HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 12/16/2013 - Council Mins CORRECTEDPer Resolution No. 19-06-509Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 1 of 85
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 December 16,
2013 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Tass Welch, Community Christ Church, Milton, Georgia
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember Lusk,
Councilmember Hewitt, Councilmember Mohrig, and Councilmember Longoria.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
(Agenda Item No. 13-290)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following
changes:
• Add an Executive Session to discuss Land Acquisition.
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
PUBLIC COMMENT
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 2 of 85
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of the December 2, 2013 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 13-291) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of the December 9, 2013 Work Session City Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 13-292) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
3. Approval of the Financial Statements for the Period Ending October, 2013.
(Agenda Item No. 13-293) (Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager)
4. Approval of the First Amendment to the Facility Use Agreement between the City of Milton and
Hopewell Youth Association for the Purpose of Providing a Youth Baseball Program at Bell
Memorial Park.
(Agenda Item No. 13-294) (Jim Cregge, Parks & Recreation Director)
5. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Universal
Engineering Sciences, Inc. for Geotechnical Work at Bell Memorial Park.
(Agenda Item No. 13-295) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
6. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Onsite Civil
Group, LLC for a Supplemental Survey in Support of the Final Engineering Plans for the Bell
Memorial Park Reconstruction.
(Agenda Item No. 13-296) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS (None)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 3 of 85
FIRST PRESENTATION
1. Consideration of T13-03/VC-08 - 330 Batesville Road by STC Two LLC (d/b/a Crown Castle
USA) to Replace the Existing 150 Foot High, Stealth Designed “Light Pole”
Telecommunications Tower with an 195 Foot High “Mono-Pine” Telecommunications Tower
and a Two Part Concurrent Variance: 1) To Reduce the Tower Setbacks from Adjacent Property
Lines from 293 Feet on all Sides to (a) 165 Foot and 181 Feet on the Northwestern Property
Lines, (b) 175 Feet on the Northeastern Property Line, and (c) 49 Feet on the Eastern Property
Line, all as More Particularly Shown on the Site Plan Filed Herewith. (Sec. 54-6(d)(2)). 2) To
Waive the 20 Foot Landscaping Buffer Requirement as the Ground Equipment on the Site will
be Shielded by a Wooded Slatted Fence and Existing Vegetation. (Sec. 54-6(e)).
(Agenda Item No. 13-297)
(Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the First Presentation Item.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
PUBLIC HEARING
ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION
1. Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to, 850 Fahrenheit Pizzeria, LLC
dba 850F Barpizza, Located at 12635 Crabapple Road, Suite 310, Milton, Georgia 30004. The
Applicant is Glenn Griffith – Consumption on Premise – Wine, Malt Beverages, and Distilled
Spirits.
(Agenda Item No. 13-298)
(Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager)
Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager
The applicant has met all of the requirements and staff recommends approval.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve Agenda Item No. 13-298.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
2. Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Fujian Inc. dba Volcano
Asian Bistro, Located at 5316 Windward Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004. The
Applicant is Jenny Lin – Consumption on Premise – Wine, Malt Beverages, and Distilled
Spirits.
(Agenda Item No. 13-299)
(Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager)
Stacey Inglis, Assistant City Manager
This applicant has met all of the requirements and staff recommends approval.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the Agenda Item 13-299.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 4 of 85
Zoning is transcribed verbatim
ZONING AGENDA
* See Resolution No. 19-06-509 which provides the meeting minutes and
related Ordinance are deemed amended and corrected by and through
the present Resolution Pertaining to Below Agenda Item No. 13-286
1. Consideration of RZ13-16/VC13-06 – Northeast Corner of Bethany Bend and Cogburn Road by
Arrowhead Real Estate Partners, LLC to Rezone from AG-1 (Agricultural) to NUP
(Neighborhood Unit Plan) to Develop 28 Single Family Residences at a Density of 3.08 Units
Per Acre and to Request the Following Concurrent Variance: To Reduce the Interior Building
Separation from 14 Feet to 10 Feet for the Entire Development [Sec. 64-921(k)].
