The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes CC - 11/05/20181 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 1 of 38 This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice. Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded. The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on November 5, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION Sarah LaDart CALL TO ORDER Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Jamison, Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember Bentley, Councilmember Longoria and Councilmember Mohrig. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by Mayor Joe Lockwood) APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Add or remove items from the agenda) (Agenda Item No. 18-299) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following changes: • Under New Business, add "Consideration of a Resolution of the City of Milton Authorizing Change Order # 1 to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and InterDev, LLC for the Purchase of Hardware." • Move Item #4 under the Consent Agenda, "Approval of Contract Amendment between the City of Milton and Safebuilt Georgia, LLC." to the November 19, 2018 City Council Meeting Consent Agenda. Councilmember Jamison seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-0). Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 2 of 38 PUBLIC COMMENT (General) The following individual submitted a public comment card: Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the October 22, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes. (Agenda Item No. 18-300) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk) 2. Approval of a Contract with EPR Systems USA, Inc. for the Provision of a Records Management System for Milton Fire -Rescue. (Agenda Item No. 18-301) (Robert Edgar, Fire Chiefi 3. Approval of a Grant Application to the Department of Homeland Security for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Sponsored by FEMA. (Agenda Item No. 18-302) (Robert Edgar, Fire Chiefi 4. Approval of Contract Amendment between the City of Milton and Safebuilt Georgia, LLC. (Agenda Item No. 18-303) (Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager) 5. Approval of the following Subdivision Plat: Name of Development / Location Action Comments / Total Density # lots Acres 1. Opal Alice Waldroup LL 1143 Minor plat 2 lots 2.72 .74 Lots / acre 525 Cox Road (Agenda Item No. 18-304) (Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items except Item #4 which was removed and moved to the November 19, 2018 City Council Meeting by Motion and Vote under Approval of Meeting Agenda. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-0). d Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 3 of 38 REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation Recognizing Prematurity Awareness Day. (Mayor Joe Lockwood) 2. Proclamation Recognizing Veterans Day. (Mayor Joe Lockwood) 3. Proclamation Recognizing Native American History Month. (Mayor Joe Lockwood) 4. A Report on the Public Involvement Process for the Former Milton Country Club. (Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager) PUBLIC COMMENT The following individual submitted a public comment card for the First Presentation Item RZ18-13 / VC18-07: Sharon Mays, 15160 Highgrove Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 FIRST PRESENTATION 1. RZ18-13 / VC18-07 - 13090 Hopewell Road by Kai Chiang Su Dynasty to rezone from AG-I(Agricultural) to R-3A (Single Family) to develop 73 single family lots on 47.1145 acres at a density of 1.55 units per acre and a 2 part concurrent variance to 1) reduce the rural trail from 10 feet to 5.2 feet (Sec 48-674 (1)) and 2) to reduce the stream setback from 25 feet to 0 feet [Sec. 20-426 (2)] and to consider and take action on any necessary amendment to the City's sewer boundary. (Agenda Item No. 18-305) (Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager) 2. ZM18-03 - Park at Bethany- Northeast corner of Bethany Bend and Cogburn Road containing 9.09 acres in 2/2, Land Lot 832 by Stanley Martin Homes to request a Zoning Modification for the following: Request to modify conditions 3(g) and 3(h) of RZ13-16 to reduce the following setbacks: 1) A reduction of the side setback adjacent to the street on lots 15 and 23 from 10 feet to 8 feet (Condition 3g). 2) A reduction of the side setbacks on front entry lots 15 through 26 from 7 feet to 6 feet (Condition 3h). (Agenda Item No. 18-306) (Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jamison moved to approve the First Presentation Items. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-0). Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 4 of 38 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Occupational Tax Restructure. (Sarah LaDart, Economic Development Manager) ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION 1. Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Cindy Rodeo Collection, Inc., d/b/a Crabapple Cottage, 765 Mid Broadwell Road, Milton, Ga. 30004. (Agenda Item No. 18-307) (Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-307. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-0). PUBLIC COMMENT The following individuals submitted a public comment card for the Zoning Agenda Item: Tad Braswell, 5256 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30341 Kurt Nolte, 825 Dockbridge Way, Milton, Georgia 30004 Judy Burds, 1165 Bream Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 Marty Littleton, 13215 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Scott Reece, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004 Curtis Mills, 16355 Birmingham Hwy., Milton, Georgia 30004 Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 Joe Whitley, 1250 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Bill Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Sharon Mays, 15160 Highgrove Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 David Damiani, 3344 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 2200, Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Jennifer Pino, 175 Oakhurst Leaf Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 Martin Lock, 14140 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Larry Johnstone, 16095 Henderson Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 J Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 5 of 38 ZONING AGENDA 1. Consideration of ZM18-02/ VC18-08 - Located at the Southeast quadrant of Birmingham Hwy and Birmingham Road by OHC Birmingham LLC, 22.12 acres in 2/2, Land Lots 379, 380, 413, and 414. (1) Request to modify ZM 14-06 Condition 2.a. to the revised site plan received on September 18, 2018. (2) Request to modify ZM14-03 - To delete Condition 6.c., the reference to the village green. (3) A Concurrent Variance to delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback along the south property line of the MIX zoning district adjacent to AG-1 - Sec. 64-1142 (a) (3.) b. ORDINANCE NO.18-11-384 (Agenda Item No. 18-293) (First Presentation at October 22, 2018 City Council Meeting) (Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager) Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager Good evening, Mayor and Council. Tonight, we are looking at a zoning modification for the piece of property located on the southeast corner of Birmingham crossroads. This is a piece of property that is zoned MIX on a portion of it as well as AG-1 on the southern portion of the property. I am going to give you a brief history of the project so we are all on the same page of where we stand today as we move forward with this consideration. The zoning was originally adopted by Fulton County and rezoned from C1 and M1 to MIX. That was done in 2004 by Fulton County. Another modification was done by the city in 2014 in June and July of that year. So, when we look at the site plan that was originally done by Fulton County, it was very similar to what you will see today. You had MIX zoning which included townhomes, retail, office space, a daycare facility, Village Green, as well as single family AG-1 lots; eleven lots on the southern portion of the property. In June and July 2014, when we did our zoning modifications in the city, that site plan was modified, I won't go through all of the conditions, but I did want to give you some highlights of what the site plans represented with each of these zonings, but that site plan represented nine single family homes on the southern side of the property, the AG-1 part of the property, 29 townhomes in the MIX section, 22,250 square feet of office and retail space. That particular rezoning modification eliminated the need for the daycare so the original 10,000 square foot daycare that was shown on the Fulton County site plan was eliminated. It had 6.75 acres of open space which consisted predominantly of a community wastewater system that was identified on this site. That zoning eliminated that particular condition because the sewer is being provided by the plant by the Publix. The site plan associated with the zoning modifications was what you see here on the screen. So, you have the townhomes, the mix distribution of retail and office space across the northern portion of the site and the single family residential lots with the large open space in the southern portion of the property. So, back in April, a request came forward to provide a site plan modification and a concurrent variance request to eliminate the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 6 of 38 setback. It exists as part of the code between single family residential properties and non- residential and commercial property; potential uses within that MIX zone. At that time, there were ten single family lots, 24 single family home lots on MIX, 20,200 square feet of office and retail. There is the 13,000 square foot green and 2.1 acres of other identified open space throughout the property. Ultimately, that request came before you on April 23, 2018 and was denied. The code allows for a six month waiting period before it can come back before you, so the request was resubmitted after the six month waiting period. This is the site plan that was submitted in March 2018 and represents the same thing we have seen in the other site plans. As with all of the site plans that have been approved to date, there was never a 75 foot buffer shown. And, so as we moved through this process, even the Fulton County zoning never showed the 75 foot improvement setback, but as we moved through this process and got to the land disturbance permitting stage, the need for that was identified and that is one of the reasons it came back before you in March 2018 to try to eliminate that buffer that had never been shown before. So, once that zoning modification was denied, the applicant moved forward with the zoning plan and preliminary plat for the allowable uses under the conditions of zoning in the 2014 modification. That preliminary plat indicated not only the townhomes that were permitted and the single family home on the AG- 1 site, but this shows you the 75 foot buffer on the MIX zoned site. So, when you look at what was potentially available under the existing zoning conditions, they have eleven single family lots in the AG-1 portion and 30 townhome lots in the MIX. The zoning conditions allowed for more townhome lots than that, but it was limited by the sewer that is available on the Publix site. 10,000 square feet of office space and the required 2.21 acres of open space and the 13,000 square foot Village Green. As I mentioned, the 75 foot buffer and ten foot impervious setback were shown on the approved preliminary plat that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by Community Development in July 2018. So, after all of that, and after the six month timeframe had expired, the applicant had the desire to go back to the single family lots rather than the townhome lots in the MIX portion of the property. We believe that would be more consistent with the potential planning of the Birmingham Crossroads area. So, he submitted the plan, which in this case includes the ten single family lots on the AG-1 property which is the southern piece of the property, 25 single family homes within the MIX portion, 17,000 square feet of retail that is on Birmingham Highway, a little bit more open space, 2.3 acres of open space and the required 13,000 square foot village green. In addition to that, he has asked for two conditions; one condition to be modified and a concurrent variance. The condition to be modified is condition 6(c) which in this case is already required by code so it is not necessarily required as a condition of zoning. And, then the concurrent variance to delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot impervious setback. Here is the site plan that was submitted. In this particular site plan, the grey areas represent the open space associated with the plan. The storm water facility on the southwest corner on the AG-1 piece is an amenity to the site, an upgrade from what would be required under the standard code, it allows for a public park, and the conditions of zoning that are recommended with this provide some design guidance associated with the development of that to make sure it is an amenity as well as some trails around the property that would be open to the public. The project went to a CZIM meeting in October of 2018. The main comments were that the requested concurrent variance which is the deletion of the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback does not meet the development standards. They asked that the AG-1 portion