewer but also in the blue which
is extension of sewer. We were attempting to address the fact that Fulton County has lines in the
ground right now and we want to give them our permission for them to be providing that service
in the city. I believe that if someone went to Fulton DHR and said sewer is no t available because
the City of Milton has not authorized Fulton County to provide it on this parcel , I think that is a
stronger argument. Think of the correlation. If the DHR regulation was absolutely binding and
overruled the IGA clause, then every property up the line that is 200 feet away you could keep
leap frogging and leap frogging then the IGA would be irrelevant. That is my position. I am not
looking to control your zoning decisions, I am just telling you that I have historically and
consistently t aken the position that the IGA beats the DHR regulation.
I
Councilmember Lusk I
I think one of the primary conditions of tapping in is that they would be gravity fed and not forced.
What is in the ground is in the ground. I don 't think there is any intent to add to what is already
there.
Mayor Lockwood
The reality is that this plan, as submitted, would have to have sewer, correct? It is all about the
density.
Councilmember Thurman
To the north, Vickery Crest, it says it is CUP zoning and some of it is 18,000 square foot lots and
some are 15 ,000 square foot lots . What are the lots that are adjacent to this subdivision?
Robyn MacDonald
The lots that are immediately adjacent to are all around 15,000 square feet.
Councilmember Thurman
So, this is consistent with the subdivision to the north and less dense than the subdivision to the
south and east.
Councilmember Kunz
Are the Vickery Crest homes on sewer?
Robyn MacDonald
Yes. I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 31 of39
Councilmember Kunz
What is the density per acre in Vickery Crest?
Robyn MacDonald
There are two sections of Vi c kery Crest. It consists of minimum 18 ,000 square foot lots for some
and a minimum of 15,000 square foot lots for other areas of the subdivision . They tend to be way
lower than one acre.
Councilmember Longoria
lfwe assume that a zoning change was allowed, but you can't implement the zoning without access
to sewer, then you can 't put in, legally, that kind of density on septic .
City Attorney Jarrard
Correct.
Councilmember Longoria
So , does changing the zoning matter or is that just considered the first step? Are there multiple
steps that need to be contemplated or is it just one; the zoning change ?
Cify Attorney Jarrard
For purposes of this evening, just the land use consideration , but my recommendation would be
that if you approve this to a zoning designation that has a sewer requirement to it , then you should
go ahead and change the unilateral sewer map modification that we now have permission from
Fulton County to do .
Councilmember Thurman
For clarification, this property is the same color on that sewer map as the subdivisions adjacent to
it to the north and as Crooked Creek is so we are going to clean up more than just this property.
Mayor Lockwood
I have really struggled with this one and I certainly see the applicant 's argument and I know some
people who might say it is hypercritical with the development around there but I voted in fa v or of
the last application that was here tonight, not necessarily because of the owner/applicant, but I felt
it was generally favorable for the city. I strugg le with this application , and I certainly understand
the property owner 's position and what they would like to do , but I also see what is really important
to Milton right now is density , cars, traffic , etc. We hear about it all the time. It might not be
popular but I really have a hard time supporting this development going forward because of that.
Councilmember Longoria
There wasn 't a huge amount of strategy but into our zoning of property as AG-1 because AG-1
was inherited with the ground; it is what came with it. To tell you that we shouldn 't change our
zoning implies that there was some kind of strategy behind how we zoned AG-1 properties and
there wasn't. They just happened. Now, there has been a lot of strategy of how we zone other
properties that are not AG-1 ; that is where we spend all our time debating. When you look at this
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 32 of39
from the map , from the ground , when you drive through it , drive by it , and look at the whole area;
I don 't see that changing this zoning is changing the character of Milton Lakes. I would also argue
that there seems to be some discontinuity between how we describe Milton Lakes and how we
mapped Milton Lakes ; and particularly this parcel. So , I would agree with you , Joe , our goal in
Milton and certainly this council , is to make sure that we stay true to the character of the city and
protect our citizen 's property values. I don 't see th is as jeopardizing either one of those things.
Councilmember Thurman
Personally, I wonder whether or not it jeopardize s the surrounding homes more to not have this
property developed and it end up in a lawsuit that you don't know how it could end up being
developed. It seems it would be more beneficial to develop it more consistent with the surrounding
properties. I don 't know the answer to that but I just wonder whether or not long term it actually
hurts the other properties more if it ends up in a lawsuit and taking a year or two for a judge to
decide . How will that affect the adjacent properties when they don 't know what a judge may do?