(Agenda Item No. 13-286)
ORDINANCE NO. 13-12-192
(First Presentation at December 2, 2013 Regular Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council.
In front of you in the first slide is an outline showing the proposed application in terms of its site.
The second slide shows a revised site plan submitted November 12, 2013.
This is the grading plan submitted November 18, 2013.
The next slides show some of the proposed architecture that was submitted to us on November 13,
2013.
This slide shows the proposed landscape buffer fence detail that was received by us on November
13, 2013.
The subject site contains 9.09 acres.
The parcel is undeveloped with AG-1 zoning.
A total of 28 single family residences are proposed.
The applicant is requesting a rezoning to NUP (Neighborhood Unit Planned) district to build 28
single family residences at an overall density of 3.08 units per acre.
In terms of history and background on the site; prior to the current request for 28 single family
homes, the applicant submitted a prior plan in pursuant to RZ12-17 for an Assisted Living Facility
and single family homes.
The applicant withdrew the application to allow time for staff to begin the Highway 9 North
Visioning Study to further study the subject site as well as properties along Highway 9 North along
Bethany Bend.
The Highway 9 North Visioning Study held the first meeting on February 6, 2013.
After further evaluation of the situation, there was a need for more detailed study of the subject site
to help determine what types of uses would be appropriate.
The city also retained Dr. Michael Elliot of the Southeast Negotiation Network.
Dr. Elliot interviewed members of the Stakeholders Committee which consisted of adjacent and
nearby neighbors as well as the subject site owners.
After these interviews, there were four meetings held to discuss and mediate a solution for the site.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 5 of 85
At the August 21, 2013 meeting of this group, a consensus was agreed upon with the majority of the
stakeholder members to develop the property with 28 single family residences.
Staff also held a technical meeting on September 19, 2013 for the stakeholders, developer, and
property owners to discuss technical issues on the site.
To help facilitate this discussion, the Public Works Director was present to answer questions
regarding transportation and hydrology issues.
The next step in the process was implementation.
There were two paths that could take place to implement this agreed upon plan.
The first would be to wait for the Highway 9 North Study to be completed and then a subsequent
Form Based Code would be created for the study area.
This was estimated to take 6-9 months to complete.
The alternative path would be to have the property owner developer submit a rezoning plan based on
the agreed upon use and density and this is the path the developer and owner chose to take.
Thus, the site plan submitted to the Community Development Department on October 2, 2013, was
based on the discussion and agreement with the stakeholders.
Subsequent to that site plan, a revised site plan was submitted on November 12, 2013 that reflected a
minor change to the shape and location of the stormwater facility along the northeast portion of the
site based on more detailed study of the hydrology of the site.
Staff included the report from the August 21, 2013 Stakeholder’s meeting and the technical meeting
of September 19, 2013 at the end of the Staff Report that you have which outlines the agreed upon
use, density, and other conditions for the site.
The Planning Commission reviewed this application and its meeting of November 20, 2013.
It recommended DENIAL for the application as well as DENIAL for the concurrent variance.
The Planning Commission expressed concern about the following issues regarding the proposed
rezoning:
• That it did not provide an appropriate transition from Cambridge High School north to Oakstone
Glen subdivision. They felt that residential is appropriate but the density is too high.
• They also said that the homes are too close together and too close to Bethany Bend.
• The Commission did not like the alley product.
• They also noted that there was no guest parking on the site.
• And, lastly, they felt that the internal roads were too narrow.
Based on the applicant’s revised site plan submitted to the Community Development Department on
November 12, 2013, Staff offers the following considerations:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 6 of 85
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – SEC. 64-897 - NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan)
The following are proposed building setbacks and development standards for
individual lots (NUP allows for applicant to specify building setbacks):
a) Front yard setback – 20 feet
b) Side yard setback – 5 feet
c) Side yard setback adjacent to a street – 10 feet
d) Rear yard- 20 feet
e) Perimeter setback adjacent to AG-1 - 75 feet
f) Landscape strips along Bethany Bend and Cogburn Road – 20 feet
Development Standards Proposed Development
No building shall exceed 40 feet
in height
40 feet
Minimum lot area – 4,000 square
feet
Exceeds the minimum. 4,750 square feet.