of the property be developed with rural development standards, in other words, we encourage the use of no curb and gutter, things that are permitted under the code would be available to the 1 1 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 7 of 38 applicant if they choose to use those standards to develop the southern piece. And, there were comments regarding density and non-residential uses of the site and comments regarding the traffic on Birmingham Road. As we know from the past that GDOT is looking at a project at Birmingham and Birmingham. The current concept design for that is a roundabout to try and alleviate some issues that we have with traffic in that particular area. And, so when we look at the request for this, so the first request is basically the site plan modification which would delete original condition 2(A) replace it with our current conditions of 2(A); our current language with that and the current site plan that was submitted in October of this year. That represents the current site plan. To modify and delete the condition (C). This condition, as it was written allowed the Village Green to be 11,500 square feet adjacent to Birmingham Road and 1,500 square feet to be used internal to the site. We are recommending deletion of this particular condition to preserve the entire 13,000 square foot Village Green which would be required under the code. And, as it is shown on the site plan submitted. Then, finally, the concurrent variance regarding the 75 foot buffer and 10 foot improvement setback along the MIX and AG-1 site plan. This variance, while we considered it before, we wanted to bring forth some additional information regarding this variance. In particular, the requirements of 64-1142. Some of the things we would see as being unusual or extraordinary in this case that we wouldn't normally see associated with this request are that this particular piece of property is being developed under one plan of development. Typically, where you see these buffers you are going to see these buffers associated with a commercial or non -single family residential buffering up against existing single-family AG-1 properties. And, so the buffer is in place to provide that change in use between a proposed development and existing land use. In this particular case, you do not have that. You have a single plan of development which includes both the AG-1 piece and the MIX piece. So, you have one developer building the entire project under one common plan. The other issue we have is that this particular requirement is a buffer necessary for commercial and non -single family residential uses as they abut AG-1 or residential use property. In this case, because of the site plan that is being approved, you have single family abutting single family. And, even though the MIX zoning would allow for other types of uses on that piece of property, the site plan that this is being conditioned to, shows single family adjacent to single family. The only place that we would have commercial abutting this site would be on the very front portion of the property which is buffered by the storm water facility and the public park on that particular piece. There is no single family residential adjacent to the only commercial MIX on this particular piece. Then, the grey that you see on the site plan is open space. While not specifically identified as buffer, and it is on the AG-1 section, it does provide the same intent as the requirement for the buffer. So, given all that information, staff is recommending approval of the current variance to delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and ten foot improvement setback. So, in conclusion, the staff is recommending approval of the concurrent variance as well as the deletion of (C) and the approval of the site plan as submitted and that would be consistent with the amended conditions that are included in your packet. I will be happy to answer any specific questions you may have. Councilmember Longoria Carter, I am a little bit confused. What is the difference between the proposal that is being looked at tonight versus what we looked at back in May? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 8 of 38 Carter Lucas They are essentially the same, however, there are a few modifications from the greenspace. You have a little bit more greenspace. Councilmember Longoria Is the overall density the same? Would the number of homes be the same? Carter Lucas It is 25 single family homes versus 24 single family homes in the original submittal. There is less density as far as commercial office space. There is a little bit more greenspace. But, it is essentially the same plan that was previously reviewed. Councilmember Longoria I saw the plans as being the same. What has changed? Because the staff recommended denial originally. What is the thing that changed that changed staff s mind? Carter Lucas We wanted to look at the project as a whole. So, we wanted to bring forth not only the specific code requirements associated with the project but planning recommendations associated with it. And, so while the code tries to identify the vast majority of situations where a certain requirement may be necessary, so in this case the buffer standards, it cannot envision all site plans that may come forward. And, so when we look at not only the requirements, where that buffer is required; so specifically, in the code adjacent to non-commercial and non -single family commercial properties, that doesn't exist in this particular site plan except for the very front of the property. And, so we truly felt that there were conditions associated with this particular piece that needed to be taken into consideration as we looked at the variance particular to the 75 foot buffer that was not necessarily taken into consideration the last time we looked at this site plan. We wanted to bring forward a full picture that represented not only the legal requirements of the code but good planning practices as we saw them too. So, that you would have all the information necessary to make an informed decision. Councilmember Longoria I am all in favor of us making sure that whatever we approve that it is always in the best interest of the city. In terms of being the best product that can be offered for people who move to the city to buy. I am not interested in us approving plans that are second rate so that people buy a second rate product in the city. But, what was the change of mind, these conditions all existed before, you guys had the same opportunity to look at it before. I am trying to understand what process, did we follow a new process, did we change our process in terms of how we review. Did we scrutinize the details a little bit differently? What was it that caused the change in decision? I get the fact that you guys are looking at it and considering it differently now, but why? Why are you considering it differently? r, I Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 9 of 38 Carter Lucas Well, I don't think I have anything different than what I just explained but it really came down to the overall review of the property itself. And, how it fit into the intent of the Birmingham Crossroads Overlay. The ability from a planning perspective to provide probably a better product as a single family residential than as a townhome development. The ability to provide some open space and greenspace associated with the parks. The true intent of the buffer trying to separate a commercial use from a residential use that we don't have in this. Councilmember Longoria Right, and I see that as being a little bit interesting that we would require a buffer inside a property as part of the same development. I was going to save that question for a little later. I'm not trying to pick on you, Carter. Were you in charge of this particular process last time? Carter Lucas I was not the Community Development Director at that time. Councilmember Longoria So, that would be a difference. Carter Lucas Partly, yes. Councilmember Longoria Okay, again, I'm not trying to point out that we did something wrong and now we are trying to right it now or that we did it right then and trying to wrong it now. That is not my point. I just see that there has been what appears to be a pre -material change in our opinion without a material change in the evidence. Carter Lucas I think in the last presentation, Kathy tried to enumerate that in her discussion at the end while it wasn't necessarily part of the staff report, she did try to have that discussion at the end regarding good planning practices versus trying to adhere strictly to what the code states. Councilmember Longoria The only other question I have at this point is, if all the drawings don't show this buffer space, is there any possibility that people walked away from the meeting, whatever meeting it was ... 2004, 2014 or the last one, and thought for some reason looking at that, that a buffer space was not required? Carter Lucas I think you could go back all the way to 2004 and look at the plans that were approved through Fulton County and come to that same conclusion. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 10 of 38 Councilmember Longoria I would agree because most of the time we focus on what the drawing looks like and I know we say it is supposed to be representative in all the other zoning requirements need to fit the drawing, but it seems like there may have been some confusion. I am not trying to make up something, but it does seem a little bit difficult to understand. Carter Lucas Obviously, I can't go back and recreate what Fulton County may have thought at the time, but I did hear a concurrent variance regarding the buffer and deleted it on the east side of the property. But, the site plan that was approved and the site plans that have been approved through 2014 never indicated the buffer and there was never any consideration of the buffer. Councilmember Longoria Okay, thank you. Mayor Lockwood I know we have some public comment. I would like to say that I have had input from folks in the audience perspective. Why are we looking at this again? I will be the first to say that I voted "no" to support this variance last time. But, in the meantime, I have also gotten a lot of feedback from citizens that did not want townhomes and more density and more development there so, again that is why I am open to revisiting this and I am assuming the rest of the council is to. We have gotten some feedback, emails and whatnot, from citizens and they say please deny this variance or request because we don't want to see townhomes, or we don't want to see more density. It is kind of conflicting, so this is a good way to vette that out. But, at this point, if there are no specific questions, I will take public comment and then council will have plenty of time to weigh in with questions. PUBLIC HEARING Tad Braswell, Applicant, 5256 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30341 Just for clarification. We have presented this two different ways, so do we have the full ten minutes? Because last time we got two minutes. City Attorney Jarrard I have been under the impression that we are treating this as a public hearing. Is this public comment or a public hearing? Sudie Gordon, City Clerk Public hearing; ten minutes per side. Mayor Lockwood And, based on the number of comments, we will accommodate everybody. u Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 11 of 38 Tad Braswell Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to come back in front of you. And, I would say that the biggest change that came out of the last meeting in the ruling was really that the zoning conditions prevailed over the site plan. And, so that was sort of what caused us to come back through. You did a great job of presenting the site plan. I am not going to spend a lot of time on them. This was the first one. This is the one we had approved by the preliminary plat that was approved. The big things about this plan that you should take note about is there is an additional driveway on Birmingham Highway on this plan. It goes back to a traditional detention pond along Birmingham Highway and traditional screening. While we do meet the open space requirement, there is not a lot of useable open space in this plan. Those are some of the highlights with the two different plans. So, this is the plan you have before you today. If you look at it, there is a lot of useable open space; it is more all in one space. It is a better plan because it has better useable open space. The main reason we decided to come back through is in the two hearings that we had, the last two hearings, we had very little comment in the beginning and there were a lot of people behind us and everybody said they wanted less density and more open space which is what we were trying to provide. We came to the community meeting for the preliminary plat to be approved, everybody came up and said they wanted less density and more open space. And, so we felt it was worth one more shot to come back and try to give the community the less density and more open space that I think everybody is looking for. The open space is useable, and we only have the one driveway on Birmingham Highway is notable. I will go through some pictures. This is some three dimensional ariel views of what it will look like. You have the pond out there on the road. And, I think you should take note of the distance between the retail and the first AG-1 home and the open space in that park area, while it is not a 75 foot undisturbed buffer, it does create that buffer between the MIX property and the AG-1 property. So, to