HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - CC - 04/22/2019Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, Apri l 22, 2019 at 6:00 pm
Pa ge l of 42
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 April 22,
2019 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Tass Welch , Community of Christ Church , Milton, Georgia
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Jamison, Councilmember Kunz , Councilmember
Bentley, Councilmember Cookerly , Councilmember Longoria and Councilmember Mohrig.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by Mayor Jo e Lockwood)
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Add or r em ove it ems from the agenda)
(Agenda Item No. 19-081)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the
following change:
• Add an Executive Session to discuss Land Acquisition.
Councilmember Bentley seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
PUBLIC COMMENT (General)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Counci l
Monday, April 22, 20 19 at 6 :00 pm
Page 2 of 42
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of the April 8, 2019 City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 19-082)
(S udie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of the Financial Statements and Investment Report for the
Period Ending March 2019.
(Agenda Item No. 19-083)
(Bernadette Harvill, Finan ce Direct or)
3. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton
and United Consulting Group , LTD -Subsurface Exploration , Restroom Project at
Providence Park.
(Agenda Item No. 19-084)
(Jim Cregge, Parks and Recrea tion Direc tor)
4. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton
and Kimley-Horn and Associates , Inc. for Modeling and Visualization Services -
Crabapple Village and Lakeside at Crabapple Pass ive Park.
(Agenda Item No. 19-085)
(Parag Agrawal, Co mmunity Developm ent Dir ector)
5. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton
and Designated Clippers Landscape Services , Inc . -Bell Memorial Park Lacrosse Wall
Project.
(Agenda Item No. 19-086)
(S ara l eaders, In terim Public Work s Directo1)
6 . Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton
and Tople Construction and Engineering , Inc. -Miscellaneous Road Proj ects.
(Agenda Item No. 19-087)
(S ara L eaders , Int erim Public Works Dir ector)
7. Approval of a Task Order to Provide Construction Inspection Services for the Northeast
Crabapple Connector Project.
(Agenda Item No. 19-088)
(S ara L eaders , Int erim Public Works Direc to,)
8. Approval of a Task Order to Provide Pre-construction and Right of Way Acq uisition
Services for Hopewell Road Corridor Intersection Projects.
(Agenda Item No. 19-089)
(S ara l eaders, Int erim Public Works Director)
Re g ular Meeting of the Milton C ity Co uncil
Monday, April 22, 2 019 at 6:00 pm
Pa ge 3 of 42
9. Approval of a Task Order to Provide Construction Inspection Services for the
Birmingham Road West Bridge Project.
(Agenda Item No. 19-090)
(Sara Leaders , Int erim Publi c Works Director)
10. Approval of the following Subdivision Plats and Re visions:
Name of Development I Location Action Comments I# Total Density lots Acres
1. Manor Phase 5B -Kin g Pre serve Add 3 lot s/ 5
Final Plat (Fulton) lots LL 396 & 397 6.4 31 . 77 Lots / acre
Kings Close Revi s ion total in Phase
5B
2. Wolff Property/1 000 Lackey Combine 4 LL 1014 , 1015 , 1016 , 1017 , & 1075 Minor parcel s / create 109 .1 .01 8 Lots / acre Lackey Road Plat 2 lots
(Agenda Item No. 19-091)
(Parag Agrawal, Comm unity Developm ent Dir ector)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items.
Councilmember Cookerly seconded the motion . The motion pas se d (7-0).
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation Recognizing Autism Awareness Month.
(Presented by Mayor Jo e Lockwood)
2. Presentation of the City of Milton FY 2018 Annual Audit.
(Be rn adette Harv ill, Fi n ance Director)
FIRST PRESENTATION
1. Consideration of an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georg ia ,
to Adopt Amendments to the Fiscal 2019 Budge t for Each Fund of the City of Milton,
Georgia, Amending the Amounts Shown in Eac h Budget as Expenditures, Amending the
Several Items of Re ve nue Anticipations , Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed
Appropriations, and Prohibiting Expenditures to Excee d Actual Funding Available.
(Agenda Item No. 19-092)
(Bernadette Harv ill, Finance Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria mo ved to approve th e First Presentation Item.
Councilmember Mohrig seco nded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monda y, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 4 of 42
PUBLIC HEARING (Non e)
ZONING AGENDA
1. Consideration of RZ18-14NC18-09-3475 , 3485 , 3495 , 3499 , & 3501 Bethany Bend b y
Bajun American Properties to rezone from TR and AG-1 to TR to develop 54 residential
units ( condominium) at a density of 6.3 8 units per acre and a 3 part concurrent variance
to 1) delete the 7 5 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback and replace
with a 20 foot landscape buffer or 50 foot undi sturbed stream buffer adjacent to all
property lines abutting property zoned Townhouse Residential (TR) (Sec 64-1091 (b)) 2)
to delete requirement for 75% per vertical wall plane of brick or natural stone (Sec. 64-
1095 (o)) and 3) to delete requirement for 25 % brick , tile , and remaining material s listed
(Sec 64-1095 (p)).
(Agenda Item No. 19-006)
(First Pr esentation at January 7, 201 9 C ity Co un cil Mee ting)
(Def erred back to Planning Co mmiss ion at January 23, 20 19 City Co un cil Mee tin g)
(S econ d Firs t Pr esentation at April 8, 2 01 9 City Co un cil Mee tin g)
(Parag Agraw al, Co mmunity Deve lopment Dir ector)
Parag Agrawal, Community Development Director
The subject site contains 8.46 acres and is developed with four single family residences. A
portion of the overall site , 4.94 acres had previously been rezoned to TR (Townhouse
Residential) and a Use Permit for Senior Living at a density of 19 .84 units per acre pursuant to
RZ08-08 and U08-04. In addition, pursuant to RZ 14-15 , the applicant requested a rezoning from
AG-1 and TR to TR to develop 76 townhomes on 10.17 acres which contained the current
subject site. The applicant requested a withdrawal which was appro ved by the Mayor and City
Council on April 27 , 2015. The City of Milton Comprehensive Plan Update 2016 designates the
subject site as MFR (Multi-Family Residential) and HDR-2 (High Density Re sidential) which
allows 5 units per acre or more.
Based on the applicant 's site plan submitted to the Community Development Department on
March 19 , 2019 Staff offers the following considerations:
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -SEC. 64-669 -TR (TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL)
Development Standards Proposed Development
Building Height: SR 9 Overlay District requirement prevails The applicant has agreed to
which is a max imum of two stories with a maximum height of 30 meet this height standard.
feet from average finished grade to bottom of the roof eave.
b. Minimum lot area or land area per unit shall be 2 ,000 square Yes , Condominium
feet.
c. Maximum density shall be nine units per gross acre 6.38 units per acre
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 5 of 42
d. Minimum lot width shall be 25 feet
e. Minimum TR development frontage shall be
f. Minimum heated floor area per unit shall
be 1,800 square feet.
g. Minimum perimeter setbacks for the entire
TR development shall. be as follows:
(1) Minimum front yard: 20 feet.
(2) Minimum side yard .
a. Adjacent to interior line: 30 feet.
b. Adjacent to street: 20 feet.
(3) Minimum rear yard: 35 feet.
Development Standards
h. (l)Minimum front yard: 20 feet from right-
of-way .
(2) Minimum side yard.
150 feet
a . Seven feet adjacent to interior lot line, except
that up to a seven-foot encroachment and
maintenance easement may be provided on
adjacent parcels , in combination with or in
lieu of a side yard , such that a minimum
building separation of 14 feet is maintained.
b . Zero if units are attached , for example,
townhouses on separate lots of record .
c. Adjacent to street: 15 feet.
(3) Minimum rear yard: 25 feet
i. Minimum accessory structure requirements. Accessory
structures may be located within the side or rear yards only but not
within minimum perimeter setbacks or minimum yards .
j. Required open space or recreational facilities .
(1) For developments with more than 50 units , a
minimum of 1,000 square feet per unit of open
space or recreational facilities shall be required
within the development.
(2) For developments with 50 or less units, a minimum
of 750 square feet per unit of open space or
recreational facilities shall be required within the
development.
k. Minimum building separation when more than one
building per lot. All building separations shall be as
specified by the city's building code.
I. Other minimum standards shall be as follows:
No individual
lots /Condominium
1,247 feet
1,800 square feet
Meets all the perimeter
setbacks
Proposed Develo p ment
Meets the requirements.
Development will be sold as
condominiums .
Meets this requirement.
Meets the standard . The site
requires 54 ,000 square feet of
open space. The site plan
provides 55 ,924 square feet.
Meets this requirement.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Counci l
Monday, April 22 , 20 19 at 6:00 pm
Page 6 of 42
(1) No more than eight dwelling units shall form a
single building.
(2) Setbacks and roof lines shall be varied by at least
two feet so that no more than three adjoining
dwellings within a single building shall have the
same front setback or roof line.
· · (3) A minimum of 80 percent of any common wall shall
be contiguous with each adjo ining unit.
(4) When units are located on property adjacent to an
exterior street:
a. Shall provide rear loaded vehicular access
and b. The front fa9ade shall face the exterior
street of the development.
(5) Each unit shall provide two off-street parking spaces
within the principle structure.
Meets this requirement.
Meets this requirement.
Meets this requirement.
Meets these requirements.
Provides 2 car garages.
Staff notes that the site plan shows a variety of unit sizes , grouping size, and architectural design.
The majority of larger and wider units are adjacent to Bethany Bend and the smaller units are
toward the back of the property. All of the units are rear loaded for vehicles except for lots 23,
24, and 25 to allow for visitor parking and the site is designed with no dead ends. The site
provides for a large green/open space on the southern portion of the site as we ll as preserving
three specimen size oaks. The app licant provided a 3 5 foot land scape buffer on the plan as well
as agreed upon additional conditions requested by Spring Valley discussed in detail later in the
report. Dispersed within the development are smaller greens for the use of the residents. Based
on all the requirements noted above, the site plan indicates compliance with the development
standards for TR (Townhouse Residential). Staff notes that based on the Planning Commission's
recommendation , the applicant has includ ed 26 visitor parking spaces for the development. The
additional public parking spaces are provided by reducing the required green space , but still
meets the minimum as required by the TR (Townhouse) zoning district.
Townhouse developments are required to meet the State Route 9 Overlay District standards
within Chapter 64 , Article VII , Division 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan indicates
compliance with these standards with the exception of the following concurrent variances
discussed below:
A variance must be based upon credible evidence submitted at a public hearing compliance with
1 through 4 of the following:
(I) Relief, if granted, would not offend the spirit or intent of this zoning ordinance.
(2) 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 other extraordinary and
exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant.
(3) Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding
properties.
(4) That the public safety, health and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done .