City Attorney Jarrard
Councilmember Thurman, I understand your point. If a court were to rule against the government,
I
they will remand it back to the government with th e direction to try again with the only instruction I
to rezone it to a constitutional zoning.
Councilmember Lusk
About three years ago , we ruled on regulating the Monkey Farm on Hopewell Road. There was a
lot of oppos ition toward our decision to regulate it at that time. The alternative was not to regulate
it from a city 's standpoint and just depend on the owner to handle it as the state had mandated. So,
that was the only authorization he needed. However, the city decided to place some more
conditions on the property. With the property in question tonight , the applicant has agreed to all
of the staff recommended conditions and that may be the best situation at this time. I don 't know.
Time will tell. In studying this site plan, lot number thirteen is almost totally incongruous with
the rest of the lots , so I recommend that we drop that lot and reconfigure the lots on that side of
the property . It would give us less density than what has been recommended.
Mayor Lockwood
With all due respect to the property owners and de velopers , when you look at the city as a whole ,
the density, every less car and every less roof top will help. I cannot support this as it is now.
Councilmember Longoria
Scott, based on what Bill said , is that feasible?
Scott Reece
We have preliminary development costs and they are such that for this area we feel that sixteen I
lots is as low as we can go . We are going to have to put the same amount of infrastructure for
sixteen lots as we would for any other amount. We have not manipulated the lot sizes , we haven 't
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 33 of39
taken land from the common areas to change the lot sizes; we feel like the plan that we have put
forth has met all the recommendations of staff. They are all bui ldable rectangular shaped lots.
Respectfu ll y, this is the plan where we feel like we can survive economically and the best plan for
everyone concerned .
C ouncilm emb e r L on goria
So , you are willing to accept all of staff's recommended conditions?
Scott Reece
Yes.
Councilmemb e r H ew itt
Staffs original recommendation was to deny.
C ouncilmemb e r T hurman
Staffs recommendation was denial. Was it based primarily on the comprehensive land use plan
or was there another big factor in recommending denial? What was the denial based on?
Kath y Field
We reviewed the Standards of Review and the first question is whether or not the proposal will
permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property
and we felt that based on the site plan they would be able to develop the property from an economic
perspective . It is consistent with adjacent nearby developments in the area. It is staffs opinion
that the proposed development may adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or
nearby property based on the future land use map.
Councilmemb e r Thurma n
Can you expand on that because you said based strictly on the comprehensive land use map? Is it
adverse ly affecting the existing use or usabi lity of adjacent property or is the land use map
controlling the decision? I am confused because it sounds like the future land use map is
controlling everything.
Kath y Field
The consistency with the future land use map is one of the elements that we look at. Then, we
look at whether it causes a burden on streets and schools, does it have reasonable economic use as
it is currently zoned, and we found that it is inconsistent with the comprehensive land use policy.
C ouncilmemb e r T hurman
The situation seems to be that the words of the p lan say one thing but the map overrides all the
words on the plan.
Co uncilmemb e r L on goria
It seems to be a little confusing because it seems like you could logically get to a point that states
that this plan supports the surrounding area; not that it is not in support of the surrounding area.
Re g ular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Pa ge 34 of 39
Kathy Field
We looked at the number and size of the specimen trees and we felt that the proposal would be
environmentally adverse.
Councilmember Thurman
I thought they were only removing one or two specimen trees under the rev ised plan.
Kathy Field
Yes , that has changed somewhat since the original site plan was submitted . We have a whole host
of criteria that we look at to come to our conclusion.
Councilmember Mohrig
Vickery Crest and the adjacent homes to the north of this parcel that is under consideration, what
is the average heated space per home and what is the applicant agreeing to on their plan?
Robyn MacDonald
I reviewed the tax assessor information and looked at the lots adjacent to the proposed site plan
and the houses range from the smallest was 3 ,200 square feet and then there were about four or
I
five houses that were 3 ,900 -4 ,000 square feet. The applicant is stating that for one story the I
minimum would be 3 ,000 square feet and for two stories it would be 4 ,000 square feet.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-086 with
the following staff recommendation:
3(g)(i) For one story -3,200 square feet
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2. Mayor Lockwood and
Councilmember Hewitt were in opposition.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consideration of An Ordinance of the City of Milton, Georgia to Amend Chapter 4,
Alcoholic Beverages of the Code of the City of Milton, Georgia (Comprehensive
Amendments).