me, it lives up to the spirit of what that ordinance requires. Here are some more views of that. The tree protection replacement plan on this project is pretty severe. We are planting, I think it is a $200,000 budget for tree replacement. If you look at it, we are planting trees just about everywhere we can. But, again, if you look at the distance between the MIX and the AG-1 and the park and the buffer it creates; this is a view of the park. As you drive by it, this is a much better look for the community as they drive by. What they will see is a quality development. So, this is just some more views of the.....this again is part of the park area. This is very useable open space for people to come and run the dog and hang out. This is one of the comments made a couple of times before is that we didn't quite do our due diligence when we bought this property. We did get a letter from the staff that said that our current site plan met all the zoning requirements. That is what we had to have to close by. Staff at the time, in their defense, they had done the reviews and they thought they were, but we really thought we had done our due diligence with the site plan that we were proposing. But, I want to spend some time on now is really what we probably didn't spend enough time on last time and that is the variance criteria for getting a variance. The first one is, in granting this variance was it not in the intent and spirit of the ordinance? I believe that the way we positioned the parks and it does meet the spirit of the ordinance and I think that the site plan that we are asking to be approved meets the spirit of the previous zonings that have been done and presented to the community several times. And, it has gotten a lot of community support at certain times that it has been approved. The second one is, is there any detrimental special circumstances on this property? I think we have talked about it being developed all as one piece of property; having the buffer in Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 12 of 38 the middle of it makes it difficult. The other thing is that the two driveways; it gets rid of one of the driveways, the shape of it. I think that is a better situation. If you look at the buffer, where the buffer was supposed to be, the 75 foot buffer; right now, it consists mostly of privet. There are a couple of good trees in it but there is also a large ditch in it; it is an old farm ditch from I don't know how long ago, but it is probably six feet wide and six feet deep and it is sort of a dangerous situation. The trees along the road, when we do the road widening, will be cleared so it would be a strange buffer in the middle of a neighborhood. The third criteria is, is this going to be detrimental to the community? I think that the better development is not detrimental; it would be a benefit to the community. And, the fourth criteria is health, safety, and welfare; I think that the health and safety, less cars and less driveways; that is a better situation. Less density is something that the community is asking for and welfare; the single family homes will sell for more than what the townhomes would sell for and I think it is a better fit for the community. There was a lot of time spent on the 2014 zoning and the architecture of the homes. There are not any examples of townhomes in there, so I just wanted to go back through; this is some of what was proposed and agreed to. Many people in the community supported this plan back then and this is the architecture that was proposed and part of the conditions. We plan on building a similar product, so I just want to go through these. It is that good farmhouse look that we plan on continuing with. This is a product that is really not available up in this part of the county. I am not saying you need to redevelop every site but some product like this up in this area is required for diversification of home product. So, I will end it there. I think there are a few people that might be speaking then I will save the rest of my time for rebuttal. Thank you very much. Kurt Nolte, 825 Dockbridge Way, Milton, Georgia 30004 Mayor and Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you tonight. I look at all the development in Milton through the lens of at least preserving, if not improving our quality of life up here. This sums up pretty easily as more and better greenspace, less density, and of course, less traffic. We started looking at this proposal versus the existing or what has been approved that he could build. So, we really need to compare it to the last edition that was shot down. As far as greenspace, under the existing approved plan, it included a 75 foot buffer of mostly scrub trees along Birmingham Road. The new plan includes the same amount of square footage of greenspace in the form of a manicured park -like setting including a walking trail and pedestrian bridge. This change also allows for inter -parcel connectivity reducing one of the curb cuts coming out of Birmingham Highway. The existing approved plan includes a retention/weed pond. The new plan includes a lake with a water feature. We talk about less density. The existing approved plan includes, I have heard 30 and I have heard 33 townhomes, for a total of 41-44 residents. The new plan includes no townhomes and instead 25 single family homes for a total of 36 residences. The existing approved plan includes commercial on Birmingham Road. The new plan includes no commercial on Birmingham Road; less traffic. Assuming a family of four make four to six car trips, I am sure there are metrics for how many trips; I don't know what it is per home, but if we assume four to six car trips per day between school, work and other activities, so by reducing the total residencies by eight homes, we are actually reducing the total number of car trips on those roads, which we know are congested, by over 100 trips every single work day. I remember when the council voted on relocating Matilda's to the same intersection and a major concern of the opposition was additional cars that would be on these exact same roads on Friday and Saturday Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 13 of 38 evenings six times per month. Now, with the existing plan of this parcel, we are talking about over 100 car trips daily; mostly at peak times when people are heading out to work, school activities, and such. Bottom line, the new plan includes the same amount but better manicured greenspace, it eliminates commercial on Birmingham Road, it reduces traffic by more than 100 car trips every single work day, and perhaps, more importantly, it reduces density by either 8 or 11 fewer residences. We simply as a city cannot say no to everything and instead we should encourage better options like this one when it comes to better greenspace, less density, and fewer cars on our roads. Thank you. Judy Burds,1165 Bream Drive, Milton, GA 30004 I live approximately one mile from the proposed development. I support staff s recommendation for modifications with an additional suggestion. At a minimum, the construction of the southern most commercial building and its concrete parking lot, should be deferred until after a solution is in place for the Birmingham Crossroads traffic congestion. Until that time, which I understand may still be some time, the developer should be required to enhance the area to continue the park land just to the south. Having lived in the area for awhile, we are still trying to fill some of the commercial property around there so additional need is not eminent. My friends and I lament that there are no nearby options for downsizing while being able to live hear our current community. Townhomes are not attractive to me. A stand alone home on a small lot would be more attractive and less likely to attract transient renters. With the deferral of the commercial building as I iterated, I would request council approve this request. Martin Littleton,13215 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Thank you, Mayor and Council for the opportunity to speak. As most of you know, I have worked with just about everybody in the city and I have found our staff to be absolutely impeccable. I support this plan. It offers single family housing. It offers the ability for some of us to be able to downsize. And, most importantly, public opinion, sometimes we don't know always what is good for us and what is not. There are always two sides to every story. There is always a plus and always a negative. And, this one we could have townhouses, but we are going to have single family. I support that wholeheartedly and I support our staff and I support our council and I would appreciate the fact that you guys have paid attention to this. Thank you. Scott Reece,13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004 In tonight's proposal, the pros greatly outweigh the negatives. So, we have a reduction in density, we lose the townhomes and replace them with single family residences. As a lifetime resident of that area, I just do not think we are ready for townhomes in the Milton crossroads. So, the reduction in density, the greenspace, the single family residences versus the townhomes, it is really not hard for me to decide what the applicant is allowed in the prior approvals versus this proposal. To me, this site plan greatly outweighs the other site plan. So, when you compare the two, there is not a lot of thought that needs to go into that. The buffers were created to protect adjoining property owners not protect interior division lines. Anyone that buys in this project, will know what is proposed if approved based upon the site plan. Keeping that in mind, I think you should go with staff recommendation and approve the better of the two situations. This is going to stay the way it is now. It is going to be either this proposal or the other proposal. Thank you. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 14 of 38 Curtis Mills,16355 Birmingham Highway, Milton, GA 30004 I am here tonight to speak in support of this variance request. I was a member and officer of the Hopewell Alliance for the past 17-18 years and I have been actively involved in planning of the development that has occurred at the Birmingham Crossroads since that time. My house is just about a mile north on Birmingham Highway, so I am very committed to this area and have been watching it very closely. In 2014, when the modification hearing was heard, I spoke in favor. There was no 75 foot buffer in that plan and I did not think it was necessary. And, it was fitting with the theme of a pedestrian friendly; pedestrian oriented four corner solution. I always saw it as a Hamlet. We wanted walkability within the corners and across the corners. And, it never occurred to me, and I think many others before, that a buffer would be overlay. If this variance request is defeated, and I saw a version of a plan that was approved with the variance, with the detention pond, and with yet, another curb cut on Birmingham Highway, trisecting that corner, I think it will look terrible, it will be completely opposed to the intent of the Birmingham Crossroads Overlay, and take away a potential asset. In looking at staff s analysis and recommendations, I basically agree with all of the zoning variance conditions being met that they talked about. The variance does not offend the spirit or intend of the Birmingham Crossroads Overlay Zoning, it is pedestrian oriented, which I think is a big plus. In addition, there is a public usable park; the greenspace and pond, I think that is going to be an asset for the community beyond just looking good while you drive by. And, I think the 75 foot buffer breaking that with a second curb cut would oppose that directly. Relief if granted would not cause substantial detriment to surrounding properties. As a surrounding property owner, I think it is quite the opposite. I think all of us benefit from a better southeast corner solution. And, lastly public health and safety are secured; that is fairly obvious. So, I see an opportunity to create a real asset for Milton and the Birmingham area and I urge you to take it. Thank you very much. Cleveland Slater,13670 Bethany Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 This is not a choice between two site plans. This discussion should be about a buffer, not a choice between two site plans. In fact, the developer, tonight in his words, convinced me that he really does not want to build townhomes. He indicated that the detached homes will sell for more money than the townhomes; not a big surprise there. If he can get 25 single family homes on the site, it is more money than the 30 townhomes. The last time this issue came up, we talked about the townhome plan as a threat, today, I still think the townhome plan is a threat. The conversation should be about a buffer and why a buffer is important. The buffer provides a visual separation between what will be a high density development and a low density development. Do not confuse our meaning of single family homes with what will be constructed here. These are homes with ten foot distances between the homes and with ten foot front yards. That is not a typical Milton single family home. Fulton County gifted us with the buffer for protection. It will be for this council to decide if it is important enough to maintain what Fulton County gifted us with and visually screen the high density development from the view from Birmingham Crossroads. It is simply baffling that we think that this is a choice between two plans. There is an infinite number of opportunities to do something attractive and something