Regular Meeting of the Mi lton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 7 of 42
Part 1: To delete the 75-foot undisturbed buffer and 10-foot improvement setback and replace
with a 20-foot landscape buffer or 50 foot undisturbed stream buffer adjacent to all property lines
abutting property zoned Townhouse Residential (TR) (Sec 64-1091 (b))_(Staff notes that the
applicant has provided a 35 foot landscape buffer since the initial submittal.)
The requirement for the 75-foot undisturbed buffer and 10-foot improvement setback was
adopted by the City Council on April 28 , 2008. The applicant submitted his rezoning request on
July 1, 2008 . At the time of application and approval of RZ08-08 for the 2 story, 98-unit senior
housing development, a concurrent variance for the above requirement was required but not
requested because Staff had not identified the change to the 75-foot undisturbed buffer and 10-
foot improvement setback.
The applicant is requesting the above described concurrent variance. The homes impacted the
most by the requested reduction of buffer are the 12 single famil y homes within the Hidden
Forest subdivision. The applicant has secured a signed letter of support for the re v ised site plan
submitted on March 19 , 2019 from five of the home owners of which three are directly impacted
along the west property line which is included under the Public Participation portion of this
report. Staff notes that to access these single-family homes , property owners must drive through
the townhome portion of Hidden Forest which contain 106 townhomes . The side setback for the
detached single-family homes within Hidden Forest is 7 feet with a required 14-foot separation
between homes. The actual separation between homes range from 14 feet to 16 feet. Based on
the revised site plan received on March 19 , 2019 the applicant provided a 4-board equestrian
style fence abutting the property lines to Hidden Forest and a portion of Spring Valley
Townhomes . The revised site plan also includes a 35-foot landscape buffer or an undisturbed
buffer adjacent to Spring Valley Townhomes . Previously, the applicant had submitted a detailed
landscape plan including a graphic showing cross sections in three locations to help ameliorate
the impact of the proposed development to the single family lots in Hidden Forest. A portion of
this landscape plan abutted Spring Valley Townhomes , but since the submission of the plan, the
residents of Spring Valley Townhomes has requested that a portion of the adjoining property line
provide an undisturbed buffer with a depth of 35 feet. A detailed plan has been provided based
on discussions with the Spring Valley Townhomes and is included under the Public Participation
portion of this report.
The Hidden Forest Subdivision when approved by Fulton County in 2002 required a 25-foot
undisturbed buffer and 10-foot improvement setback behind 130 , 140 , and 145 Peacock Way.
Staff also notes that along the property line adjoining Hidden Forest and Spring Valley, there are
various green/open spaces that are designed in such a way as to provide additional
screening/space between the proposed townhomes and the existing homes within Hidden Forest
and Spring Valley . In addition, the proposed 54 units at an overall density of 6.3 8 is consistent
with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and compatible with the residential properties to the
west and northwest. Based on these facts , Staffs recommendation is that if this request is
granted , it would not offend the spirit or intent of this zoning ordinance.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , April 22, 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 8 of 42
The site is comprised of six parcels of various sizes and shapes that create an 8 .46 acre parcel
that is narrow, odd shaped and contains approximately 1.4 acres of flood plain on the site. The
applicant's site plan from the 2008 rezoning showed a 2-story building on the southern portion of
the site adjacent to the now developed Milton Montessori which was outside the flood plain but
since 2008, updated flood maps indicate that a portion of this previously "buildable" area is now
in the flood plain. Based on this information, the amount of land that can be developed on has
been reduced with approximately 1.4 acres currently within the floodplain out of 8.46 acres. The
applicant has eliminated the proposed trails within the wetlands on the southern portion of the
site that encroach into the required 75-foot undisturbed buffer and IO-foot improvement setback
as recommended by Staff. This will help preserve the buffer in this area adjacent to the single-
family homes on the southern portion of the Hidden Forest cul-de-sac. Therefore, it is Staffs
recommendation that because of these facts, there are extraordinary and exceptional situations or
conditions pertaining to this piece of property that the literal or strict application of the zoning
ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship due to size , shape and the reduction of the floodplain
not caused by the applicant. Relief would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good
and surrounding properties and that the public safety , health and welfare are secured, and
substantial justice is done if approved with the following conditions to require a fence adjacent to
Hidden Forest and a portion of Spring Valley , an increased landscape buffer adjacent to Hidden
Forest and a combination of a 35 foot landscape buffer and 35 foot undisturbed buffer adjacent to
Spring Valley and an agreed landscape plan with abutting property owners. Therefore , Staff
recommends APPROVAL CONDITIONAL ofVC18-09 PART 1.
Parts 2 and 3: To delete the requirement for 75% per vertical wall plane of brick or natural stone
(Sec. 64-1095 (o)) and to delete the requirement for 25% brick, tile , and remaining materials
listed for accent materials (Sec 64-1095 (p )).
Pursuant to Sec. 64-1095 (o) requires 75% per vertical wall plane of brick or natural stone and
Sec. 64-1095 (p) for accent materials 25% of brick, tile and other materials for accent materials.
The applicant is requesting relief from the required building materials for townhomes.
The subject site is located within the SR 9 Overlay District which includes parce ls on Bethany
Bend going north toward SR 9 which is the only area left in this area of Deerfield and SR 9 not
included in the Deerfield Form Based Code (FBC) approved by the City Council in 2015 . The
applicant is requesting the above two-part concurrent variance to design the townhomes with a
less heavy look of the predominately brick and stone that is required by the SR 9 Overlay
District. The applicant's architect has worked closely with the City Architect to achieve the most
appealing and updated design for the area. The Design Review Board expressed support of the
overall site plan design and the architectural design. In addition, they agreed that there is a need
to amend the architectural materials to be in line with the Deerfield Form Based Code . The
applicant intends to incorporate some brick and stone in the design of the townhomes but does
not intend to utilize the 75% required per vertical wall plane or 25% required for accent
materials. The applicant's architect has submitted the sample materials in the form of pictures .
These samples were brought to the Planning Commission meeting on February 27 , 2019. Also
included is a site plan indicating which set of materials will be used for each building and a
corresponding spreadsheet that outlines specific materials for each unit. The City Architect has
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 9 of 42
reviewed this information and believes the proposed design and corresponding materials are
consistent with the type of design that is used within the nearby Deerfield Form Base Code and
would be an asset to the development and nearby properties. This information is at the end of this
Staff report. Below are street view sketches of the site that show the building form , massing and
architectural style of the buildings.
Although, the applicant has provided aesthetically pleasing design that is consistent with the
nearby Deerfield Form Based Code, support of the Design Review Board, the Planning
Commission and the City Architect, but does not meet all four of the considerations when
evaluating a variance. It is Staffs recommendation that they have demonstrated the following
considerations: (1) Relief, if granted, would not offend the spirit or intent of this zoning
ordinance . (3) Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and
surrounding properties. ( 4) That the public safety , health and welfare are secured, and that
substantial justice is done.
The applicant has not demonstrated the following consideration.
(2) 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 other extraordinary and
exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant.
Therefore, Staff recommends DENIAL of VC18-09, Parts 2 and 3 although the Staff
acknowledges it is a good design . If the Mayor and City Council recommends approval of Part 2
and 3, Staff recommends the following conditions which were recommended approval by the
Planning Commission in a 4-2 vote at its March 27 , 2019 meeting:
3. To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
g . To delete requirement for 75% per vertical wall plane of brick or natural stone and rep lace
with the materials listed in the "chart of exterior materials" submitted by the applicant or as
approved by the City of Milton Design Review Board . (VC18-09 , Part 2)
h. To delete requirement for 25% brick, tile , and remaining materials listed for accent materials
and replace with the materials listed in the "chart of exterior materials" submitted by the
applicant or as approved by the City of Milton Design Review Board. (VC18-09, Part 3)
i. Architecture shall be consistent in design with the drawings submitted by the applicant
identified as Exhibits "D", "E " and "F " or as approved by the City of M ilton Design Review
Board.
The applicant has submitted the Environmental Site Analysis which indicates that there are
wetlands , floodp lain (does not show complete area that it covers), a stream and associated stream
buffer on the site. There are no steep slopes exceeding 25 percent over a 10-foot rise , or any
endangered wildlife species or historical sites on the property.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Counci l
Monda y, April 22 , 20 19 at 6:00 pm
Page 10 of42
The proposed rezoning wi ll be subject to the tree preservation ordinance including recompense
and tree density requirements. A new tree survey was submitted , and the following comments
were made regarding the site:
• The arborist report appears to be accurate and mitigation will not be required for the
specimen trees in poor condition .
• The plant material being used for the 35-foot landscape buffer are adequate for visual
screening. Many of the selected species for planting are evergreen with branching all the
way to the ground.
• The landscape plan of the 35-foot landscape buffer show adequate densit y and spacing to
provide a visual screen .
The revised site plan submitted on March 19 , 2109 shows a 24-foot-wide road from back of curb
to back of curb. This will require that one side of the road be "Fire Laned" which requires "no
parking" signs every 50 feet and the curb to be painted red or other distinctive color.
A traffic memo has been submitted to the Transportation Engineer to evaluate access and the
applicant will be required to provide additional information prior to the Land Disturbance Permit
approval, if this request is approved.
The revised site plan shows the all the flood plain that is within the development. No new
development is within this area.
On October 13 , 2018 , the applicant hosted a Public Participation Meeting at the Hampton Inn
Meeting Room located at 16 785 Old Morris Road . There were 20 people in attendance. The
attendees ' issues and concerns were 1) the reduction in the buffer to surrounding residents and 2)
when the traffic circle adjacent to the site would be completed (Forsyth County).
The CZIM Meeting was held on November 27 , 2018 . The applicant was present and there were
eleven members of the community in attendance . The following issues were raised by the
community:
• Increased traffic
• Architecture shou ld be consistent with other homes on Bethany Bend
• Concern with separation between existing homes in Hidden Forest Subdi v ision. Need to
make sure there is some type of protection from car lights entering the subdivision .
• Parking for guests.
• Issues with the future round a bout.
• Disturbance of existing wild li fe and vegetation.
The following points were discussed at the Design Review Board Meeting on December 4 , 2018:
• Liked the proposed development and design of the buildings.
• Supported the requested architectural variances for the building material and noted that
the requirement for brick does need to be cleaned up.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 11 of42
• Work with the Hidden Forest HOA to decide on a fence that is compatible for both
properties.
The Hidden Forest Community Meeting was held on January 19, 2019. Environmental architect
Carrie Kraus and Korey Jones , the developer met with the concerned property owners to discuss
these drawings at length and walk their properties along our property line. As stated by the
applicant, there were five residents of the subdivision present at the meeting which was held at
140 Peacock Way by the applicant. Three of the residents at the meeting li ve in the three houses
at the end of the cul-de-sac which is impacted the most by the proposed reduced buffer. The
applicant stated, each of the home owners was satisfied and even happy with the proposed
detailed landscaping plan. The Community Development Department Staff has a letter of support
signed by the following addresses : 125, 130 , 140 , 14 5 Peacock Way and 13348 Flamingo Road.