Minimum NUP development size
shall be four acres and Maximum
size is twelve acres.
The NUP development size is 9.0911 acres
Maximum density allowed is 5
units per gross acre
The density of the subject site is 3.08 units per acre
Minimum lot width (at building
line) none or as per conditions
47 feet as per Plan
Minimum NUP development
frontage shall be 20 feet
adjoining a street
Exceeds the minimum
Minimum lot frontage shall be 20
feet adjoining a street
45 Feet
Minimum heated floor area 1,000
Square feet
2,400 square feet as shown on the revised site plan
received on November 12, 2013. Staff notes that
during discussions with the community, the
applicant stated that the house size would be
approximately 2,800 square feet in size. Therefore,
Staff will include the larger size in the
Recommended Conditions.
Minimum perimeter setback 40
feet adjacent to AG-1
Exceeds the minimum
Minimum interior building
separation is 14 feet
10 feet – Please see Concurrent Variance
discussed below
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 7 of 85
The applicant has requested a concurrent variance for the following development requirement:
To reduce the minimum building separation from 14 feet to 10 feet between each of the houses.
The applicant is requesting this concurrent variance in order to develop the property in such a way to
provide for the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and the 130 foot wide park. The buffer and park area
provide additional transition from the proposed higher density residential to Oakstone Glen
subdivision which is developed with a minimum of one acre lots. It is Staff’s opinion that by
reducing the separation by 4 feet would not offend the spirit or intent of the zoning ordinance.
Secondly, the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and park area which consists of over one acre are
conditions pertaining to this particular piece of property that create an unnecessary hardship due to
these requirements. Thirdly, if this reduction is granted, it would not cause a substantial detriment to
the public good and surrounding properties based on the fact that the homes are oriented away
from other developed lots. Lastly, the requested 10 feet separation is in compliance with City
regulations regarding building code and public safety, health and welfare are secured. Therefore, it is
Staff’s opinion that the proposed request for a concurrent variance to reduce the minimum building
separation from 14 to 10 feet should be APPROVED CONDITIONAL.
LANDSCAPE STRIPS AND BUFFERS
Sites developed with single family residential are not required to provide for landscape strips and
buffers. The proposed plan provides for a 20 foot landscape strip along Bethany Bend and Cogburn
Road. In addition, a 75 foot natural undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback are
provided along the north property line. These will be reflected in the recommended conditions.
Staff notes that the applicant has designed their stormwater facility so as not to require a fence and
20 foot landscape strip. The applicant has stated that it will be natural in appearance.
OTHER SITE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
The site plan shows compliance with the required Milton Trail along Bethany Bend and Cogburn
Road. For this area of the City, the requirement is a 10 foot wide sidewalk.
The applicant has agreed to relocate the existing above ground power line servicing 13695 Cogburn
Road underground with a power easement and provide power to service 13695 Cogburn Road. A
condition to reflect this requirement is included in the Recommended Conditions.
An equestrian style fence wrapped with hog wire with a maximum height of eight (8) feet will be
required along the north property line or as needed to avoid specimen trees. A condition to reflect
this requirement is included in the Recommended Conditions.
We have done an evaluation of how many children might be generated by this development and it is
estimated that it could be from 19 to 30.
They have also done a Financial Modeling to compare expected costs versus revenue and we see that
over a 20 year period there is a negative of $35,351.
The City Arborist has reviewed the application and he has stated the following requirements:
• Undisturbed buffer to be planted where sparsely vegetated.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 8 of 85
• Tree Protection/Landscape Plan required meeting the Tree Preservation Ordinance at the time of
Land Disturbance Permit application.
• Plan showing recompense tree replacement for specimen trees to be removed. (For required
trees that site will not accommodate, dollar amount determined by city arborist will be placed into
the city tree fund.)
In terms of Public Involvement on October 29, 2013 the applicant was present at the Community
Zoning Information Meeting (CZIM) held at the Milton City Hall.
There were two people from the community in attendance. One of the residents was concerned about
the number of homes being proposed and distance between the homes. The other resident did not
have any specific comments.