that protects the buffer and maintains the original intent. I request that you deny the variance. Thank you. 1 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 15 of 38 Tim Becker,15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 Council, why are we here tonight? That is the question that citizens are asking. I have received emails from a few dozen citizens and that is the predominant question. And, it is a fair question because the two proposals are nearly identical, and, in fact, I think this one is a little worse than the last one. And, you might recall that at the last hearing, there were fifteen citizens that showed up in opposition and nobody that showed up to speak for this. The statement that was made earlier that citizens wrote afterwards and protested this; I don't believe that. This is unfair to citizens to make them go through this a second time. I called a few of those citizens and they said, "Tim, I am done. I am done with the city. This is ridiculous that we have to come march down here a second time. And, that is bad. Citizens are disillusioned, and they are disengaging and that is not good for our government. It is just like Milton's version of that movie, Groundhog Day. And, there is a backstory. It is not the backstory that was told to us earlier about citizens complaining, but we know what the backstory is in this room. The backstory is that this developer was told that council regretted its decision the last time and that if he came forward again, the votes would be there. It would be a lock for him. And, that is disturbing to me. It is really disturbing to me. People are in this room that told the developer that. So, those of you that flip your vote tonight, you need to explain to citizens why you are flipping. There is one thing that changed, and that is that staff reversed its decision of recommendation of denial. And, staff basically said, "You know what, there are other factors like our training, our expertise, our professional judgement and those trump the four part test for variances. Staff does not have the authority to just make it up as they go along. We have a four part test for variances. And, if we are going to change that; if we are going to bring a lot of other factors into it, then we need to enact an ordinance. That is the proper, legal, and right way to do this. And, the city attorney did, in fact, on April 23, 2018; he did say to council, if you want flexibility, you need to change the variance criteria. That is what you need to do. Not just make it up as you go along. I am a rule of law guy, okay? And, we need to honor the rule of law in this city. The other thing that the city attorney said is that you can't use this variance, this very strict variance test that we have, to make developments better. And, that is a quote. So, again, let's be honest, this illegal change to our variance law is just a transparent attempt to provide cover for city councilmembers tonight that want to vote for this. We know that. That is the backstory here; and there is always a backstory in Milton which is really unfortunate. Because it means there is a lack of transparency. So, we say that we want better outcomes. I know there are councilmembers that say, we are going to give you a better outcome. Well, why do we have laws then? Let's get rid of our zoning laws. Let's get rid of our variance ordinance. Let's get rid of the Comprehensive Plan. Let's eliminate the DRB, BZA, Planning Commission; let's just have everything come before council. The other thing I would say about outcomes is that everyone has different opinions. I am okay with townhomes and a buffer. I would prefer the commercial building on Birmingham Road; but that is my opinion. Everybody in this room has a different opinion about it. That is the great thing about democracy in America. But, I would remind you that the last time the letters and speakers were overwhelming for by -right development. People were fine with by -right development. And, the last thing I would point out is that this developer has owned this land for three years. He says he is losing $1,000 a day for every day that he doesn't develop it. Now, I have been in business for a long time. I am a strategy consultant. I have done that for 25 years. I look long term and think about and weigh risks. I guarantee you Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 16 of 38 the reason he has not built those townhomes is that his investors or the bank that he is trying to get money from, they know that townhomes don't fit their risk/reward profile. So, I think it is more bluffing intimidation. He has been here three times now seeking the same thing. And, I will tell you something else. He was the one that got the variances for Woodview in Woodstock and then he sold it to Pulte Homes. So, I do not believe anything that is being said today from this developer. Thank you. Please deny this. Joe Whitley,1250 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I would like to humbly come before the council and consider some of the questions that Joe Longoria asked of the staff which I don't know if we heard answers for my benefit or answers that were clear answers. I will leave it to the council to use your own intellect; your own minds to access whether or not there is any real change to what you heard tonight from what you heard earlier. I trust that you will do that when you consider what your vote might be in this situation. I too join the comments of others which is how many opportunities does a developer get to appear before this council and apparently, it is an unlimited number of opportunities. Certainly, I appreciate much of what the developer has said to you about moving from townhomes to single- family dwellings. I think that is a good suggestion, however, the process in this particular situation is flawed. And, I only suggest that is something that needs to be examined as a council and as a city before we go forward and approve any further properties for rezonings or variances in this city. So, the better course tonight would be deferral of this particular decision to another time until this can be clarified for the citizens of this community. I understand and appreciate developers. I have worked with them over the years in the numerous jobs I have been in and appreciate that there are differences of opinions. In this situation, to reference comments from an earlier speaker, it takes a lot of energy for me to be here at these meetings. I don't live in this community in the daytime; I commute to Buckhead. So, I believe every councilmember lives in this community and works in this community. The challenge for me and the many other people who were here previously is to come back before this council repeatedly and express our opinions about this particular rezoning and variance request. I think there are good reasons for the 75 foot buffer along the Birmingham Road. I believe having this back away from the visual aspect of things would be a good thing for the residents, in particular, and this new development whether it is approved or denied by the council. At some point in time, something will be built on this corner. It is up to you as the city council to evaluate the plans that have been presented to you and come up with something that is good for our community. Simply put, we need to hold the line as an executive and legislative body and keep the 75 foot buffer along Birmingham Highway and also the ten foot buffer that is in the interior. I don't know exactly, because we don't have the diagram on the screen anymore, what this retaining wall is going to look like. But, for those of you who have seen retaining ponds, they are not exactly what I would call a real greenspace. It could actually be a hazard for people who live near it since it is runoff water from the development. I like the idea of homes versus townhomes and I think that is an improvement this developer has made. I have submitted a letter to the council which outlines all my concerns and I appreciate the council taking a look at it. I would request denial or deferral of this variance request. F�' Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 17 of 38 Bill Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I live about a mile from this intersection and I am not sure exactly why we are here tonight talking about a new picture and it is not part of the zoning modification or the concurrent variances. You denied it in April and I think that our city attorney said it very well and it would behoove us all to listen to his words again. (video clip from April 23, 2018 city council meeting is played) Sharon Mays,15160 Highgrove Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am going to ask the same question that has already been asked, why are we here again and how many times do we have to come here again for people to leave their homes; this is your job and although you may not be paid as much as you should be, it takes an enormous amount of your time but also takes an enormous amount of our time and at what point can we, as citizens, really have faith in our city council and Mayor to say, we have fought the hard battle, we have proved that it did not warrant approval, so why are we just months away and here we are again. The idea that we need to maybe look at our variance rules, I also feel that may be the case, but I certainly do not want to see a watering down of our variance procedures. They were developed after a lot of time and consideration, so it is a delicate balance between those and right now to make decisions and approve things that really do not meet the current variance criteria; to do that definitely causes concern, causes distrust, and opens up the way for others who will say, I think my situation is extraordinary as well. This current proposal does not meet the variance requirements and I ask that it be denied again. The number of people who will be able to come down here will get fewer and fewer and it just causes us all to be weary and to wonder at what point can we trust our representatives. This new proposal does not meet the overall requirements and just changing it a little bit does not change the original plan that never met the criteria. Thank you. Bill Bailey for Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Julie is unable to attend tonight. My name is Bill Bailey and I have been asked to read her statements into the record. I am asking that you deny this rezoning specifically the modification for concurrent variances for the southeast quadrant of Birmingham Crossroads at Birmingham Highway and Birmingham Road. The developer is returning with a plan for the southeast corner that is nearly the same as the plan denied in the spring. This modification includes variances that are not supported with required hardships specifically, the applicant wants to delete the required 75 foot buffer and improvement setback to accommodate more commercial development to the tune of an incremental 7,000 square feet along Birmingham Highway that would otherwise be possible. And, to allow him to build high density homes in the buffer area which he is seeking to eliminate. Despite staff s original recommendation of denial, the staff has changed the criteria by which they judge variances to now recommend approval. It is critical to note that this recommended approval is in direct conflict with the direction the city attorney gave the city council and staff on April 23, 2018. The city attorney was quite clear that the zoning laws of the city require the four legal standards to approve a variance to be met. This zoning modification request; none of those legally required standards are met. The city attorney was equally clear that the zoning modification process for variances that do not meet the four standards cannot and should not be used simply to make a development better; which of course is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. These variances should not be approved. The original statement of staff in April, clearly state the zoning modification does not meet any of the legally required standards for Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 18 of 38 variances. Nothing has changed. This request still does not meet any of the four legally required standards for variance approval, as such, please deny this. If the legal process by which variances are evaluated is to be changed, it must be changed in an open and transparent process that is adequately and appropriately publicized to allow citizens the right to weigh in and comment on such changes. Legislative changes that completely change the way in which variances are evaluated and approved, cannot be done in the dark without transparency and the public participation process. To do anything less, is a violation of your oath of office and the value statements of the city. The variance request by this applicant are in direct conflict with the Birmingham Masterplan, the Milton overlay zoning and modifications that have already been sought. These concurrent variances will allow more commercial density and visibility that would not have been allowed otherwise. No public good has been demonstrated. These variances should be denied. There is no hardship. Please deny. City Clerk Gordon read comments from the following four individuals into the record: David Damiani, 3344 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 2200, Atlanta, Georgia 30326 I am writing to express my opposition to the zoning modification request for the SE corner of the Birmingham Crossroads. As you are well aware, this issue was prosecuted earlier this year and denied. I, like