The Spring Valley Townhomes Meeting was held on March 15 , 2019. The applicant, Korey
Jones met with three of the concerned adjacent property owners within the Spring Valley
Townhomes. They walked the three properties that are adjacent to the proposed development.
The three homeowners (3530 , 3532 3540 Spring View Court) expressed satisfaction with the 35-
foot land scape buffer or 35-foot undisturbed buffer proposed.
(Section 64-2104) Planning Staff shall , with respect to each zoning application , investigate and
make a recommendation with respect to factors 1 through 7 , below, as well as any other factors it
may find relevant.
1. Whether or not the proposal will permit a use that is suitable in v ie w of the use and
development of adjacent and nearb y Property?
The proposed 54 residential units comprising of duplexes , triplexes and quadplexes developed at
a density of 6.38 units per acre is consistent and provides for a transition from lower density to
higher density with adjacent and nearby properties. To the west and south is Hidden Forest
Subdivision developed with primarily townhomes and some single family detached homes at a
density of 4 .99 units per acre; Spring Valley Townhomes to the northwest is developed at 7.86
units per acre ; Windcrest Park Townhomes further to the northwest is developed at 6.76 units per
acre. To the east within Forsyth County is a mixed-use development zoned MPD that contains
apartments , single family homes and future commercial.
Location Parcel / Zoning / Name Approved Density/Min.
Zoning Heated Floor Area
Petition
East 1 MPD (Master Plan Development) 164 acres with no more
(Forsyth ZA3282 Deerfield Township than 983 residential units
County) and 250 ,000 square feet
of commercial area with
1,000 parking spaces
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Counci l
Monday, April 22 , 20 19 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of42
South 2 0-1 (Office-Institutional)
RZ18-06/ Conditional and Use Permit for
U18-01 Private School
Milton Montessori School
Further 3 T-5 Limited
South IMT Deerfield
Further 4 T-5 Limited
South Fairview Townhomes
South and 5 TR (Townhouse Residential)
West RZ02-105 Conditional
Hidden Forest
Northwest 6 TR (Townhouse Residential)
Z99-136 Conditional
Spring Valley
Further 7 TR (Townhouse Residential)
Northwest RZ97-115 Conditional
Windcrest Park
3 ,287 sq. ft./acre
Existing structure and
new 9 ,500 sq.ft. building
12 uni ts / acre
3 stories
6.25 /acre
4 .99 units/acre
1,500 sq. ft. attached
2 ,000 sq. ft . detached
7.86 units/acre
2 stories
1,200 sq. ft .
6.76 units/acre
1,500 sq . ft .
2. Whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent
or nearby property?
It is Staffs opinion that the proposal will not adversel y affect the ex isting use or u sability of the
adjacent properties as described above if approved with the Recommended Conditions . The
applicant has provided a detailed buffer plan including cross section of the buffer to demonstrate
the 35-foot proposed buffer adjacent to Hidden Forest Subdivision and a portion of Spring
Valley Townhomes. The applicant is also providing a 35-foot undisturbed buffer along a portion
of the property adjacent to Spring Valley Townhomes. The proposed development is within the
range of existing approved densities and uses in the area .
3. Whether the property to be affected by the proposal has a reasonable economic use as
currently zoned?
The subject site may have a reasonable use currently zoned AG-1 (Agricultural) for single family
residential and TR (Townhouse Residential) with a Use Permit for senior housing .
4. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or
burdensome use of existing streets , transportation facilities , utilities or schools?
The proposed development may have some impact on ex isting streets , transportat ion facilities
and schools . The roundabout that is under construction at the entrance of the project as well as
the additional entrance on the northern portion of the site wi ll help ameliorate the increase in
traffic in and out of the subject site . All three schools will be impacted by the proposed
development. This area is currently zoned for Cambridge High, Hopewell Middle, and Co g burn
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 13 of42
Woods Elementary and all schools are currently over building capacity and the project will
increase the number over capacity
5. Whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan?
Future Land Use Plan Map: MFR (Multi Family Residential) and HDR-2 (High Density
Residential) 5 units per acre or more
Proposed use /density: Townhomes at 6.38 units per acre /Consistent
The proposed development is in conformity with the following plan policies (objectives):
• Accommodate our diverse population by encouraging a compatible mixture of
housing types , densities and costs within the City.
• Encourage development of housing opportunities that enable residents to have easier
access to commercial services and employment opportunities.
• Encourage housing policies , choices and patterns that increase opportunities for
people to move into affordable owner-occupied housing.
• Support appropriate residential and non-residential infill development and
redevelopment in ways that complement surrounding areas.
6. Whether there are other existing or changed conditions affecting the use and development
of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the
proposal ?
Since the last approval for a Senior Housing Use Permit in 2008 at a density of 19.84 units per
acre , the applicant has included additional acreage , but the amount of flood plain has increased
on the site. The proposed density is 6.48 units per acre which is a significant decrease from the
existing approved zoning. In addition, there is a mixed-use development under construction on
the east side of Bethany Bend in Forsyth County which includes apartments , single family
homes , and future commercial uses directly across the street from the site. Lastly, there is a
roundabout under construction which will serve as the primary entrance and exit for the
development. Therefore , it is Staffs opinion that these changed conditions affect the use and
development of the property which supports the recommended approval of the proposed
rezomng.
7. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered environmentally
adverse to the natural resources , environment and citizens of the City of Milton?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 14 of42
The proposed use will not be environmentally averse to the natural resources , environment and
citizens of the City due to the required development regulations as it pertains to stormwater
facilities , tree recompense and open space requirements.
It is Staffs conclusion that the proposed rezoning from TR (Townhouse Residential) and AG-1
(Agricultural) to TR (Townhouse Residential) to develop 54 townhomes is consistent with the
2016 Future Land Use Plan Update and Plan Policies as well as providing an appropriate
transition from lower density to higher densities to the north and east. Staff recommends
APPROVAL CONDITIONAL of RZ18-14 and APPROVAL CONDITIONAL VC18-09,
PART 1 AND DENIAL OF VC18-09, PARTS 2 AND 3 .
If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council , it should be TR (Townhouse
Residential) CONDITIONAL subject to the owner 's agreement to the following enumerated
conditions. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulation s and offerings contained in the
Letter of Intent , these conditions shall supersede unless specifically stipulated by the Mayor and
City Council.
1) To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a) Townhouse attached dwellings and accessory uses and structures .
b) No more than 54 total dwelling units at a maximum density of 6.38 units per acre , whichever
is le ss , based on the total acreage zoned. Approved lo t/unit totals are not guaranteed . The
developer is responsible through site engineering (at the time of application for a Land
Disturbance Permit) to demonstrate that all lot s/units within the approved development meet or
exceed all the development standards of the City of Milton. The total lot/unit yie ld of the subject
site shall be determined by this final engineering .
2) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a) Substantial compliance with the revised site plan received by the Community Development
Department on March 19 , 2019 and whereby the exact layout of the project may contain minor
deviations approved by the Community Development Director provided the deviations remain
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Council 's approva l of the petition. Notwithstanding
the contents of the site plan, the project must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, all other applicable city ordinances and these conditions. The site plan may be
revised with the approval of the Community Development Director in order to comply with city
codes and zoning conditions. Unle ss otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions
shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
b) All areas which are not part of an individual lot and held in common sha ll be maintained by
a mandatory homeowners association, whose proposed documents of incorporation shall be
submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval prior to the
recording of the first final plat.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 15 of42
3) To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
a) Provide a 35-foot landscape buffer adjacent to property zoned TR (Townhouse
Residential) as depicted on the revised site plan received on March 19 , 2019 and the
detailed landscape plan dated January 16 , 2019 adjacent to the single-family homes in
Hidden Forest and portions of Spring Valley Townhomes except as required in
condition 3.b . Design and plant selection shall be approved by the City Arborist.
(VCl 8-09 , Part 1)
b) Provide a 35-foot undisturbed buffer adjacent to Spring Valley Townhomes as
depicted on Exhibit "A". (VC18-09 , Part 1)
c) Provide a four-board equestrian style fence not to exceed six feet in height along the
property line abutting single family residential structures within Hidden Forest
Subdivision.
d) Provide a four-board equestrian style fence not to exceed six feet in height adjacent to
Spring Valley Townhomes as depicted on Exhibit "A".
e) Units 23 , 24 , and 25 shall have a maximum depth of 40 feet as depicted on Exhibit
"A" or as approved by the Community Development Director.
f) Minimize clearing limits and grading to within 10 feet beyond Units 23 , 24 and 25 as
depicted on E x hibit "A " or as approved by the Community Development Director.
3) To the owner 's agreement to abide by the following requirements , dedication, and
improvements :
a) Access to the site and frontage improvements shall be subject to the approval of City of
Milton Department of Public Works , prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit,
Subdivision Plat or Certificate of Occupancy (whichever comes first). Entrance(s) and frontage
improvements shall conform to Chapter 48 Streets , Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the
City of Milton Code of Ordinances.
b) Provide sidewalks internal to development and along entire Bethany Bend frontage
connecting to existing infrastructure on adjacent parcels as required and approved by City of
Milton Department of Public Works.
Mayor Lockwood
Parag, could you clarify the 75 foot buffer requirement. Is that based on zoning, the existing
zoning with the applicant 's request for the AG-1 zoning or the overlay, the Highway 9 Overlay?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Counci l
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 16 of 42
Parag Agrawal
This is the requirement of the State Route 9 Overlay District. Any property that abuts the
residential use , AG-1 or any residential use , you need to have a 75 foot buffer. So, it is not about
what goes on this proposed site. It is more about that it is abutting residential property so that is
the reason the city code requires a 75 foot buffer. It is a requirement of the overlay district, not
the requirement of the zon in g.
Mayor Lockwood
And , that would be 75 feet no matter what the use is?
Parag Agrawal
It is also about the property area . So , this requirement is for properties that are more than 4
acres.
Councilmember Kunz
The surrounding neighborhoods , do they cunently have a 75 foot buffer? What is their buffer?
They were built prior. I was just c uriou s.
Parag Agrawal
My understanding is that they were built prior to 2008 and at that time there was a 40 foot buffer
requirement.
Robyn MacDonald, Zoning Manager
The last development was zoned in Fulton County and at the time was previously only required
to do 40 foot buffers for their rear property line and 25 for their side property lin e . Hidden
Forest whi ch is adjacent to this property was required to do a 25 foot undisturbed buffer because
it was their side setbacks for the entire development. This was originally AG-1 when that was
zo n ed.