This application was also reviewed by the Milton Design Review Board at their November 5, 2013
meeting and they had the following comments:
• Concerned about the density of the development.
• Support sidewalk along Bethany Bend.
• Porches should be a minimum of 8 feet wide.
• The reality is that the subdivision will not only cater to empty nesters; there will be families with
kids.
• The applicant should share the proposed project at the November 6, 2013 Highway 9 public
community meeting.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
1. Whether or not the proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development
of adjacent and nearby Property?
The proposed subdivision developed at a density of 3.08 units per acre provides a transition from the
south where Cambridge High School is located to the north where the Oakstone Glen Subdivision
and other scattered single family residences are located and developed with minimum one acre lots.
To the southwest, Kings Ridge Christian School is located in the City of Alpharetta which also
impacts the subject site. In addition, the 75 foot undisturbed natural buffer is located on the north to
further ameliorate the proposed 28 lots. Lastly, the 130 foot greenway/passive park along the west
property line will appear as a more natural view from Cogburn Road. It is Staff’s opinion that the
proposed use is suitable with adjacent and nearby developments and zonings if approved with Staff’s
recommended conditions that reflect the undisturbed natural buffer and greenway/passive park.
2. Whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or
nearby property?
It is Staff’s opinion that the proposal will have a minimal effect on the existing use or usability of the
adjacent properties as described above if approved with the Recommended Conditions for 28 lots, 75
foot undisturbed buffer and an 130 foot wide park along Cogburn Road.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 9 of 85
3. Whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan?
The proposed use/density is Single Family Residential at 3.08 units per acre.
Although the City of Milton 2030 Future Land Use Plan recommends Agricultural, Equestrian,
Estate Residential on the site, it is Staff’s opinion that the proposed development provides an
appropriate transition from the high intensity institutional use to the south, Cambridge High School,
to the single family one acre lots to the north.
In addition, the 2030 Future Land Use Plan recommended the following policy for the area:
“Creating a Master Plan for the Highway 9 Corridor including Bethany Bend is a high priority for
the community, and it is strongly recommended that development occur in this area only after the
Master Plan has been adopted.”
Over the past months beginning in February, 2013, Staff has worked with the community as a whole
and special interest areas to develop the Highway 9 North Visioning Study. The subject site is within
the area to be evaluated. Staff has hosted several meetings with the Stakeholders of this Bethany
Bend/Cogburn Road area and a professional mediator to assist the Staff in providing a land use
recommendation for the subject site.
The end result of the mediation with the Stakeholders and the property owner is the proposed 28 lot
single family subdivision.
4. 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 adoption of the 2030 Future Land Use Plan, property to the south which was zoned for
single family residential at a density of 2.98 units per acre, Fulton County Board of Education built
Cambridge High School and associated uses. In addition, Kings Ridge Christian School located in
Alpharetta to the southwest was approved for a total of 341,000 square feet. These large institutional
uses affect the future use and development of the subject site. It is Staff’s opinion that the proposed
28 single family residential development would provide an appropriate transition from the south and
southwest to the north of the subject site where Oakstone Glen Subdivision and homes further north
are developed with one acre lots.
In conclusion, although the proposed request from AG-1 (Agricultural) to NUP (Neighborhood Unit
Plan developed at 3.08 units per acre is not consistent with the City of Milton 2030 Comprehensive
Plan Map designation of Agricultural, Equestrian, and Estate Residential, it provides an appropriate
transition from Cambridge High School to the south to single family residential developments
developed at one unit per acre. In addition, the 75 foot undisturbed buffer along the north property
line and a park with over one acre provides additional buffering and transition for the area.
Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL CONDITIONAL of RZ13-16 and VC13-06 to rezone
from AG-1(Agricultural) to NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 10 of 85
Recommended Conditions - If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, the rezoning
of property located on Bethany Bend Road with a frontage of approximately 1,371 feet should be
approved for NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan) CONDITIONAL subject to the owner’s agreement to
the following enumerated conditions. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulations and
offerings contained in the Letter of Intent, these conditions shall supersede unless specifically
stipulated by the Mayor and City Council.