many others in our community, am very busy and growing weary of having to defend the city's legal position over and over again. I trusted mayor Lockwood and city council to listen to your constituents as it pertained to the music venue for the crossroads. You ignored your constituents and Milton residents that evening. Perhaps the legal grounds upon which this request are based will keep you from disappointing us yet again. Do the right thing and maintain your original vote to deny said request. Jennifer Pino,175 Oakhurst Leaf Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 First of all, thank you for your service to our fine city. In advance of tonight's meeting, I want to request that you deny the zoning modification in regards to the SE Quadrant of the Birmingham Crossroads. I am very concerned that the staff has now recommended approval for virtually the same variances which were unanimously denied earlier this year. It has come to my attention that the staff has changed the criteria by which they judge variances which is VERY CONCERNING. The future of our city and whether or not Milton stays true to its purpose and character are on the line. Developers will undoubtedly use this "new standard" to justify variance requests which will directly affect citizens neighboring larger parcels, such as the "Hopewell Road Su Dynasty" property which is the subject of a drastic rezoning application for the THIRD TIME. The unintended consequences of approval for such variances will be excessive and Milton citizens will no longer have the quality of life which they currently enjoy. If Milton wants to change the direction of development the city, then the public needs to be given the chance to weigh in and the CLUP along with other governing documents should be changed to reflect the new direction. The city should not be in the habit of granting variances at every turn, rather the CLUP and governing documents should reflect the values and direction the city wants to take and then developers should be held to that standard. It is my belief that this is exactly where we are now. Only two years ago in 2016, the CLUP was extensively reviewed, updated and adopted by City Council, representing a vast amount of effort and involvement from the community and an expensive consulting firm hired by the city. It is time to hold the line and to adhere to the plan that has been adopted, and 1 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 19 of 38 overturn this most recent change made by staff to the criteria, which happens be in direct conflict of the advice the City Attorney gave to Council and Staff at the April 23, 2018 zoning hearing wherein the previous, almost identical zoning modification was unanimously denied. Please abide by the plan which was created by citizens and staff and adopted by City Council and deny the variance and reverse the change to the criteria. Martin Lock,14140 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Please support applicant's proposed development as submitted. Larry Johnstone,16095 Henderson Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I feel the adjustment is excellent. The new design better fits the blight that is now Birmingham Crossroads. Now it is an eyesore and the new proposal far outweighs the previous designs. Tad Braswell, Applicant, 5256 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30341 I just want to make a couple of quick comments. I think that part of our problem last time was that we did not go over the criteria for the variance. We spent more time talking about the differences in the development; trying to make the development better, and did not spend our time going over the individual requirements for the variance. I heard a lot of people talking about the requirements, but I didn't hear anyone argue the merits of our argument or why we believe we meet those requirements. And, the other thing is that we will not be back in front of you. I can promise you that. We are going to develop the preliminary plat plan that is there, so I am not going to be dragging everybody back up here again. I'm not threatening anybody. We bought the property, we own it, we have to get through it. It will still be a quality development. We are not going to build junk, but I believe, and I have never been in a place where they argue for not better development, but it would be a better development if you agree with me that we meet the criteria to grant the variance. Thank you for your consideration. Mayor Lockwood As it was mentioned earlier, I've been on the council longer than anybody here, concurrently, close to thirteen years now, and overwhelmingly, in fact, I can't think of any times I have gotten anything different. Our citizens want less density, more quality developments, the little bit of commercial areas we have they want quality, but their biggest concerns are traffic and low density. So, I would be doing a disservice to our citizens if I didn't seriously consider a proposal or approving a variance that actually had less density and less traffic. And, that being said, I want to briefly mention the process. I as well as the council, and I know our staff and citizens, pride and put a lot of emphasis on process and that is very important. For the council's sake, the mayor has said that outcome is more important than the process. Well, obviously, if you take that and put it in context, that was based on a statement about the average citizen. And, when I mean the average citizen, I mean the person who loves living in Milton, is very educated, but one of the 99% of the folks who have never stepped foot into the council chambers or city hall and know nothing about the processes that we all go through and adhere to. They prefer the outcome. They want to drive around Milton and see less density and safer roads and quality developments. Again, it is not that I put the outcome in front of the process, that was a statement about citizens who are not engaged. They trust us as elected officials to make the right decisions that hopefully there is less density and that we stick to the vision of Milton. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 20 of 38 Councilmember Longoria Carter, again, I am not picking on you, but I think you mentioned at some point in time that there are no, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, the very specific issue of having a buffer inside of a single development, are there any examples of that anywhere in Milton. Carter Lucas Where we have an existing buffer internal to a single development? I cannot think of one off the top of my head. Councilmember Longoria Okay, is it part of our ordinances? How did this get in there? Did we negotiate it in? Is it there because it is a very clearly written part of our ordinances that it must be there? How on earth did this issue get there? Carter Lucas How did the buffer requirement get into our ordinances? Councilmember Longoria No, on this proposal. Carter Lucas Well, if you take a literal interpretation of it, the way the code reads is that between commercial and non -single family residential uses, a buffer is required. So, in this case, you have a MIX versus an AG-1 so you have two different zonings within one common plan of development. Councilmember Longoria So, it is partly because it is a mixed -use piece of property that we create this condition? Carter Lucas Yes. Councilmember Longoria Because there are plenty of places where we have residential, residential, residential, in a single development. But, there are not very many examples, I am trying to think of one, where we have commercial and residential as part of a single development. Robyn MacDonald There is Crabapple Station as an example. Councilmember Longoria I am not trying to stifle discussion and I don't want to stifle anybody's questioning of the facts or anything like that, but to me, there isn't anything that has changed about this. We have already discussed this. We have had citizens that came here now on two different occasions, actually three if we go all the way back to 2014, to argue their points of view both in support and against this. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 21 of 38 And, I do not see that we need to go another two or three hours talking about this one subject. So, I would like to make a motion that we deny agenda item number 18-293. Now, the likelihood that that is going to pass I don't think is very high, but I feel compelled to do it nonetheless. Councilmember Jamison I have questions for Tad. Mr. Braswell, on the recommended conditions, I know that staff states that the minimum square footage is 2,200. What size homes do you plan on building there? Tad Braswell They will be 2,400 to 3,200 square feet. Councilmember Jamison Okay, because the pictures of the homes were much larger than 3,200. Tad Braswell Some of the stuff that was designed by Lew Oliver is a little bit smaller but 2,200 is good but we can go to 2,400. Councilmember Jamison Is the brown sketch going from the AG-1; is that an internal trail? Tad Braswell There are two things about the trail in the development. You have one that is internal that goes through the stream buffer and then there is a trail that is part of an easement around the development up to fifty feet, it was at 20 feet at one time, that was part of a larger trail system that I think was considered back in 2004. Along the property line, you have to go up a two to one slope that is really probably never going to be developed but it was a condition and we are going to leave it in there that some way in the future it was going to be built. Fifty feet is very wide for what would be an eight foot wide trail. Typically, the easement is going to be closer to fifteen or twenty feet. Councilmember Mohrig I've got a few questions. I guess to Robyn, you had mentioned that across the street we have kind of a mixed use. We have both single-family homes and we have commercial without having a buffer but that is part of MIX. My question I guess on that example is on the southside, is there a buffer between that and the single family that are lower density. Because we gave the example where we do have internal, we don't have a buffer between commercial and single-family, but that is MIX across the street, that is not low density housing, that is all on public sewer. Robyn MacDonald That was developed under the original MIX and currently it is in a transect zone, but you are correct. What I do believe is that MIX adjacent to what is technically actually Alpharetta on the southside, that they did have to ask for a variance to this similar requirement of a buffer for between MIX and the single family to Alpharetta. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 22 of 38 Councilmember Mohrig Within Milton, do we have any other examples where we have what is proposed is really MIX directly connecting to AG-1 without a buffer. That is what I think the developer is proposing with what he brought forward to us today. Do we have anything like that within Milton today? Robyn MacDonald As Carter pointed out, in 2004, the Board of Commissioners approved the variance along the east property line to go from the buffer to a ten foot landscape strip. Councilmember Mohrig So, the answer is that today, the city does not have anything like what is being proposed tonight with residential and commercial abutting with high density. Robyn MacDonald No. Councilmember Mohrig I guess going back to Ken, we saw the video, the things that you said and gave us guidance on, has any of that changed, is that still your opinion? Ken Jarrard, City Attorney Has my opinion changed with respect to the variance criteria of the law? No. My position with respect to the variance criteria with respect to the City of Milton is what it was. I can't, nor will I run away from that. If you look at the variance criteria 64-1883, the considerations, all four of them. To me, one, three and four of those criteria are fairly, those are sort of very much in the eyes of the various councilmembers, and even two has some subjectivity to it. I will read it. There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of this zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape, or topography or extraordinary or exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. So, within that paragraph there is sort of a tale of two criteria. There is, what I call, sort of the property specific criteria, the unusual topography, perhaps there are some geographic elements within the parcel that make it almost unbuildable. To me, when I read paragraph two, that first portion, it is getting into the area of there is something going on a piece of property due to geographical configuration, topography or whatever, buffers, streams, that if you try to apply our codes to it, it basically cannot be built or it is a very expensive challenge to be built. So, therefore, from my perspective the reason the variance allowance exists at all is to hedge against an administrative take, basically render a piece of property with no economic value because we can't adjust our numbers. The second situation is a little different because it is separated by the word "or" and it says that other extraordinary or exceptional situations, I stand behind what I said the first time, whenever I see language like "extraordinary" or "exceptional" that is a fairly significant showing, not caused by the variance applicant. That phrase, however, is not really linked to the property. The first portion was more of the physical characteristic. The second section there is subjectivity in that, but I stand behind what I said