Councilmember Kunz
The next question I have is speaking of AG-1 , so we have a lot of TR surrounding this property
which was mostly Fulton County in the past but then we did our future land use plan to change
this AG-1 to HDR-2 and I think we h ave the form based code, I am just curious , how did this
AG-1 being surrounded by a ll this stuff, how did we decide to keep it as AG-1? Why was it not
included in a higher density?
Robyn MacDonald
This area was not included, maybe do you mean to the Form Based Code? Because, we would
not go out and just re-zone property on our own, but this area was not included because the area
was not part of the LCI which was the original study for Deerfield . And , then when we extended
it on our own from Bethany Bend to the Forsyth County border, whic h was not included in the
LCI , it was decided at that point not to include this portion of these properties into the Deerfield
Form Based Code a lth ough it is fa irl y near but it was not included in the Deerfield Form Based
Code.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 17 of 42
Councilmember Kunz
Was that a staff recommendation at the time ? I'm just curious.
Robyn MacDonald
I cannot exactly address the reason. There was a whole committee and all sorts of meetings , so I
would not be able to give you an accurate reason why it wasn't included.
Councilmember Kunz
Okay , so the ne xt question I have is with the 2035 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. There was a
future land use plan that had increased the density from AG-1 to that particular parcel to HDR-2 ,
right ?
Robyn MacDonald
So, it was split between two different land use designations. The portion that was zoned in 2008
for the senior housing was designated as multi-family re sidential because at 19 units per acre that
is what it is . The remainder of the parcels were assigned to HDR-2 which is 5 to 8 units per acre
which is consistent with the other developments surrounding it. There are other townhouse
residential developments that are similar or even higher than this one as you go up Bethany Bend.
So , that is the reason , I believe , that the y assigned HDR-2 for the other parcels outside of the
original senior hou si ng.
Councilmember Kunz
So , the AG-1 that was in place. There was a committee that created the future land use plan that
decided to designate this a higher density plan for the future land use plan to HDR-2 and then
that plan went through our citizens and council vote , etc . including that in 2016 , correct?
Robyn MacDonald
Correct, it went through all the CP AC and Planning Commission as well as the council.
Councilmember Longoria
The property has an irregular shape to it and actually at one point is pretty, I would say the depth
of the property is not that great. I have some concerns related to the edges of the property
because a 75 foot buffer when applied around the peri meter sometimes overlaps and makes
whole pieces of a piece of property unbuildable. Do we know what the buildable space is if we
didn 't change the 75 foot setback or buffer?
Parag Agrawal
This is the 35 foot buffer line right now so again, if this 35 foot against where we assume, this
will come on this street, the 75 foot buffer line will come on the street. So, this w ill be the
narrow part that you are mentioning. So , I do not know exactly what the buildable would be but
it will be quite narrow.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Cou nci l
Monday , Apr il 22, 20 19 at 6:00 pm
Page 18 of 42
Councilmember Longoria
Just visuall y looking at it, we take away at least half of the space on that front piece . The
wet lands area, there is nothing going in there anyway so that sort of remains the same. The
comer on the diagram on the northern section where the blue lin e is , when you apply 75 feet in
that littl e area right there yo u probably cut out most of that area. So , did we do any analysis on
the number of units they cou ld get if the variance was not granted?
Parag Agrawal
As I mentioned, they curre ntl y have TR zoning, so TR basically a ll ows 9 units per acre; 4.54
acres is zoned as TR so I would say they could fit in around 40 units with this density but they
also have a 75 foot buffer so they may not be able to get in 40 units. So , again , I do not have that
analysis because we never got the site plan that wou ld show it.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay , I wi ll go with signifi cantly less.
Parag Agrawal
Signifi cantl y less, yes .
Mayor Lockwood
Peyton, did you have a clarification?
Councilmember Jamison
The clarification is that w hen you mentioned the Comp Plan 2016 , this was not discussed in
20 16, it had to have been a prior Comp Plan.
Parag Agrawal
20 11 ; it was part of 2016 also that was coming from 2011.
Councilmember Bentley
Parag, co uld you restate th e information spec ifi call y when we remanded it back to the Planning
Commiss ion. Could you please restate that for me?
Parag Agrawal
At the Planning Commiss ion meeting in November 2018, the city staff made a statement in front
of th e Planning Commiss ion saying th at in 2008 the applicant requested a 75 foot buffer
variance . It was requested, and it was approved. But, when we did some more research, we
found out that in 2008 the 75 foot buffer was never requeste d and was not approved. So, we just
wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission members are a lso aware that no buffer was
approved in 2008. I do not know what sign ifi cance they were placing on this statement but for
the sake of transparency we just thought it was better that they review this application.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday , April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 19 of42
Councilmember Mohrig
Parag, could you please show me on the site plan the area that was already zoned TR and where
there is some link to other parcels?
Parag Agrawal
If you extend this line all the way to here , this part on the southern part was zoned as TR and this
part is all AG-1 right now. So, if you look at the current zoning map, this is AG-1 and this is TR.
Councilmember Mohrig
So , the odd shape that kind of zigs and zags , that is with the assemblage of the other properties.
That is not something that was already zoned TR in the past.
Parag Agrawal
So , right now there are six parcels on eight something acres so the cutoff is basically TR. All of
this is zoned as TR and the part at the top is zoned AG-1.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Colin Merry, 140 Peacock Way, Milton, GA 30004
City Clerk Gordon read the following comment into the record:
"With the agreement with the developer on a landscape buffer, we, the single family
homeowners favor this development versus previous plans put forward."
Steve Rowe, Applicant, 50 Warm Springs Circle, Roswell, GA
I want to walk through the site plan . We are going to be entering off of the traffic circle which is
near completion. This property does have wetlands in the back that we are preserving with a
significant flood plain that came about over the past ten years during the latest flood study. The
previous flood study had this as an unstudied reach so there was no flood plain that was listed on
FEMA with an elevation. With regards to the roads , we increased the road width to the Fire
Marshal 's minimum so that was a little bit of a change , but it worked out for the better. And , then
the additional parking spaces here are shown throughout the area with either driveway spaces or
on street parking so there are 26 on street parking and then there is an additional 45 units that have
a two car garage and two cars in the driveway. I want to reserve most of the time to talk about this
buffer that has increased. We have been able to get it beefed up quite a bit from where it started.
And, what I want to talk about is that in these various sections , I want to talk about the plant
material that we are proposing. We 've got a heavy evergreen planting mix , it would be 75%
evergreen; 25% deciduous so that it didn 't have an artificial look of all evergreen. We wanted to
give it interest throughout the year. We have magnolias for high canopy screening , we have some
native hollies , we are trying to be native and naturalize within our plant material palate. We want
to make sure we are giving a good screen to the homeowners on the opposite side as well as our
own homeowners along with the fence that will be put in those areas . In addition to that , we have
the understory trees that will add some interest and do well in the shade and then add the colors;
Regular Meetin g of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22, 2 019 at 6:00 pm
Page 20 of 42
the redbuds the service berries ; things along those lines . At this point, I would like to turn over
the microphone to Carrie Krauz and when she is done , I can answer any questions you may have.
Carrie Krauz, Architect who created Millieu, 3464 Roxboro Road, Atlanta, GA 30326
I am very excited about this project. It is my first project in Milton. Before I began working on
it , I spent about three months researching your community, your history , I drove all throughout the
city and noticed the existing architecture , new as well as old , the surrounding neighborhoods , so
there was quite a bit of research done. I am very proud to present this project , not only of my
work, but the community , the Design Review Board , Planning Commission, neighbors
surrounding this project, have all been very favorable and advocates of this development. Millieu
means social environment. It is French. What is interesting about this is that we created a diverse
community , so it is diverse in scale of the units themselves which allows diversity of family ,
dynamics , economics , and that was important in designing this community . That is why it is
named, Millieu, a social environment. Another thing that I would like to point out that was very
important as an environmentalist, is that we have a lot of preserved greenspace. So , throughout
the community , when you notice the site plan, you did not notice this large massive greenspace
that gets everything nice and neat and under code , you see the greenspace all throughout the
different units and buildings which allows community involvement and social experiences . I
wanted to point that out because I think it is important because I want you to think about how the
community members live. This has been designed very thoroughly to allow a very harmonious ,
balanced neighborhood. I think you should be proud of it. These are the renderin gs. As you come
in off the street, you are on a site line of one of the stronger green spaces which we have created
concepts with fire corrals , pergolas throughout with benches and a lot of shared experiences. I
worked very closely with Bob , the city architect, and he really wanted a pedestrian friendly open
community. You will see a lot of sidewalks . He wanted the streetscape to be stronger on Bethany
Bend , so that is where you see all the larger units. At first , I wanted to design a single family
community and we went this direction , but as you see , a lot of these units are quite large and can
definitely accommodate single family. We also have what I would call your main living on the
first floor , so we can have empty nesters. We have some really interesting concepts where you
can have young executives who are up and coming throughout Milton. Some of the units go from
1,800 square feet to 3,600 square feet. So , we really stuck to that vision of diversity . As we go
through here , I want to show you , I want to give you a feel because so much that I fought for is
this materials variance. 75% vertical wall of masonry and that felt like we were going backwards
architecturally throughout Milton . When you look at your library and you look at all the brand
new developments that are coming up and some of the newer homes that have just been built and
the ones that are in permitting processing right now, there is not a 75 % masonry on the vertical
walls and that is because we missed the form based code, the form based zoning. I just want to
show you some of the ideas. So , we have some really neat progressive innovative materials. This
roof has a 50 year warranty, it is a synthetic slate. We have a lot of natural stone. All the water
tables throughout the buildings have a consistent masonry and as you saw in the renderings , a lot
of the vertical walls pop up into solid masonry ; not just 75%. If you actually look at each unit
which I have provided specifications , in depth specifications if you want to take the time , there is
quite a bit of natural stone on this project. We changed the names around. We have solid wood
doors , we have some wood frame windows , we have some black framed windows , we have light
stone lintels , we have some neat wood siding, some copper chimne y pots , just a lot of design and
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 21 of42
architectural elements here and the inspiration behind that is that I embraced your equestrian
history. I also embraced your cotton yielding history. A lot of these materials, like I said, I am an
environmental architect, but a lot of my training was in Europe , so I think you will appreciate this
village concept. It is very European and when you think about equestrian, you think about cotton
yielding, you think about early colonization, it is definitely rich in European architecture. So , I
feel like this community is actually more historically relevant than some of the things I have
actually seen when I look around at what I would call more established architecture in Milton. I
feel like we are going back and embracing the true history architecturally.
Mayor Lockwood
Can I interrupt one second? Ken , I want a point of order. I believe we may be out of time. What
do we need to do on the time?
City Attorney Jarrard
The council needs to make a motion to extend which would be applicable to both sides.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, the council , obviously , we have done it in the past, the council could extend some time for
those in favor and then we would equally add time for those in opposition. Is council okay with
that; maybe five minutes on either side?