1. To the owner’s agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a) Single family detached dwellings and accessory uses and structures.
b) No more than 28 total dwelling units at a maximum density of 3.08 units per acre,
whichever is less, based on the total acreage zoned. Approved lot/units totals are not guaranteed. The
developer is responsible through site engineering (at the time of application for a Land Disturbance
Permit) to demonstrate that all lots/units within the approved development meet or exceed all the
development standards of the City of Milton. The total lot/units yield of the subject site shall be
determined by this final engineering.
2. To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following:
a) To the revised site plan received by the Community Development Department on
November 12, 2013. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, all other applicable City ordinances and these conditions prior to the approval
of a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall
be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
b) All areas which are not part of an individual lot and held in common shall be maintained
by a mandatory homeowners association, whose proposed documents of incorporation shall be
submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval prior to the recording
of the first final plat.
3. To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations:
a) Minimum lot size – 4,750 square feet
b) Maximum building height – 40 feet
c) Minimum lot width– 47 feet
d) Minimum lot frontage – 45 feet
e) Minimum heated floor area per unit – 2,800 square feet
f) Minimum front yard setback – 20 feet
g) Minimum side yard setback adjacent to street– 10 feet
h) Minimum side yard setback– 5 feet
i) Minimum rear yard setback- 20 feet
j) Minimum interior building separation – 10 feet (VC13-06)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 11 of 85
k) Provide a 20 foot wide landscape strip along Bethany Bend and Cogburn Road interior to
the 10 foot Milton Trail. Landscape design along Bethany Bend and Cogburn Road shall be
substantially consistent with the renderings submitted to the Community Development Department
on November 13, 2013 or as approved by the Community Development Director with assistance
from the City Architect.
i) Provide an equestrian style, four or five board fence not to exceed 55 inches in
height interior to the Milton Trail.
ii) Provide a minimum five (5) foot pervious walkway along the front of homes
adjacent to Bethany Bend Road (interior to equestrian fence) and provide
interconnectivity with the Milton Trail as approved by the Community
Development Director.
l) Construction and design of residential structures shall be substantially consistent with the
photos submitted to the Community Development Department on November 13, 2013 or
as approved by the Community Development Director with assistance from the City
Architect.
m) All front porches shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in depth.
n) All structures located on a corner shall provide additional architectural design of
elevations facing the secondary street/driveway as approved by the Community
Development Director with assistance from the City Architect.
o) Provide a 75 foot undisturbed natural buffer and 10 foot wide improvement
setback along the north property line as depicted on the revised site plan
submitted on November 12, 2013 except for the proposed stormwater facility and
limited grading as shown on the grading plan received by the Community
Development Department on November 18, 2013. In addition, where necessary provide
additional plantings in the buffer as approved by the City Arborist.
p) Provide a maximum eight (8) foot equestrian style fence wrapped with hog wire along the
north property line or as needed to avoid specimen trees.
q) The subject site shall not be allowed to be a “sending” or “receiving” area for
Transfer of Development Rights.
r) Grading shall be limited to areas shown on the grading plan received by the Community
Development Department on November 18, 2013. Graded areas shall be replanted as
approved by the City Arborist.
4) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication, and
improvements:
a) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton prior to the approval of a Certificate of
Occupancy, sufficient land as necessary to provide the following as required and approved by the
Public Works Department:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of 85
• Provide a 10 foot concrete trail and 5 foot landscape strip behind back of curb along entire
property frontage of Bethany Bend
1) Proposed right-of-way shall be located no closer than one foot behind
the back of sidewalk
• Installation/modification of the following transportation infrastructure according to Chapter
48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances:
1) West Bound Right Turn Lane on Bethany Bend at Cogburn Road
a. Modification to signal mast arm (match existing in like kind) at northeast
corner intersection to accommodate turn lane and sidewalk improvements
2) East Bound Left Turn Lane on Bethany Bend at new access drive
3) West Bound Right Turn Lane on Bethany Bend at new access drive
b) Provide a 50 foot wide cross- access easement free of any structures or above ground
utilities for future vehicular and pedestrian inter-parcel access on the east property line
as required and approved by the City of Milton Public Works Department.