ORDINANCE NO. 17-05-316 I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 35 of39
(Agenda Item No. 17-111)
(Dis cusse d at April 1 7, 201 7 City Co un cil Work S ess ion)
(Fir s t Pr ese ntation at May /, 20 17 Regular C ity Co un c il Meeting)
(Sarah l a Dart , Eco nomic Deve lopm ent Mana ger)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No . 17-111.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
NEW BUSINESS
The following Agenda Item No. 17-130 was moved by Motion and Vote during Approval of
Meeting Agenda to after the Consent Agenda.
1. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of General Obligation
Bonds.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-05-421
(Agenda Item No. 17-130)
(Stacey In g li s, Assistant C ity Mana ger)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item o. 17-130.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
2. Consideration of a Resolution for the Downtown Milton/Crabapple Placemaking Plan.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-05-424
(Agenda Item No. 17-131)
(Mi chele Mcintos h-R oss, Prin cip al Pl ann e1)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-131 with the
following changes:
• Move item number one regarding valet parking to further down the priority list and make
it an option rather than a definite parking strategy.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Pa ge 36 of39
3 . Con sideration of a Resolution of the City of Milton, Georgia for a Release and In demni ty
Agreement in Connection with Police-Citizen Training Activities.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-05-425
(Agenda Item No. 17-132)
(Ri ch A ustin, Police Chief)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-132.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousl y (7-0).
The following Agenda Item No. 17-133 was moved by Motion and Vote during Approval of
Meeting Agenda to after the Consent Agenda.
4. Consideration of a Resolution of the City o f Milton, Georgia for Consent to the
Expansion of North Fulton Community Improvement District.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-05-426
(Agenda Item No. 17-133)
(S arah L aDart, Eco nomic Developm ent Manager)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No . 17-133.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0 ).
The following Agenda Item No. 17-134 was moved by Motion and Vote during Approval of
Meeting Agenda to after the Consent Agenda.
5. Consideration of a Resolution Appointing Members to the City of Milton
Greenspace Advisory Committee.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-05-427
(Agenda Item No. 17-134)
(Ken J arrard, City Att orn ey)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-134 by
appointing the following individuals to the Milton Greenspace Advisory Committee:
Robert Brannon
Robin Fricto n
Robin Gray
Curtis Mills
Marc Walley
I
I
I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 37 of39
Steve Wheeler
Colt Whittall
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimousl y (7-0).
6. Consideration of A Reso lution Appointing A Member to the City of Milton
Board of Zoning Appeals for District 3/Post 2.
RESOLUTION N0.17-05-428
(Agenda Item No. 17-135)
(Mayo r Joe Lockwood)
M oti o n a nd Vo te: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item o. 17-135 by
appointing D o n C urt to the Board of Zoning Appeals for District 3/Post 2. Councilmember
Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
7. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the City of Milton Parks and
Recreation Department Revised Facility and Fields Use Policy.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-05-429
(Agenda Item No. 17-136)
(Jim Cregge, Parks and Recreation Dir ec tor)
M oti o n and Vo te : Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 17-136 .
Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-1). Councilmember Kunz
was in opposition.
MAY OR AN D COUNC IL RE PORTS
ST AF F REPORTS
D e p a rtm e nt U pd a t es
1. Parks and Recreation
2. Police
3 . Community Development
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6 :00 pm
Page 38 of39
Jim Cregge, Parks and Recreation Director
A scout working on his Eagle Scout badge has completed three benches on the trail at Bell
Memorial Park and he partnered with Chuck Hollingsworth and today we received three plagues
that are in memory of Cindy Hollingsworth that will be placed on these benches . We are
planning to have a ceremony to recognize this accomplishment and thv memory of Cindy. The
spring sports have completed and summer camps and practices are beginning. We are getting
ready to start Camp Joyful Souls and we are excited about the leadership team we have selected.
The Golden Games have been a huge success and everyone seems to love having it at Bell
Memorial Park.
Rich Austin, Police Chief
We are celebrating national police week this week. We had the Explorer fundraiser which was
well attended. We also had the Back the Blue Blood Drive which was also very well attended.
We are also having a secure shredding event as well as an identity fraud seminar. In addition, we
will host a firearm safety seminar. We will have Coffee with a Cop at Mugs and will end all of
our events with our annual awards banquet.
Kathy Field, Community Development Director
We are working on the tree ordinance. We are also working on our unified development code.
I
We are excited that our vendor for the wayfinding signage in Crabapple has been approved and I
we can begin working with him . In addition, we are working on revising our noise ordinance.
We have also received two telecommunication applications that we are reviewing.
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 17-137)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 10:37 p.m.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Date Approved: June 5, 2017 I
I
I
I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, May 15 , 2017 at 6:00 pm
Page 39 of 39