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz made a motion to extend five minutes to both sides.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Carrie Kranz
Thank you so much. I appreciate that. So , I am just going to slide you through some of these. We
also brought in some metal roof materials in a dark bronze tone. The walls that you see in siding,
the material is incredible , it is fifteen year warranty ; it is colorfast and if I brought it up to you,
which we have the sample , you would not know that it wasn't true wood . It has such beautiful
texture , but it is environmental. I am a LEED certified environmental architect, so it is very
important that all the materials pass that philosophy forward in your community. So, I will just
finish this up . You know , this white brick, this chalk brick, we used it extensively throughout and
I am sure you all have been through Alpharetta and I am sure you have been through Roswell and
have seen the use of brick but painted white. Well , this brick is actually is much better, it has
tonality of greys and whites ; it looks like it has been there and again, embracing the European feel
all these units have different projections and elevations. It is not a row like you typically see in
townhome developments. Each unit looks like its own unit and they have all been homogenized
into this European village. The shutters were inspired by the equestrian influence. You will see a
lot of the barn wood . I actually have some siding that looks like reclaimed bamwood for some of
the open end gables. Again, just embracing your history. And , that is pretty much that on that
level. I have a slide show but I will reserve it unless you want to see it. They are basically images.
There is no hardship case on the architecture side of this variance but, I will say it is a strong
argument. I am trying to develop and build something that you have already embraced in your
city and your architecture and in your own municipality buildings that is historically relevant. It
is quality. A lot of townhomes you see they will do vinyl siding, or they will do hardie board on
Regular Meetin g of the Milton City Council
Monda y, April 22, 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 22 of 42
the sides and you will just see a brick front. And , yes , that passes code , but it is not quality , and it
does not look authentic. This development is very authentic. When you see the material choice
in the water table of these triplexes , quadplex , the duplexes , it carries all the way around. If you
see a vertical unit , it carries the same material so there is not this cookie cutter, cutting comers,
type of architecture. It is very authentic and very relati v e to your history . And , the materials are
all environmental and I just can 't imagine you denying this architecturally. So , it is the way of the
future. You can go through Alpharetta, you can go through Buckhead , you can see this
architecture ; there is a movement. And , I am very happ y for it because it is about time that we start
building things that are historically relevant that have what I call timeless design. So , that is really
all I have unless you have questions.
Judy Burds, 1165 Bream Drive, Milton, GA 30004
The good news is that I will not take fifteen minutes . I have been a resident here in Milton for
over twelve years , almost twelve years . I am learning that what happens in Milton in one part
really does affect all of Milton. The other times that I hav e been before you hav e been about the
area that I live in, but I felt that after I listened to the Planning Commission meeting on this
regarding another topic , I felt that I needed to speak . The buffer reduction and construction
material change request in my opinion and I hope in your opinion , do not meet the requirement for
hardship. The challenge with the southern parcel development, which is now TR zoned , is an
investment risk. The commercial developer should have done its due diligence regarding buffer
requirements and the potential for the expansion of wetlands. It is an investment risk. He is a
sophisticated developer. It is a risk he takes. It is not a hardship . My understanding is that the
northern parcels that are currently zoned AG-1 have not even been purchased yet. It kind of
perplexes me of how you can claim a hardship when you haven 't even made an investment yet.
He is hoping , I believe , to get one so he can complete that purchase . Milton is a place that protects
neighboring developments . They are crucial and should not be reduced . In this case , the request
is being made to reduce the buffers by more than half; from 75 feet to 35 feet. This is not a could
you give me 5% so I can fit another unit. This is more than half. On another note , Milton 's
building material standards are critical. I grew up in a cedar sided house built in the 1890 's . The
neighboring house was built in 1870. It was built of brick . At our house with the cedar siding , we
were constantly scraping , cleaning, repainting, it seemed like a constant work and just when we
got done we had to start over again because it already looked worn. The older brick house next
door to us required far less upkeep and always looked in good condition. In my current four-sided
brick home , I just scrub the mildew off of my wood window trim. Sorry , if you could see my nails
you would know I had. I have not had to do any cleaning of my brick . I think we have to consider
in these units that a lot of times , I know when I lived in a townhouse previously, I did not spend a
lot of time on the exterior of my home. I was a busy professional. I did not have time to do that
kind of upkeep. A brick house looks good with minimal upkeep as well as stone and I would
encourage you , especially for this development, and for the standards of Milton , to keep those
standards in place. So , the applicant's request for variances should be denied . As far as the zoning
request , it falls within the overlay plan, so it could be approved in my opinion , but I would be
cautious as the current property owners would likely want to preserve the current AG-1 zoning if
the variances and when the variances are denied. Thank you.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 23 of 42
Mayor Lockwood
I will close the public hearing on this and open it up to council for questions for staff or the
applicant.
Councilmember Longoria
The current situation that we have is that the property that is zoned TR is sort of the less developed
component. The property that currently isn 't zoned TR is where a good portion of the development
is going to go in place. I don't think I have a problem with the zoning , okay , because the current
AG-1 is surrounded by TR across the street and it gets even more dense when you look at what is
going on in Forsyth County, so I am pretty cool on that piece . What I don't understand and what I
am trying to figure out is how, in my mind all the variances are accompanied by some type of
hardship requirement. How can staff recommend approving one and not approving the other two.
And, I want to make sure I understand what parts one, two, and three are because based on the
language here , part one is the setback and buffer requirement, part two is the wall change, and part
three is the brick tile change. Is that correct?
Parag Agrawal
Yes.
Councilmember Lo ngoria
So , what is the hardship for two and three , I 'm sorry , I said that the wrong way , what is the hardship
for one that exists and doesn't exist for two and three?
Parag Agrawal
Yes, so , basically, I would say that the variance is always project specification ; it is basically case
by case basis, number one, counci lmember you only mentioned the hardship what we think for the
buffer requirement is the shape of this property . As you basically brought it up , if you are having
the 75 foot buffer, it basically reduces the half, it basically takes off of the property that is one.
That is not the case with the building materials. All of those were designed as the applicant's
architect just stated but still you can go ahead with the regular building materials but just there in
the state route 9 overlay district. Number second, I will say that it is about the intent of the code.
Although it states a 75 foot buffer requirement and as the councilmember just mentioned you are
going down from 75 to 35. So , it is a significant reduction of the buffer space, it is a number. But,
if you look at the landscaping plan between the residential units and the proposed residential, the
staff thinks that this buffer although it is 75 foot it does gives enough visual screening. So, again
because of the shape of the property you have a hardship and plus what they are proposing they
are trying to mitigate this reduction of the buffer and the way they have designed the landscaping
buffer that will help to visually screen the neighboring properties with this proposed use . So, it is
a dual thing , it is a reduction because of the shape and also about the solution that they are
proposmg.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Counci l
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 42
Councilmember Longoria
Okay , so we review all of these req u ests in a vacuum . In other words , what we decide here isn 't
based on something that we decided elsewhere and what we decide elsewhere won 't be based on
w hat we decide here , okay , however, just humor me , do we have a situation in the past where the
amount of reduction , the amount of distance that we took out of the undisturbed buffer was at the
same scale at the same level ? What is the rational? How did we come to 35 feet is still okay?
What process did we go through to determine what was acceptable ?
Parag Agrawal
Again, it dep ends upon the landscaping so luti on that the app licant was proposing so instead of 3 5
foot they wou ld have been proposing 45 foot and no screenin g so maybe the city arborist and the
city staff reviewed and they said okay although 45 foot it is more than 35 foot but they are not
providing any screening but in this case they are providing 35 foot of screening and the city staff
thought that number but it does meet the intent of the code.
Councilmember Longoria
Okay.
Parag Agrawal
The thing which you said, I think w hat you are looking for is historically have we reduced this
buffer from 75 foo t to something right that is what you are trying to ask.
Councilmember Longoria
It is more than a 50% ...
Parag Agrawal
It is more than a 50% reduction. Robyn, do you know of any other ....
Robyn MacDonald
You caught me off guard a littl e bit so I am not go in g to tell you exactly because I do not know
off the top of my head I would have to do some research. I do know there hav e been buffer
variances especiall y for use permits done in the past and that typically wou ld be in the rural Mi lton
area but again I do not have the spec ifi c scenarios for you but I would also like to interject that we
have a number acreage that di ffere ntiates between a 50 foot undisturbed buffer so if it is less than
if it is less than four acres then yo u are only required to do 50 and then if it is four or more it is 75
feet and a 10 foot improvement setb ack and I would argu e , just like you said , a lot of the
development is in an area that you know is closer to form I mean w hat I believe it is not always
looking at the numbers but to lo ok at the situation and in addition to what Parag was saying I would
also say that they have includ ed a lot of open space for the development for the residents and if
yo u looked at the open space that actu ally creates more you could say buffer that we are not reall y
accounting for so I think that looking at this development overall it provides the type of open space
that we are striving for for each development and I think that makes it for a better deve lop ment for
those res idents and that the applicant has worked very close l y with the adjacent property owners
to make sure that they are satisfie d with wh at is being provided and so thus far we h ave gotten
Regular Meeting of the Mi lton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 25 of 42
support from the adjacent property owners even ones in other townhouse developments that are at
a higher density adjacent to them so.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, if it was a smaller parcel before you did the assemblage they would be required to do a 50 foot
buffer undisturbed buffer?
Robyn MacDonald
That is correct.
Parag Agrawal
But even for this TR, the TR portion is 4 point something acres so even for this 4.52 acres they
would have gone to 75 foot buffer because Robyn has just mentioned the cut off is four acres ,
right, so four acres or more 75 foot buffer so even if they are building TR right now they would
have to go with 75 foot buffer because it is more than the threshold.
Councilmember Mohrig
So , even existing TR zoned property would require 75 foot undisturbed buffer and it is undisturbed
buffer?
Robyn MacDonald
So, traditionally we have had an undisturbed buffer but we over the years have amended it to
encourage not to just be undisturbed because if there is nothing there it is pretty pointless so we
typically allow it to be not technically undisturbed we like to supplement it with additional planting
to provide a visual buffer which is the intent of the zoning buffer; it is not just a setback, but the
intent is to be a visual buffer so if all situations were perfect you would have a really beautiful
wonderful buffer that you couldn 't see through so we ask the applicant to supplement that buffer
and do additional plantings.
Councilmember Mohrig
So , I understand the intent so the law says basically here is what our zoning ordinance requires a
75 foot undisturbed buffer if it is sparsel y vegetated we would try to encourage the developer to
actually add things to make it more viewable but 75 foot buffer, if we go back to when we
originally did this , was for protection of subdivision to subdivision because we have things built
with just a small setback or an improvement setback and a small buffer in the past and I think that
is where , Peyton you may be able to speak a little bit more, but I think that is where we ...