c) Reserve for the City of Milton, sufficient land as necessary to provide for compliance
with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the proposed intersection improvement
project PI 0012625 SR 9 at Bethany Bend. Reservation shall be approved by City of
Milton Public Works Department.
d) The 130 foot wide greenway/passive park along Cogburn Road shall remain undeveloped
with residential structures and be included as “Common Area” in the final plat.
e) Apply deed restrictions to the “Common Area” preventing future sewer easements
through said property.
f) Relocate above ground power line to an underground easement and new power service to
13965 Cogburn Road with no interruptions.
5) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following:
a. The stormwater management facilities shall utilize earthen embankments, where possible.
Walled structures are not encouraged. If walled structures are proposed, they must meet
the acceptable design standards of the City of Milton Department of Community
Development and the Department of Public Works.
• Where side slopes for stormwater management facility are steeper than 4:1 the facility
shall have a six foot high, five-board equestrian style fence with two inch by four inch
welded wire constructed around it, or equivalent as may be approved by the City of
Milton Public Works Department.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 13 of 85
• Owner shall be required to develop a stormwater management plan to maintain water
quality and rate of runoff to protect neighboring persons and property from damage or
loss resulting from excessive stormwater runoff, pollution, soil erosion or deposition
upon private property or public streets or water transported silt and debris. Owner
shall be required to have an approved stormwater concept plan prior to submission of
a land disturbance permit application.
And, that is my presentation.
Mayor Lockwood
At this point, are there any questions from council to staff?
Councilmember Karen Thurman
Mayor, I need to make a comment. I need to make a comment for the record that one of my firm’s
clients is a minority interest in the company that may be developing this property. I have not spoken
with them but I just wanted to make sure it was on the record. I have spoken with the City Attorney
and he says there is no conflict of interest and I am fine to hear the case because it is a minority
interest and I have not spoken with the client concerning this development.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, thank you. Ken, do you need to confirm that?
Ken Jarrard, City Attorney
I don’t. Councilmember Thurman spoke with me last week and I agree with what she just said.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, are there any questions for Staff?
Councilmember Joe Longoria
Kathy, you mentioned that at a meeting with the Stakeholders, the density of 28 units was something
that a majority of the stakeholders agreed to.
Kathy Field
Yes sir.
Councilmember Longoria
When you say a majority of the stakeholders, what are we talking about there? Was it 2 out of 3 that
were there? Was it 15 out of 20? What are we talking about?
Kathy Field
Robyn, do you know how many exactly it stated in the report? I do remember that 2 objected to it
but everyone else…
Councilmember Longoria
The reason I am asking is for some reason I don’t know how I got this idea in my head but I thought
the agreed to density was a lot less. I was thinking that what had been discussed and agreed to was
along the order of 20 units total. So, that is why I was interested in understanding.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 14 of 85
Kathy Field
You know, at one point the developer was talking about 30 at the previous meeting but when he
came in with his plan it showed 28 and so that was the number that we used.
Councilmember Matt Kunz
There is a lot involved in this whole thing of how we got to this point. I guess the question, and I am
going to go back and explain how we got here after going to a lot of meetings. When I looked at the
minutes of the mediation, at one point the residents came in and, I think this is what Joe was alluding
to, from 15-18 homes and then, of course, the developer came in with about 32, potentially some
commercial office as well. And, then somewhere in there on the August 21st mediation there was the
question of 28 that came up. I am just trying to figure out how you went from 18 to 28. It seemed
like it kind of went a little bit skewed toward the maximum density side and I just want to know how
that came about. We will ask that question later of the applicant, I’m sure, too.
Kathy Field
There was a lot of discussion back and forth. We spent the second meeting, I believe, responding to
the stated concerns of the stakeholders in terms of what they wanted in terms of buffers and they
wanted to have controlled sewer and they wanted limited access to the site. They were concerned
about safety. There was a whole list of issues so we sort of went through them one by one in terms
of how to address them. And, also, on the other side, the developer said that there would be a certain
amount of density that was going to be necessary to pay for, if you will, all of those improvements.