whenever it was April or whenever because what I am concerned about is we are granting variances just to make something better. If that is not what the council is doing and there are other criteria Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 23 of 38 that you think in your head or that staff indicates do, in fact, give rise to this exceptional or extraordinary situation, that is fine, but I think we need to find that. We need to make a determination of that and not just we want to make it better, it is something we like better. Does that make sense? And, so the beauty of video, I can't run away from what I said nor would I, it is what I believe to be the case, but I will also say that I am not the decision maker. I think if you take my words from April, I think I said twice, you could improve this, and it is not illegal. I think I was asked that specific question twice. But, I do want us to link it to our code. I think we need to be true to our code and that is why I am taking a little more time on this tonight. I very much believe that, and you should expect nothing less from me. Councilmember Mohrig And, that is really my question, understanding. Because we have heard people come up in public comment and talk about process, talk about people coming back multiple times, etc. so I am just trying to understand. I know if we didn't have a variance process, if there wasn't even allowance for that, why even have council, we could just have staff follow a group of laws. Right here is the code, it is very simple, you just apply it, we don't have to have anybody in there. City Attorney Jarrard Well, yeah, I mean.... Councilmember Mohrig I am using that as an extreme example. City Attorney Jarrard We are in two different genres right now. Because, right now, we are talking about basically a zoning mod, which is what I think of this as, and then it has a concurrent variance. So, I tend to think that the variance decision is in the context of your legislative hat and then the variance is more in your quasi-judicial hat. So, there are two different standards. Two different things are going on here and we are trying to mesh them together this evening. Councilmember Mohrig Another question, and I don't know if this is staff or maybe it is more legal. Is a site plan, we have been talking a lot about a site plan, we have been talking about what I still consider high density housing. Whether it is single family detached or single family attached, which would be townhomes, we are acting as if they are different classifications. There is a little bit of difference in total density but, I view them both as high density when we talk about AG -I or low density. The question is, is a site plan binding? We are having a site plan presented to us which talks about 24 single family homes. We are doing a zoning modification where we talk about the amount of commercial and we talk about the amount of designated greenspace, but when I look at the site plan, the difference between single family detached and single family attached, is that binding when someone presents and says we are going to build 25 of these but can I hold someone accountable to that from a zoning standpoint? City Attorney Jarrard Is the product only designated on the site plan? Is that the only place you are seeing that depiction? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 24 of 38 Councilmember Mohrig I guess I am asking because we have dealt with this with Fulton County in the past and now we are the City of Milton for a reason. I live over in an area that has more high -density housing. And, I am not against any type of housing, I am okay with anything, but when we are talking about approval of a plan or a variance, my question is, when I look at the type of housing, AG -I is clear, those are going to be single family detached. The question is, with this, if we were to approve this as stated, is this binding the 24 or could they still in fact build townhomes, can you change it? City Manager Krokoff I may be able to help, Ken. This was the subject of our problem last time. We have since changed our language. Specifically, condition 2(a) which now will mirror the site plan, word for word, so we don't end up in a situation like we did this time. And, that is something that we changed as a practice as the result of the last go around with this. Councilmember Mohrig Okay, well then, the next question is that the current zoning as it stands, if this were to be denied, does that prohibit the developer from actually building single family detached? It talks about townhomes but does that prohibit him from building, if he still wanted to build X number but still have the buffer in there, does that allow him to build detached single family or is he, because it says townhomes in there, does that mean he can only build townhomes or does he still have the option to actually build the plan as it is stated today. Can he build single family detached? Carter Lucas I think the way the condition is worded, it says and/or condition townhomes and/or single-family. Councilmember Mohrig Okay, so it doesn't prohibit him, or the developer, to actually, with the current zoning to build single-family detached? Carter Lucas Correct. Councilmember Mohrig I guess just to comment on some, at least one of the comments that were made, there is mention of a back story, and I know that the folks up here on council, I have served on council a couple of different times, I am not aware of any back story. I think people up here really are trying to serve the community. We are trying to come up with what is the best thing. We listen to both sides. We even here today that there are people who are for it and people who are against it. We have seen that in the notes that came in, so I guess, from my standpoint, I am not aware of a backstory that is driving this decision. I know that I have not been involved in that and I am not aware of anybody else who is trying to do something nefarious to get to, to help a developer, I think what we are really trying to do here is come up with what is in the best interest, what is a good product for the long term development of this area for Milton. And, I would also mirror what 1 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 25 of 38 Councilmember Longoria said is that essentially, I am looking at this and I see basically the thing that is very similar to what we saw back in April when we went through this discussion. Councilmember Jamison This council voted for this site plan, if I am not mistaken, in 2014. Is that correct? The prior council voted on this. Councilmember Mohrig Correct. Councilmember Longoria When you say this site plan, the site plan we approved in 2014? Yes, we voted on that. Councilmember Jamison Because that didn't have the buffer either. And, so what changed from 2014, I mean, so.... Councilmember Longoria It is the language that says, site plans are for guidance only. They still have to adhere to all the zoning regulations of development. Councilmember Jamison Correct, and I think Mr. Braswell bought this piece of property after council approved that site plan that had a letter from Robyn MacDonald saying yes, you are good to go. And, so, this is an extraordinary circumstance that we have not seen in this city, at least in the last six years that I have been here. That is just my two cents on that. I have other questions later. Councilmember Bentley A couple of process questions. Going back to the six months, is that specific to a zoning modification? Is it six months and the same thing can come back or is it six months and there has to be a change by a certain threshold? Mayor Lockwood And, I want to ask the same question too. I want to piggyback on that because we have had some concern and I will be the first to say from some folks comments that, you know, citizens don't want to come back here, I am sure the developer didn't want to come back here, I'm sure we don't want to here this again. Again, Steve, if you or Ken could address the process of how this legally came back. Carter Lucas This comes out of Section 64-1946, "if a variance or modification application is denied by an authorized department director, Mayor and City Council or the Board of Zoning Appeals, an application for the same variance or modification item shall not be considered until (1) at least six months has elapsed from the date of the decision or (2) new information pertinent to the subject not previously considered as submitted by the petitioner in the twelve month period is waived by the hearing body." Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 26 of 38 Councilmember Bentley Okay, so we fall within the six months, so the same application could come back? Is that the way I heard it? City Attorney Jarrard Yes. Councilmember Bentley Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood that. So, in that same application, staff is allowed to change their opinion? Is that allowed? City Attorney Jarrard Yes, it is allowed, of course. Councilmember Bentley And, just to verify, council has the authority to deny or accept variances? City Attorney Jarrard Yes. Councilmember Bentley I have a few other questions of the developer if now is a good time? I have a question about the orientation of the homes that replaced the commercial building on Birmingham Road. Can you explain that? Tad Braswell We, at one time, had them facing Birmingham Road, but you then had one house that did not have frontage on the right-of-way, it fronts on the park, that new park that we put in, so we turned them back. It would require another variance to not have frontage, and we did not want to go through another variance, so we turned them and then what we are going to do with that house is that we will do a wrap around front porch on there so you will have a front porch that will face the road and then the park area there will sort of mix in with the Village Green and the park will all sort of flow across the whole frontage so it will look like one park all the way across the front. Councilmember Bentley And, your plan in that open space to do plantings? Tad Braswell Yes, much like what we were doing in the Village Green. It will be a very park -like setting. Councilmember Bentley The single-family semantics that you show, is it your plan to build those yourself? k 1 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 27 of 38 Tad Braswell Yes, we will build those ourselves. The homes I showed tonight are part of the zoning conditions that were already approved. So, those are the homes that are part of the 2014 zoning conditions. There wasn't a lot of talk about townhomes at that time because it was the architectural townhomes that were approved. There was a lot of time spent on the architecture of the homes. What Lew Oliver designed here, and we are talking to Lew about designing some of what we are doing, but this concept of the farmhouse look is what we are going to build. It is all alley fed, all rear loaded, so it is this concept. And, I developed Crabapple Station across the street, the only place we worked on the buffer was between us and the subdivision next to us, there were no internal buffers. Dean Cowart developed the one next to us on the other side of the lake. So, we have a buffer, and I can't remember what it was, it wasn't an undisturbed buffer, and also the power lines go down that property line. So, when we negotiated that zoning, we spent more time talking about architecture than we did the buffer. The reason you have this sort of weird, rarely do you have a mixed -use development that is not all zoned the same thing. Having this AG-1 piece internally is where you end up with this weird buffer. From my conversations with Mary Ann and Alice Wakefield who were at Fulton County at the time, that interior buffer would have been waived at the interior of a development so that is the reason it was not needed back then. Councilmember Bentley I have a question. Condition 1(e) with regard to the conservation easement, nothing in this language has changed? Tad Braswell We are fine with that, yes. Councilmember Bentley And, that is the maintenance of the Village Green, everything? Tad Braswell It will all be maintained by the Homeowner's Association, but it will be deeded it to a third -party person like a conservationist, is that what the request was? It is all deeded in perpetuity to the Homeowner's Association or an easement that is put on it that will be in favor of there is plenty of greenspace conservancies that an easement would be in favor of. The only way it would ever be developed is if somebody came back in front of you and said they wanted to make it a pond or put houses on it or something like that. I just don't see that ever happening. Councilmember Bentley With regards to the commercial uses, you mentioned in a prior hearing that you had leases.... Tad Braswell The pediatrician that came before is still on board and it is a pediatrician and then there is a pediatric dentist that are going to take up a 10,000 square foot building. The other 7,000 square foot building; we are talking with another doctor. It will most likely be, and there has to be some retail use to it, the problem is getting a restaurant or anything like that is that you've got the sewer Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 28 of 38 capacity limitations. But, it will probably be more office use, an accountant, attorney, but that is what we are thinking. Councilmember Kunz I will talk for a little bit. It has been a very fascinating process with this and everybody in the room on all sides. What I have to say is probably