Robyn MacDonald
Can I just make a little correction? It is not subdivision to subdivision. It is the use to the use. So,
it wouldn't be between two single family residential subdivisions.
Councilmember Mohrig
So , in this case it still would be a required 75 foot undisturbed buffer. I guess that is what the law
is. Can you tell me what the topography is? Is it pretty flat at the back of that parcel the existing
TR and what type of vegetation do you have in the buffer area?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 26 of 42
Robyn MacDonald
We made a site visit with one of our city arborists and it is fairly dense , but it is not with large
trees. I think there is a lot of privet smaller size trees , but it creates a buffer but once you start you
know cleaning it out it would be reduced and that is why the applicant is proposing to insert much
better type plantings and if you want to ask him he could probably go into more detail about what
that is. But if you go out to the site right now , the visual buffer is kind of there , but it is a lot of
stuff that you probably would not want to be growing in that buffer.
Mayor Lockwood
It looks pretty dense right now , okay.
Councilmember Mohrig
The other question is that they requested a variance and we heard from the architect that these are
going to be different types of materials that are more in her mind and what she is expressing are
more esthetically appealing versus when we first came up with the highway 9 overlay and I know
some of us were involved at that point we were concerned because the type of commercial
buildings we were getting including residential that had vinyl siding and some of the things we
said we have to put rules there to try to improve the project because those of us who live in that
area so what was being approved by Fulton County and what was going in so what we have there
today none of that was zoned when we had City of Milton. I don 't think any of that construction
along Bethany Bend was City of Milton.
Robyn MacDonald
The lower part of Bethany Bend you are speaking of or ..... .
Councilmember Mohrig
The portion along Highway 9.
Robyn MacDonald
The only thing that was under development ; Hidden Forest was under development, it was being
built, everything else pretty much already existed at those TR developments.
Councilmember Mohrig
Okay and that was Fulton County. If the variance was granted on the building materials, how
would we, do we have a list, how would we enforce that? It sounds good , it looks good , how do
you enforce that to make sure if we make a variance it is not so broad that we don 't end up with a
product ...
Parag Agrawal
In the staff report , the applicant has provided a list of materials and has also shown where those
materials will go and yes enforcement can be done . And , I will also mention one more point, even
DRB they did appreciate it as good design and they also encouraged the staff that we should look
at changing our standards for the overlay district that was part of it.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 27 of 42
Councilmember Mohrig
Let 's say this is approved whenever the final plan is , if the variance was approved on the building
materials, would this go back before the DRB once they actually pull the site plan they start
building.
Robyn MacDonald
All TR multi-family the Row houses, townhouses, each set of buildings have to be approved by
the Design Review Board. So , unlike single family detached , which does not have a requirement
to go to the DRB, these townhomes will be , each set of buildings , whether it is a set of four or a
set of three or a set of six, they all will go to the DRB if it was to be approved.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, that would have to be approved by the DRB by building you take a look at the type of materials,
etc. It would not be yes go ahead and build what you want to build they would actually come and
present.
Robyn MacDonald
They would use whatever, if you were to approve this , the conditions and we have that in the staff
report these are the conditions that the Planning Commission recommended approval and we try
to make it as general as possible and good enough to still be able to get the point across of what
the style and design they want and that is the good part is that it would have to be required to go
to the DRB for their final approval prior to a building permit issuance .
Councilmember Mohrig
Okay, so that would be the way we enforce it.
Robyn MacDonald
Correct.
Councilmember Cookerly
So , the total amount of acreage under build , excluding the wetlands , the total amount under build
is how much?
Parag Agrawal
The wetlands is 1.4 acres and the total site is 8.146 acres so you basically subtract 8.146 by 1.4 so
it is basically 7ish acres.
Councilmember Cookerly
7ish?
Robyn MacDonald
7.06
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Counci l
Monday, April 22 , 20 19 at 6:00 pm
Page 28 of 42
Councilmember Cookerly
And , you mentioned greenspace. Of the 7 acres and what do we have 54 units , 7 acres ...
Parag Agrawal
Yes , they are proposing 54 townhomes .
Councilmember Cookerly
Right, how much of that in acreage or square footage is green space?
Robyn MacDonald
So , okay, in their site plan with a ll the changes that they made the amount of greenspace so we
make a requirement in our ordinance that there be ten , let's see , 1,000 square feet of open space
per unit and that would be 54 ,000 square feet which is a bit over an acre and then provided is
55 ,924 square feet which is alm ost 56 ,000 so you are looking at about an acre and a quarter that
they are providing in open space in addition , so that does not include the buffer, so we can 't when
we look at open space , they are not allowed to include the und isturbed buffer or the landscape
buffer.
Parag Agrawal
So , this number includes th e wetland area, right, this one?
Rob y n MacDonald
Correct, it includes the wetland area, it includes the trees that are in the front that the y are
preserving as we ll as all the open green area that is interspersed around the development.
Councilmember Cookerly
I lik e the build ing materials . I am a fan of what I see I am struggling with the buffer a lot.
Councilmember Kunz
So , refresh my memory as well. Has the 75 foot buffer been in place since the city's inception for
a ll new developments ? Exp lain the hi story of that.
Parag Agrawal
The 75 foot buffer was recommended by the city counci l in April 2008.
Councilmember Kunz
April 2008 , what was it prior to 20 08 ?
Robyn MacDonald
So , prior to that wou ld have been an other section of the co de that we mentioned that anytime a
new development their rear property lin e or their rear setback would be provide a 40 foot and then
si des wo uld provide a 25 foot. And , so it didn 't deal with acreage , it just dealt with the setbacks .
I don 't know if that i s clear or not , but it was less than what is currentl y.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 29 of 42
Councilmember Kunz
Okay , that is all.
Councilmember Jamison
You said the buffer requirement was April 2008. When was the property purchased by the
applicant?
Robyn MacDonald
So , we met with the applicant in June 2008 and they submitted their application in July.
Councilmember Jamison
They applied for a variance in 2015 to reduce the buffer and staff recommended denial in 2015
based on your comments on your approval , because of the shape of the property, that takes up half
the property, what has changed since 2015 to today?
Parag Agrawal
So, let me take this and then Robyn you can add to it. As I mentioned, each variance request is on
a project by project basis , a case by case basis, so we are recommending this variance we are
recommending approval for this variance request based on the project which we have in front of
us right now. We are also looking at the mitigating factors. How they are trying to not only
reducing the buffer but how they are trying to come up with a solution. That will help us to have
some visual screening between the Hidden Valley subdivision and this project. I am just giving
you an example. Suppose if a commercial project comes on the site or if a big commercial project
comes on the site then maybe the staff might not recommend approval of this buffer. It is not like
since we are recommending approval for a buffer variance for this project. If after two years a
commercial project pops up on this site, we will again have to recommend approval of the variance
request at that time also because it is a project by project basis we think this is a good project that
although it is not requiring a 75 foot buffer, but it does come up with a good solution. And , Robyn
I know you also want to add to it.
Robyn MacDonald
So , previously in the 2015 application, the application was proposing 75 units . It has a little bit
more acreage because they had under a contract what is now the new Montessori school. So , I just
want to make that clear, it was a little bit larger. But, they were proposing 77 units. There was
not , it was just too many units in staffs opinion and therefore , we recommended denial of the
variance because also they were only proposing a 20 foot undisturbed buffer instead of up to 35.
Parag Agrawal
You also have the language in the staff report , right?
Robyn MacDonald
Right , so basically that if the application had less townhomes then it would be appropriate where
we could look at the variance more closel y.
Regular Meetin g of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22, 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 30 of 42
Councilmember Jamison
I don 't want to get in an argument you know, if is it 54 and you approve a buffer, at 76 you don't
appro ve a buffer, 62 ... so I don 't want to get into that. I guess my question is , and let me know if
this is true or not , the city has not put an y constraints on the property s ince the prop erty owner has
purchased it , correct?
City Manager Krokoff
Wasn 't there a change in the flood plain?
Parag Agrawal
The only change is the flood plain , but we have not put any requirements.
Councilmember Bentley
A couple of questions , does Spring Valley , Windcrest , Hidden Forest , those neighborhoods were
all the density approved by Fulton County, correct?
Robyn MacDonald
That is correct.
Councilmember Bentley
Because you went to a lot of trouble to detail the surrounding residential densitie s, but they were
done by Fulton County as well as the Preserve at Deerfield. So , we have one neighborhood ,
Hidden Valley , that has on the southern side , those residents have the benefit of the 75 foot buffer
and then on the west side they have the 35 foot buffer and from a planning perspecti ve , you all are
okay with that ?
Robyn MacDonald
With what they are proposing , yes.
Councilmember Bentley
I only have a few more questions for the applicant. The site is comprised of si x parcel s, is that
right ?
Steve Rowe
Yes mam , it is an assemblage.
Councilmember Bentley
Does the applicant own all the parcels currentl y?
Steve Rowe
I believe he owns a portion of them , about half, not all of them.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 31 of42
Councilmember Bentley
On page 26 of our 38 page packet, there was a document called the townhome support from Spring
Valley. Are you familiar with that? I am interested in the writing at the bottom. It looks like it
was signed by three property owners and the detail description, was that written by you all or by ...
Steve Rowe
It was not me. I am the Planner Engineer. Let me get the owner up because he was part of that
process of getting that signature on that document.
Korey Jones, 14430 Wyndam Farms Drive, Milton, GA 30004
I met with the Spring Valley subdivision and they are the ones that executed that. The main
gentleman is a planner with Fulton County and he is the one that did the drawings on Exhibit A.
And, I will just point out that he indicated that if it is feasible he would like these things to happen
and I am okay that it is included in the staff report as a required condition . I am okay with that.
Councilmember Bentley
So , my question was that he references within the 7 5 foot undisturbed buffer so you are requesting
to delete it so ....
Korey Jones
I would have to look at his writing if we can bring it up somehow.
Councilmember Bentley
I just want to because that led me to believe that there might have been a misunderstanding in that
communication.
Korey Jones
We are referencing him if we could bring him up so we can see that. So, reduce the building 23,
24, 25 footprints from 45 ' to 40 ' in depth per Exhibit A. Minimize clearing limits and grading
within the 75 foot undisturbed buffer to within 10 plus beyond buildings 23 , 24 , and 25 ...
Councilmember Bentley
That was my expression when I read it too. I was confused because you mentioned the 75 foot
buffer that is being deleted . So , I guess , my question is, I know that you went to a lot of trouble
to meet with the adjacent property owners. That is a blind spot for me. I am not sure the previous
public comment that the gentleman mentioned a previous plan, I have never seen a plan with
anything but a 20 foot buffer so if the adjacent property owners were shown those plans they might
have misunderstood. So , that is my point and my question.
Korey Jones
I will point out that this is the letter that I presented to them as it is written to them and this is what
they actually executed. And I refer to a 35 foot landscape plan but I appreciate your comments.
Regular Meeting of the Milton C ity Counci l
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 32 of 42
Councilmember Bentley
Okay , I just wanted to try to clarify that and I appreciate you going to that trouble. Thank you.
Councilmember Longoria
I have a question for the applicant as well. It is sort of the part of this that I am really having
difficulty wrapping my head around . And , that is , how do we claim a hardship for something that
existed when you purchased the property?
Steve Rowe
Part of it was communication because the ordinance was new and when we had our pre-app
meeting it wasn 't brought up , we didn 't know to ask for it , we didn 't ask for it in the beginning ,
but we showed it like we were getting a variance to that setback . If this was a townhome , a TR to
TR without being in an overlay , the buffers would be closer to what we are asking for now than
they would be with a 75. The reason for the 75 is because we are in an overlay district against
outside of the overlay district even though we have very simi lar uses .
Councilmember Longoria
So , we created this after you purchased the property?
Steve Rowe
It was almost concurrent. We had gone through our zoning process with the assumption that the
setbacks were more of a traditional setback, buffer situation. We went through the process, got
the approval for the original 4. Acres and then unfortunately the recession hit and we were about
to go start on that and then the economic world fell apart . And , then we came back in 2015 and
then that was when it was brought up , oh you are in an overlay , we have to get a buffer variance
to the exterior buffer within the overlay. And , that is when it really came to light. So , when we
Bot through in 2008 , 2009 area we weren 't aware of it and then we had to unfortunately sit on it
because of the economic climate and when things started back in 2015 , when we went back to re-
up the variances because they always sunset after three years , all of this came to light with Robyn
so we went ahead and started the process back with that. I think the biggest difference between
the 2015 attempt and this attempt , is that we actually engaged with the homeowners , got their buy
in and made them a part of the buffer that they wanted to have . So , they are supposed to have a
25 foot buffer on their side. I 'm not really sure it is there. I know it may be on paper but, again,
it is not really planted , it is not landscaped , what we are doing is that we are actuall y trying to
enhance to it to a buffer standard; probably above a buffer standard. Because, the plant material
that we are putting in that 35 feet, probably should be in about a 50 foot , 55 foot , but we are
compressing it.
Councilmember Longoria
So , here is the problem I have. Imagine for a second you are a property owner on the other side
of the line. And , your expectation has always been because you live in Milton , that there is going
to be a 75 foot buffer or a 50 foot buffer depending on the acreage of the assemblage. So , then
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 33 of 42
you wake up one day and you say, no , no , it is not going to be 75 it is going to be 50 it is going to
be 30, how do you manage their expectations?
Steve Rowe
I think it is the shape of the property is really a big issue with this. Because, like you said when
you get to the ins and the outs of the overlaps , the northeastern section is almost done, there is
really not much left that is buildable. When you put into the setback off of the road with all the
road improvements that are going on in there , this is kind of the, I don 't want to say remnant piece ,
but it is kind of the last piece in the puzzle that has to be built and we have tried to get very creative
with our land plan to make that including open spaces , including a mixture of unit sizes, we 've got
a 35 foot product all the way down to a 20 foot product so that we have some flexibility to work
within the conditions that were given to us. We 've got three really nice specimen trees on the
southwestern comer that we are working around versus just trying to put an entrance there , so we
have really tried to get as creative as we can. Unfortunately, because of the challenge of the depth,
because once I put in that 75 foot buffer and 10 foot improvement setback, the building setback
goes to 40 and what I am left with is about 70 feet deep . I really can 't fit much in that.
Councilmember Longoria
Yes, I agree but the other thing I would point out is that you wouldn't have a problem if instead of
having two rows of houses deep on that little skinny piece it was only one row deep. So , the
challenge that is created , we are creating ourselves with the design, and I am not a developer, so
I don't know, maybe you have to have that extra row of houses in there to make the whole thing
viable . There are plenty of reasons why the density has to be the density. I am just saying that
these were all things we were aware of at the beginning. So, it is sort of tough to say that there is
a hardship.
Steve Rowe
I feel like we have met the hardship requirement. I think staff also concurs that we have met the
hardship requirement, but again, if we want to continue the discussion, I am fine with trying to
work through whatever we need to work through on that.
Mayor Lockwood
I have a question and like Councilmember Cookerly , I'm not so hung up as much on the materials
as I am, you know , I have a hard time sometimes with one size fits all and I am also a big proponent
that you know as long as you know the intent is there and it is a quality product and looks really
good and maintenance fee and what not I realize why we had to put the requirements in at one
point but you know again don 't want to tell somebody the city tell me this is exactly what you are
going to do unless we are prepared to guarantee that it is going to be successful and that the public
likes it. But, you know , the heartburn that I have on it is the variance for the buffer. And , again,
there have been instances where we have granted a variance, but you know where it has actually
improved the viewshed from other areas and allowed less density where this is one you know is
allowing more density. But to Joe 's point, Ken, I want to ask you a legal question , you know, on
the hardship , because this is you know a funky shaped property it does make it tough if you apply
a 75 foot buffer all the way around. If it will, you know , impact the development greatly and
economically I'm sure it would you know may or may not be viable , but you know technically
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monda y, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 34 of 42
legally is that a hardship or not if our code basically deems the property not developable within
reason or you know the buffer was there and the property was purchased a self-imposed hardship.
City Attorney Jarrard
We have had this discussion before in this chamber with respect to Milton 's variance requirements .
There are basically four criteria and I think we have always sort of felt comfortable that 1, 3 , and
4. One is that if we grant a variance that it wouldn 't affect the spirit and intent of the code.
Obviously , I think we have heard presentations and you all are comfortable with that as well. Three
is relief if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and I know this
council well enough to know you probably wouldn 't think of anything that would cause a detriment
to the public good , so you are not going to go there. If the public health, safety and welfare are
secured , again that seems to permeate all of our discussions so we tend to camp out on paragraph
two ; is the one we tend to camp out on and that is ; does there exist extraordinary and exceptional
situations or conditions pertaining to the property that the literal application of the code would
create an unnecessary hardship due to size , shape or topography . So , the first section of that is
clearly talking about the shape of the land. It is referring to the phy sical characteristics of the land .
Then, if there is an or, and it says , or, other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions
not caused by the variance applicant. So , actually, paragraph two could actuall y be divided into
two different elements. One of them is the unusual characteristics of the land , the size, shape , etc.
the other is sort of a catch all and that is if there are other exceptional situations that you believe
justify relief. And , so candidly , it sort of gives you two options on this one , Mr. Mayor, with
respect to I think what you are sailing at the question was though, does the land have to be
unbuildable . I can suggest to you that there are opinions on both sides of that. Certainly , one of
the historical reasons for the variances is to avoid unusually shaped pieces of property where a
strict application would result in an unbuildable lot ; it cannot be built on , so therefore , it is a defacto
administrative of taking and therefore , if we don 't grant relief then we need to buy it. Well , that
is not here . But, that is not the only rationale either. The other rationale is that is there a product
that is a product that the city believes is a viable good product that is consistent with the intent of
what the city 's plans are that we need to grant relief because of the unusual shape of the property
and that if we don 't grant that relief, we don 't get a product that is consistent with what we
otherwise want and I think there is enough room in paragraph two to allow that as well. So , that
1s my opm1on.
Councilmember Cookerly
So , let me explore that for one moment. I think the term unnecessary hardship is probably the
critical piece and I don 't think that the unnecessary part is incumbent on the city what I would
wonder is that given the shape of this property and the fact that the AG-1 part would allow for
building with a greater buffer whereas the southern part does not, I think that if I had seen
something that showed some give and take on buffers in areas where you could have a greater
buffer and maybe less density would be something that then because the whole property is not
necessarily does not create an unnecessary hardship. And , in fact , we don 't hav e a hardship . I
mean, you might have a hardship , but we don 't have a hardship. Is that fair?
Regular Meeting of the Mi lton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 35 of 42
City Attorney Jarrard
Well, I don't think that from what I have seen thus far , there has been much resistance to that point.
I mean, again, I don't know if I would consider it a hardship from the standpoint that this lot is
unbuildable, this parcel is unbuildable, this assemblage is unbuildable. I think the reality is that
they want to deliver a product, I am sure to Councilmember Longoria 's point, that there might be
economic reasons why they need to design it the way they need to design it and basically want to
convince you that this is such an overall good product that you ought to see fit to grant the variance.
That is at least what I am hearing.
Councilmember Mohrig
I guess when I look at it, the AG-1 is still usable , buildable, it is AG-1 but we are making it a part
of this proposal. I am not so hung up on the issue of the building materials and I understand the
need for flexibility. I was there when we stared the overlay with Fulton County. There were very
specific reasons why we did that to try to improve the area as it was being developed. But, what
they presented is that if you are going to be using natural stone and different things like that, I am
open to looking at the product variation from what we had before. I guess the concern that I have
more is on the buffer side. Really, as far as what we are reducing. And , just a comment or a
question to you, Parag. You mentioned something about if this was commercial. I just want to be
clear that this is never in any way going to be used for commercial in our land use map today.
Correct? That is not an option.
Parag Agrawal
That was just an example. Again , what I was trying to make a statement that every variance is
project specific , it is case by case basis , if after two years some other project comes up , we will
analyze the project based on its merit and we will make recommendation. But, you are right.
Councilmember Mohrig
I just want to make sure because that is mainly residential corridor both on Morris as well as
McGinnis-Ferry around the corner and then going down Bethany Bend. I just want to make sure
that didn 't come into when we are factoring variances and other options. We are not considering
that , at least this body right now is not considering that a commercial property.
Councilmember Kunz
It always comes back to density . I want to talk about density really quick. So, he is asking for 54
units , right? Under the current zoning, TR allows for 9 units per acre, right? And , AG-1 just under
four acres you are looking at three units so a total of 43 under the current zoning, technically, is
what he is legally allowed to build, right?
Robyn MacDonald
So , the TR district states that you can go up to nine units per acre, but our zoning is conditional
just like they are asking for 6.38 or whatever it is. But, TR allows you to ask for something up to
nine units with the exception of the senior housing that is a special case with a use permit.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Counci l
Monda y, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 36 of 42
Mayor Lockwood
To clarify, would that take in the buffer requirement, it cou ld certainly be less to meet the buffer
requirement as is.
Robyn MacDonald
Yes.
Councilmember Kunz
So, under staffs opinion, obviously , a 75 foot buffer, we really don 't know what he would be
allowed by right if he just started to build today under that , is that right?
Robyn MacDonald
Currently , today ifhe wanted to build something he would need to most likely come in for a zoning
modification to the site plan because the approved site plan that was approved in 2008 would be
substantiall y different and that is the only TR that he has on those two original parcels .