more cultural than anything else. Steve, sorry, you have heard this one before. I think we all do a lot of studying, a lot of reading and look at different ways for inspiration, this is interesting. Tad, you can sit down. You don't have to stand there. As I think about this, I think the .... it was funny, I was watching an episode of the Andy Griffith show awhile back and if you have ever watched Andy Griffith, you know the values they had back then are very interesting and they talk about the human conditions of what we undertake and what we go through, especially with regards to government. And, you know the story, you have Andy as the sheriff and his son is Opie and there was an episode once where Opie was following the law so strictly, but it caused all kinds of problems. It was very interesting, and Andy was very good; a sheriff without a gun. He was able to understand the "why" behind what you do. It is not always as cut and dry as it seems. And, he once asked Opie, "What would happen, Opie, if you came to a lake and you saw a no fishing sign?" No, a no swimming sign. Would you go swimming in the lake? And, Opie said, "Well, no, it would be against the rules." and, Andy said, that's right. And, so Andy said, "What if you came to that lake with the no swimming sign and you saw another little boy out there in the water and he was drowning. What would you do?" And, Opie said, "Well, I would probably go out there and save the boy" but it was against the rules. And, obviously, the question up here, what everybody is trying to do, is that we are trying to figure out what the right thing to do is. I think we all are in this community. What is that right thing? And, obviously, being one of the stars of that video today that we were watching, I can tell you that I voted against this the first time around, really only because I had more questions based on the dialogue. I like the idea that we don't have townhomes in the new plan. I was never in favor of townhomes there. There is an opportunity to create a better product and that is one thing that I would be open to hearing but, more importantly, we have to make sure that the systems that are in place, the process that is in place, and the understanding that is in place. The interesting thing about this one is fascinating. We have a lot of questions, and in my seven years on the council, and Joe, maybe your thirteen years, we haven't had this question. This is really trying to figure out what is right, what is not. As I have been up here, I realize there are always three aspects of every law. There is the law as it is written in black and white. There is a spirit of a law which is intended. And, the interpretation of a law by whoever is in power at the time. When these are all in line, things work pretty well. When they are not is when things get kind of interesting. And, right here what we have is a question of our variance codes which are very important because I think the city attorney was right, Ken, we do have a public expectation of that. The question then becomes, what is that, but we also have to make sure we have an accurate fairness of what we are dealing with. And, when I was asking those questions the last time, I had more questions, but I just didn't know how to formulate them in my head about what made the most sense. At the time the motion was made and not knowing enough information, I think we did the due diligence to vote no at that time. But, according to our existing codes, the applicant had an actual right to come back before us again without anything different. Staff accepted that according to the process. No backroom deals on that. So, now here we are. This is before us again. And, the question goes a little bit to more research and more understanding on some of those questions that we had and now Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 29 of 38 that we are here, and we did look at Article 10, Section 64-183, Item 2; I agree with you, Peyton. I think that the buffer situation on a single property is something that we haven't seen before in the city, at least not in my seven years here. As an athlete coming before us. And, so I look at that as an interpretation. Why do we have that? You know, when I was elected, I think that my viewpoint of zoning is that really the greatest asset we have in our community is the God given talents he put inside everyone of us. And, as far as we figure this out together, it would be great. And, I like to see us trying to direct development rather than let it happen to us. I don't agree with some people that want to deny for the sake of denial thinking that it will just stop everything. I don't think that happens. We have had things come to us. And, we have also had zonings where things have been downzoned and fairness to developers hasn't been right. On the other hand, we have had developments come in where someone has moved in next to a property and have an expectation of what their neighbors are going to be. And, we are trying to find out what good neighbors are right now. So, as I see this, and I look at this, and look at everything involved of what we talked about from procedures to staff to comments to everything. You know, from a procedural perspective and from the zoning aspect, I do think we have an extraordinary situation where an applicant had a belief under 2004 zoning originally then 2014 that a buffer wasn't required from a development perspective. In my mind, that is an interpretation that is subject to us as a legislative member of this body. I am one of seven. Not everybody else may agree with that, that is fine, or one of six right now, but I think that is from a consideration perspective. I see that it is a circumstance that will allow me to clearly state that in the accordance of the law that we have a responsibility to make a vote on an issue that is not illegal first and foremost. So, I am sorry for the long talking here. I just want to make sure we get all the points out. As we look at it then, does the development fit into the spirit that our citizens are asking us to do from an elected perspective. We have heard, and I have heard, I go to that Publix all the time, people do not want higher density and we know that the current plan that is currently in place is a higher density. And, though the developer has come before us with something that can reduce that density and from my perspective, from an obligation not only from a campaign perspective, what I promised when I ran all those years ago, it was trying to make sure we did the right thing to keep density to a minimum. Whatever means is necessary, below the ground or whatever, to make sure those things happen. So, part of it is subjective. Part of it is whether or not townhomes are right for that corner or not. I personally, do not think they are. And, that is the right that anybody who runs for office can have those opinions and that is okay. So, there are a lot of factors here. What is the proper process? What is it we are trying to do? What is the legislative capacity that we all have? And, so anyway, it has been a fascinating process. I think it really has. And, I think everybody here has been trying to work hard to figure this out because it has asked questions we have never asked before. But, from that perspective, I think that we, I think that we should pass this. But, be very clear, though, on the interpretation of that part of the code. That there might be a circumstance here that is extraordinary from a condition that hasn't come before us that we seriously need to consider. Councilmember Longoria I was going to say that our challenge right now isn't "are townhomes the right thing to have on this corner." Our challenge isn't "how many homes." Our challenge isn't "how big is the lot." All of those things are really good questions, but none of them are really what our challenge is. Our challenge is that we have some language in our current ordinances that don't provide us with the proper guidance in this particular condition. And, so what we really need to do is that we need Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 30 of 38 to go back and update our ordinances and say that in the case of mixed use development, buffers aren't required between two pieces of the property. Alright? That is really what we need to do. Because if that was clear, I don't think we would be having this discussion. I think that the idea that the buffer was a requirement wouldn't have ever come up and so, therefore, probably this property would be developed already. But, we can't do that because our current ordinances say it this way and don't give us any guidance that says, "Well, you know, in the case of a mixed use piece of property, this requirement really doesn't apply." And, so I wish we could get that squared away. The other thing that I was going to ask you, Carter. When you read the conditions under which a zoning request can come back up, you used two different time periods. Carter Lucas I did. Councilmember Longoria Point A, you said six months and Point B, you said twelve months. Actually, I think you called it a year. Carter Lucas 12 months. Councilmember Longoria What does it say? Is it actually.... Carter Lucas I read it exactly as it states in the ordinance. Councilmember Longoria Okay, so at some point in time, we changed it because I was under the impression it was a 12 month waiting period without any extra things happening. So, at some point we changed it, but we didn't change it consistently in the language. Carter Lucas I will tell you that the way we interpreted that is that if it was going to be heard by the same body, the six months would apply. It this was a decision that would be moved on to Board of Zoning Appeals, the 12 month period would apply, or the council would have to waive the 12 month period in which another body could hear the same issue. Councilmember Longoria Okay, I was less worried about that than the other thing. So, thank you. Mayor Lockwood I just want to ask; to go back, because I know there has been some concern about legalities and the variance. Can we legally, the Mayor and Council, approve or deny a variance such as this that is before us? Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 31 of 38 i0r City Attorney Jarrard Like I said on the video and certainly it is in the minutes, yes, you can. As you all are going through this this evening, I am trying to take notes and I have heard a couple of things come out and, Carter, check me on this, but the things I heard were things like, it seems to be on the council's mind, how about that, with respect to this, that this buffer has not been shown on the zoning plan for years. Am I right on that? an Carter Lucas That is correct. City Attorney Jarrard That the developer received correspondence from the city suggesting that the site plan conformed to pertinent regulations. Is that right? I think that has been stated a couple of times, but I do not have independent knowledge of it. Carter Lucas Yes, correct. City Attorney Jarrard That the buffer is it in fact serving the purpose of a traditional buffer is another element I thought I heard this evening. In other words, does it buffer anything? Carter Lucas Not external to the property it is all internal to the property. City Attorney Jarrard And, then, I think, Councilmember Jamison I heard that there was a site plan approved in 2014 that did not show the buffer as well. I think I heard that correctly. Carter Lucas That is correct. City Attorney Jarrad So, it appears that those are the elements where the council is trying to fit this in the criteria so at least I understand the bookends. Mayor Lockwood And, the other question, and I think, Carter you have confirmed, but that the applicant has met the requirements to bring this before us. Carter Lucas y Correct. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 32 of 38 Mayor Lockwood And, I say that because we have had public comment and again, I am certainly, I don't think anybody up here is looking to revisit another zoning and I don't think the citizens were as well as the applicant is not; it is not fun, but the fact that we are up here, I feel strongly and I respect everybody's opinion that spoke tonight or that we have heard from, and it is my opinion that everybody sitting in this room would agree that lower density and more open space and public amenities would be in favor. I think the biggest crux here is to whether we should approve a variance or not and the process of that. And, again, maybe that is something we can work on with that process moving forward. That being said, if we do approve this variance, and I know some people will say, well ... that sets a precedence and then another developer will want to. I am of the mindset, based on what I hear and what I believe our citizens want, any time a developer comes to us and wants to ask for a variance to have lower density and more public space, I would certainly be open to listen to it. Again, I have respect for everybody here and I think that overall everybody is looking for the same thing it is just a question of the process and will we allow a variance or not. But again, that being said, in good conscience, I am looking at this again and I am inclined to support it because it is lower density, less traffic, and it will certainly be a public amenity; the looks from the road the buffers and all that with the space. Councilmember Bentley My comments are as follows; clearly, if you go back and you watch the tapes and you read the Birmingham Crossroads Master Plan, we have two ordinances that are fighting with each other. The Northwest Fulton Overlay says we need a buffer, and the Birmingham Crossroads Master Plan says no need. And, I personally put a lot of credence into the Birmingham Crossroads Master Plan. That work began back in 2001. Some of you all are in this room tonight. That is 17 years that this master plan for those four corners has evolved. And, there has been a lot of sweat equity put into that plan. In 2014, the same plan was approved by council with two well -respected community advocates that I respect and look to for guidance, approved this enthusiastically. So, support came without the buffer because it is a good plan. It reduces density, it fosters a village - like atmosphere, which is exactly what the Birmingham Crossroads Master Plan was supposed to be. It consisted of a community park, and the community park in this case, in my opinion, acts as the buffer. Because, the open space transitions from one use which is residential to another residential use. The communities are connected; walkability was always a goal of the Birmingham Crossroads Master Plan. The scale of the buildings was to be single-family. The 2014 hearing lasted almost three hours because they were detailing the porches. There was no discussion of townhomes and the detailing of that with Lew Oliver. So, for those reasons, I can easily go through and justify the criteria for the variance. The intent of the undisturbed buffer, which is found in the Northwest Fulton Overlay is there. There is open space for that transition of uses. Item number two, there are such extraordinary and exceptional situations. I fully agree with staff s analysis. Mandating the undisturbed buffer; that offends the central premise of the Birmingham Crossroads Overlay. For this community that everyone participated in creating; and relief, if granted, I believe the community will suffer a hardship if we don't approve this variance. It reduces density, it secures single-family homes which I haven't heard anyone say that they would prefer a few here tonight. There is more contiguous open space. We've increased our housing square footage with a part in perpetuity that the HOA is going to maintain. We have one less curb cut on Birmingham Highway which is a GDOT road which is very busy. And, once again, this is creating a more 1 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 33 of 38 friendly neighborhood and I do think that it secures the public safety, health, and welfare of our community. Councilmember Jamison I have two questions and then a thirty minute statement for everybody. Mr. Braswell, could you come up real quick? I am having a little bit of trouble with that minimum square footage because I lived in Crabapple Crossing and I looked up how big the square footage of my house was, and it was 3,400 square feet and you showed me pictures of some homes that are going to be two stories. I am trying to figure out how you are going to.... Tad Braswell So, a lot of the target market, what we are doing here is empty nesters, so it is like a ranch product. Master on the main, it is really the product that is lacking up in this part of the city is a place for people to move down to. It is not a lot of square footage that is needed; 2,200 to 2,400. Councilmember Jamison Is it two-story? Tad Braswell It is a story and a half. Usually, the master is on the main floor and you bump up the second floor and do two bedrooms and some storage or a bedroom and an office and some storage. But everything is two stories; a story and a half. Councilmember Jamison Are you going to build it? Tad Braswell Yes. Councilmember Jamison We have gotten that answer before and it wasn't the case, so I want you to look me in the eye and tell me that. Question for Robyn, this is kind of off topic and I don't want to get laughed at, but on some of these commercial pieces, we are kind of evolving a little bit and I see that we are missing one thing that I am wondering if we could put in, and that is vapes shops. I am being serious. Vape shops; all those kids doing vape. They are all over Highway 9 and if we are going to eliminate all this other stuff why can't we put that in there? Eliminate it. And, I don't even know if we have that in our code. Can we add that? Mayor Lockwood Is that a condition that could be added? Councilmember Jamison Those were my questions. I sat on the Planning Commission for five years, Comprehensive Plan, City Council, and this is the first time I have ever seen a developer come in and ask for less density. I have seen threat plans and every threat plan usually is a threat plan because they don't have the Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 34 of 38 underlying zoning. This, they have the underlying zoning, and this is our last opportunity to take those 30 plus townhomes away, make it right, and move forward. Citizens should not have to come here more than once. I made a mistake the first time so, hopefully, you will not be coming back a third time. I am going to vote to support this and, hopefully, we can have a work session in the future to work on our variance process. I think that would be good. City Attorney Jarrard I would like to make a recommendation because I cannot remember the last time these criteria were scrutinized, at least at the council level, as they have been scrutinized, and I may be forgetting some, but I can't recall it. So, as part of the motion, and I don't know again, truly, whichever way it goes, but I might ask that we do make some findings on these criteria. And, not long findings, but I think we need to at least with respect to granting the variances that we either find that the four criteria have been satisfied or find that there has been an exceptional situation. That is why we have labored over this. I feel like the council has been fully apprised of these criteria now, staff and legal jobs have been done; you have debated this, and even if it is simply a finding that the four criteria have been satisfied based upon the record presented tonight, would be of use. But, I do think we need to make a record of it. Mayor Lockwood Let me do this because at this point we do not have a motion. If we have a motion for approval, then we can weigh in. City Attorney Jarrard Okay, that is fair. Councilmember Longoria Ken, I am trying to understand what you just added. You want us to include as part of the language of the motion the fact that we would either believe or disbelieve that the four criteria have been covered? Or, that the four criteria have been met? City Attorney Jarrard That is what you would be finding if you approve it so that is correct. Councilmember Longoria So, does that mean we can have different versions of the same motion, for example, I may believe that the criteria have been met, but I still want to vote against it. So, I would say, "We have met the criteria, but I want to vote for denial" or I could say, "We haven't met the criteria that is why I want to deny it." City Attorney Jarrard I think that demonstrates the wisdom of the Mayor's suggestion is that we need to see what motion is made. Perhaps I was premature in my advice. I was just trying to get ahead and let you know that given how much horsepower we have spent on this issue, I think it would behoove us to at least identify on the record that we have found that the criteria have been met if that is, in fact, where the council is going. IF7 L-J Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 35 of 38 Councilmember Bentley Are we going to modify these uses? Robyn MacDonald That would be in the motion. Councilmember Bentley Where is it? Robyn MacDonald It is in condition 1(a). On page 14, in 1(a) there have been some changes to the density, but you can just throw it in after "roadside produce stands." City Attorney Jarrard And, Mr. Mayor, for the record, I thought Councilmember Jamison and Councilmember Bentley both did what I was suggesting they want to do. You have already sort of done this in your informal comments, so I am just letting you know that is what I was thinking in my head depending upon where you want to go with the motion. Councilmember Jamison I make a motion to approve ZM 18-02NC 18-08 with the following recommended changes: Under 1(F) minimum square floor area of 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit and then under 1(A) under whichever is less; excluding billboards.... add vape shops and tobacco shops... in there as well. And, that is my motion. Mayor Lockwood Ken, do you want to weigh in on that? City Attorney Jarrard Councilmember Jamison are you approving the variances? Councilmember Jamison Correct. City Attorney Jarrard With respect to the four criteria, I do think we need to speak to them just for purposes of perfecting the record that way they will be put in the minutes. Would it just be as far as you are concerned, that you believe that based upon the record this evening that the four criteria have been met? Councilmember Jamison Absolutely. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 36 of 38 1 City Attorney Jarrard I think at that point then, just a generic expression will have to do. Carter Lucas I just want to clarify that it is "recommended approval with staff s conditions.' Councilmember Jamison Correct. Recommended approval with staffs conditions with the previous conditions that I just put forward plus that it does meet the four part variance test. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jamison moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-293 with Staff s Conditions and the following conditions: • Under (1)F; change the minimum square footage to 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit. • Under (1)A; add the language, "excluding vape shops and tobacco shops" • In addition, the applicant has met the criteria as outlined in Section 64-1883. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-2). Councilmember Longoria and Councilmember Mohrig were opposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) NEW BUSINESS Consideration of a Project Agreement between the City of Milton and the State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources for the Construction of Restrooms at Providence Park. RESOLUTION NO. 18-11-490 (Agenda Item No. 18-308) (Michele McIntosh -Ross, Principal Planner) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-308. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-0). 1 Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 37 of 38 2. Consideration of the following Subdivision Plat: Name of Development / Location Action Comments/ # lots Total Acres Density 1. Kingsley Estates Ph Unit 3A Land Lot 266 & 311 Final 9 Lots 12.14 Lots / Acre Quayside Dr. & Bodium Ct. Plat .74 (Agenda Item No. 18-309) (Robyn MacDonald, Zoning Manager) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 18-309. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-0). The following Agenda Item was added to the Agenda under New Business by Motion and Vote during Approval of Meeting Agenda: 3. Consideration of a Resolution of the City of Milton Authorizing Change Order # 1 to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and InterDev, LLC for the Purchase of Hardware. RESOLUTION NO. 18-11-491 (Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve a Resolution of the City of Milton Authorizing Change Order # 1 to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and InterDev, LLC for the Purchase of Hardware. Councilmember Bentley seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-0). MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS STAFF REPORTS Department Updates 1. Public Works 2. Fire 3. Communications Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm Page 38 of 38 Carter Lucas, Public Works Director The state is moving forward on intersection improvements at SR372 and Batesville Road as well as SR372 and Green Road. GDOT will help us repair the Hopewell Road bridge, the first bridge on Birmingham Road coming from Hopewell, and also a bridge on Freemanville Road. We are planting trees along the median on Heritage Walk. We have a two phase project for crosswalks in Crabapple. The first phase will be placing crosswalks along Heritage Walk at three locations. Future crosswalks will be placed along SR372. Bob Edgar, Fire Chief October is Fire Safety month and we participated in 18 events and reached out to over 1,900 students as well as about 370 adults. So, we have been very busy. We have a new firefighter starting soon. Our second CERT team completed its training last month. We have 8 new CERT members which gives us a total of 18 certified CERT members. I would like to personally thank Councilmember Bentley with her assistance in helping us round up two wayward horses. Shannon Ferguson, Communications Director We are continuing to see our open rates for emails increase especially the email regarding the former Milton Country Club. We are recognizing our community volunteers this month. We have been on the cover of the Milton Herald seven times since my last report. We have a signed contract with a company for the design of our new website. There is a citizen survey regarding the look and feel of this new website. We are working on the Annual Report which will then roll into our State of the City event which will be held on Thursday, January 31, 2019. EXECUTIVE SESSION (f needed) ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 18-310) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 9:25 p.m. Councilmember Jamison seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-0). Date Approved: February 20, 2019 Ilk Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk Joe Lockwoo M