Councilmember Kunz
Right , so what I am asking is that obviously our comprehensive plan has a different designation
for the future land u se plan for that AG-1 property which is high density HDR-2 , right?
Rob y n MacDonald
Right , it is 5 to 8 .
Councilmember Kunz
Exactly, so is it unreasonable for someone to ask for the number of units he has based on the future
land use plan?
Robyn MacDonald
What he is currently requesting is consistent with what the future land use plan de signates for the
AG-1 portion.
Councilmember Kunz
So , is it against reason as we ll that maybe in the future that other developers or builders might see
that AG-1 being HDR and make a similar request based on that?
Robyn McDonald
We would accept an app li cation such as that.
Councilmember Kunz
Okay , so again, defending th e comprehensive land use plan is important to me. I think that the
question is then, so a lot of people are talking about hardship as far as the flood plain, I am not
really seeing that as such an issue , I am reall y more concerned about the AG-1 and why the y are
even asking for a change in that zoning. That is just something I wanted to bring up .
Regular Meeting of the Mi lton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 37 of 42
Mayor Lockwood
I just really have more of a statement. I like the project , I like the design, I've spent time driving
around all the neighborhoods and whatnot , it fits the area. Again, I talked about the materials but
the issue I have and you know , you said it right Matt, the density , as well as Joe , with you know ,
you can probably you know cut a row out or whatever and it is probably buildable but I know we
don 't know that so you know again , that is where I struggle with is the density allowing to disregard
the buffer the 75 foot buffer and you know which would increase the density for no other benefit
for other than economic that is where I am struggling with you know as we mo ve forward again
you know it is case by case but that does set somewhat of a precedent so I just let you know that
is where I struggle with it. Anybody else?
Councilmember Bentley
I am especially concerned for the adjacent property owners. Specifically, Hidden Forest because
they are single family homes there and I spent some time looking at what happened back in that
2007 to 2008 time period and the city went back and specifically looked at these parcels and put
into place that buffer requirement because I don 't think they knew what was going to happen there.
So , I believe that was put there to protect the property owners. I also have some concern when
they went in good faith to talk to the adjacent property owners about reducing the buffer, I don 't
know for sure whether they were told that they were entitled to a 75 foot undisturbed buffer. And ,
that they were agreeing to something that w as way les s and that concerns me. And, I do , for those
reasons , find that the hardship can't be proven because I do feel like much of the 75 foot buffer is
necessary to provide that separation between the changes in the density , the 6.38 ve rsus the single
family homes . It is not one home per acre but it is not as much as six so those are my reasons for
not being able to see clearly the hardship and I also feel like the shape of the lots is that he doesn't
have to buy those parcels and the flood plain is a se lf-imposed ; any of us that have flood plain
property know that it is a high risk. So, those are my comments.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay , anything else? If not , if there are no more que stion s I'll open it up for a motion.
Councilmember Bentley
Mayor, I would like to make a motion to deny RZ18-14 NC 18-09 .
Councilmember Jamison
Second
Mayor Lockwood
Okay , I have a motion for denial from councilmember Bentley w ith a second from councilmember
Jamison. Is there any discussion?
Councilmember Kunz
I don 't know ifl can go with a denial on this. I'm not exactly sure I can go with an approval either.
What I like about this in particular is that there was an applicant that followed our comprehensive
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Counci l
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 38 of 42
plan and did everything that we asked through the process. And , that was the point the planning
commission had made as we ll. I think the thing that I would be in favor of this as well we don 't
really know what they can build per se , but we do know they h ave done everything we have asked
them to do and if we have that relationship with someone who has worked so hard to do that
especially if over the years it would be worth consiqering. Just my thoughts .
Councilmember Longoria
It is sort of strange because the two things we denied from a recommendation point of view are
the two things I was comfortable with. The one thing that we accepted , I had problems with and I
don 't want to be arbitrary in terms of the density because in thi s particular case , the real issue has
to do w ith the buffer area. And , th e buffer area impacts the adjacent property owners in a
significant way so it is not just about how many parcels we can fit into this development because
the reality is that doesn't necessarily change that buffer space itse lf and so when I looked at this I
thought well , hold it , if we reduce the number of units that we allow, does that actually make a
difference, and I kept coming back to the fact that I don 't think that it does. The only thing that is
going to make a difference is how we establish what the buffer needs to be. If we are willing to
give up on 75 feet because maybe that is a littl e bit onerous in this particular case , is 33 the right
number and I have a hard time go ing there saying , yes , 33 makes sense. But, you know, we dial
the clock forward ten years , fifteen years ; there is something like this there. It is not like this piece
of property something el se needs to be done w ith it because it is surrounded by things that are like
this. So , it fits in very we ll with what is in place today and what is nearby. So , that is just, you
know, I don 't know why I am telling you guys the difficulty I am having reconciling this but that
is where I am .
Ma y or Lockwood
I think we all are.
Councilmember Bentley
I would recommend because of the materials and the architecture , it is beautiful , and this is wh at
we want in Milton . If this parcel be incorporated quickly into the Deerfield Form Based Code to
take care of that clean up and I am still going to fee l the same way about the buffer.
Councilmember Kunz
Parag, I forgot to ask a question. So , in the 2008 approval for the 98 units that was there originally ,
what was the buffer on that project?
Parag Agrawal
It ,was 40 foot, right?
Robyn MacDonald
It was 40 foot on the rear adjacent to the main part that you are looking at where the single families
were and then 25 feet on the other property lin es and that was based on what was thought of at the
time that was the o ld Fulton County requirements.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22, 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 39 of 42
Councilmember Kunz
So , in 2008 , it was an average of less than 35 around the property , essentially; 40 on one part and
25 on the sides. Again, that is my point. We have passed things before that the applicant came
forth with an expectation of what we had originally had that was just part of the relationship that
is all I was saying.
Councilmember Mohrig
Staff, one other question, what we approved originally back in 2008 for the senior housing, was
that a higher, how did they get that many units on that small of a parcel, what was approved, or
was that more , I don't want to use the word apartment , but was it a different building structure for
senior housing for density?
Robyn MacDonald
So , the difference was the floodplain on the southern end next to the Montessori School as well as
a previous development they were going to take down the specimen trees at the comer of the
southeast comer next to the Montessori school which is now the Montessori school. So , they had
two buildings that kind of were on that southern portion and then another building that was in the
area near the now roundabout. Then, they had been approved for two stories with garages , I believe
they had garages underneath, and then subsequently they went to the Board of Zoning Appeals
and got an approval to go up to three stories.
Councilmember Mohrig
So , that is how they got the actual more units for that area.
Robyn MacDonald
That is correct.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay , so we have a motion and a second for denial and we have had discussion so all in favor
please say aye and those opposed raise your hand . So , that passes 5-2.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to DENY Agenda Item No. 19-006 .
Councilmember Jamison seconded the motion. The motion was denied (5-2).
Councilmember Kunz and Councilmember Longoria were opposed.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 2 2, 2 019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 40 of 4 2
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consideration of an Ordinance to Revi se Division 6 -Cell Phones and Other E lectronic
Devices.
ORDINANCE NO. 19-04-393
(Agenda Item No. 19-075)
(Firs t Pr esentation at April 8, 2019 City Co un cil Mee tin g)
(Sta cey lng li s, Ass is tant City Mana ger)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No . 19-075.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
2. Consideration of an Ordinance to Revise Chapter 46 , Article III , Division 4 , Section 46-
123 ("Acceptance by Company") to Make Minor Administrative Change s Including
Updating the Address of City Hall.
ORDINANCE NO. 19-04-394
(Agenda Item No. 19-076)
(Fir st Presentation at April 8, 2019 City Co un cil Meetin g)
(Te r esa S tickels, Co nserv ation Proj ects Ma nage,)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve Agenda Item No . 19-076.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
NEW BUSINESS
1. Agreement for Sale of Realty between the City of Milton and Cogburn Road
Investments , L.P., a Georgia limited partnership , for 4.82 acres , more or less , located in
Land Lots 1041 and 1048 , 2nd District , 2nd Section, in the City of Milton , Fulton
County, Georgia, on Webb Road (and being a portion of Fulton Tax Parcel No . 22
527010470116), for a purchase price of $1 ,600 ,000.
(Agenda Item No. 19-093)
(Ken J arr ard, City Attorn ey)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve Agenda Item No . 19-093.
Councilmember Jamison seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 22 , 2019 at 6 :00 pm
Page 41 of42
2 . Agreement for Sale of Realty between City of Milton and Red Bull Holdings , LLC , a
Georgia limited liability company , for 28.20 acres , more or less , located in Land Lots
399 , 465 and 466 , 2nd District, 2nd Section, in the City of Milton, Fulton County ,
Georgia , on Hamby Road (Fulton Tax Parcel No. 22-518003990285 and 22-
519004660398), for a purchase price of $1 ,050 ,000.
(Agenda Item No. 19-094)
(Ke n J arrard, C ity A tt orn ey)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No . 19-094.
Councilmember Bentley seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
3. Consideration of a Resolution of the City of Milton Authorizing the Submission of
Application to Georgia Institute of Technology (GATECH) for the 2019 Georgia Smart
Communities Challenge (Georgia Smart) Pro gram for Funding in the Amount of One
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100 ,000).
RESOLUTION NO. 19-04-507
(Agenda Item No. 19-095)
(P arag Agrawal, Co mmunity Dev elopm ent Direc tor)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Bentley moved to approve Agenda Item No . 19-095 .
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion pas sed (7-0).
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
STAFF REPORTS
Department Updates
1. Community Development
2. Finance
Parag Agrawal, Community Development Director
I just want to gi ve you some project update s from the department. Regardin g the greenspace bond
purchases , on April 19 , 2019 the city finali zed the purchase of six parcels located at the comer of
Freemanville Road and Birmingham Road . We are making significant headway on revising the
Tree Pre servation Ordinance. As you kno w, thi s proj ect has been going on the past two years and
we are very clo se to finalizing it. We are meeting w ith stakeholders every other week . We hope
to bring it in front of you in May . We continue to w ork on the Unified D ev elopment Code and
hope to brin g it in front of you in May or June .
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Counci l
Monda y, April 22 , 2019 at 6:00 pm
Page 42 of 42
Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director
The city was awarded by the GFOA the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. We have met
14 of the mandatory criteria out of the 27 total and as a staff we are going to work on the 2020
budget to enhance and improve it even further. I want to thank the entire staff who put a lot of
effort and work into ensuring we met all the requirements. The FYI 9 budget amendments will go
before you on May 6th . In June, the FY20 budget process will begin.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to go into Executive Session to discuss land
acquisition at 8 :49 p.m. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion . The motion passed (7-0).
RECONVENE
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Jamison moved to reconvene the Regular Meeting at 9:27
p.m. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 19-096)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 9 :28 p.m.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-0).
Date Approved: May 20 , 2019
JoeLockw~