So, it sort of went back and forth and the third meeting, which was our final formal meeting, the
fourth meeting was just a technical meeting to answer some technical questions that came up. In the
third meeting, we came up with the final plan with all the conditions that I have listed and with the
buffers and the 28 was the number that we had.
Mayor Lockwood
With the clarification, and the stakeholders, I know there was some mention of 12 stakeholders
attending the meeting. Would that be the 12 and maybe two, Robyn?
Robyn MacDonald, Principal Planner
I count 13 on the list not including the property owners, the staff, and the applicant. Thirteen
participants and then, of those, two…
Mayor Lockwood
How many stakeholders?
Robyn MacDonald
For the August 21st meeting, it was 13 total.
Mayor Lockwood
Total in the whole process?
Robyn MacDonald
That is not including the applicant or the property owners.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 15 of 85
Kathy Field
All I can tell you is the full number that Dr. Elliott interviewed, which we considered all
stakeholders at the start of the process this summer, was 21. That includes the developers, the
owners, and the neighbors; so all stakeholders.
Councilmember Kunz
I guess for clarification since I attended a lot of the visioning meetings and how we got here, I just
want to make sure that I explain the process of where we are today because I think a lot of the
questions we are asking is with that and I have some questions that some of the residents had asked
me as well as part of that process to make sure we have some questions answered through that.
Obviously, we got here through a visioning process because the Highway 9 / Deerfield Overlay
needed to have a plan. This particular parcel…
City Manager Lagerbloom
We need to hold the hearing.
Mayor Lockwood
Yea, before we get too many questions…
Councilmember Kunz
I figured since Kathy was up, but that is fine.
Mayor Lockwood
Maybe it would be better after the hearing.
Councilmember Rick Mohrig
Kathy, out of those stakeholders, can you tell me how many lots were represented from the Glen
Oaks Subdivision?
Kathy Field
I believe that most of the neighbors were represented and I would have to go back and check the
addresses but it was my impression that most of the neighbors that came were from that Oak Glen.
Mayor Lockwood
Is that something that can be checked?
Councilmember Mohrig
Robyn, I want to know how many people out of the stakeholders that were represented. I know we
do have one stakeholder that has property on Cogburn.
Kathy Field
Right. That is not in that subdivision. That’s correct.
Councilmember Mohrig
But I would like, if you could tell us the totals when we are looking at really what was represented,
how many people were involved, I think that would be helpful for me.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 16 of 85
Kathy Field
Okay, Robyn, are you going to get that information?
Mayor Lockwood
During this hearing, I am going to open it up for those in support of this application to speak first.
Don Rolader, 11660 Alpharetta Highway, #630, Roswell, Georgia 30076
Mayor and members of the council, I’m Don Rolader. I live at 11660 Alpharetta Highway, Roswell,
Georgia. I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant whose principal, Curtis Hicks, is here. We also
have Greg Goldenburg who is the President of Acadia homes who would be the builder of the homes
in question here. I think Staff has adequately described to you the location of the property. I would
strictly tell you this, the long frontage on this property faces Cambridge High School and the
Cambridge High School parking lot. It is across the corner from the King’s Ridge School. It is located
at a very busy signalized intersection. The east boundary abuts property zoned for commercial use.
It is not an area where anyone would want to build a home on a one acre lot. This application proposes
28 very nice single family homes with only one access to Bethany Bend, not nine driveways. The
setback from residential neighbors to the rear is 75 feet and contains a substantial buffer. The required
buffer, if you built one house to the acre, would only be 30 feet. That is a substantial advantage to
these neighbors. The corner of Bethany Bend and Cogburn has 130 foot wide park. So, there is no
impact at that busy corner. Again, that is an advantage to both the development and the community.
A right turn lane is proposed to alleviate some of the traffic at this busy intersection. This is a plus for
everybody. The eastern detention pond was redesigned to cause less impact to the property owner to
the north of it. This property owner has a subdivision detention pond on his property now. This
property has gone through a visioning process sponsored by the city with multiple meetings. I think
we counted up the other day from coast to coast, it is about 14 meetings all together. The multiple
uses included several years ago a church, after that a Senior Facility, a Senior Facility and homes, and
then what we have finally arrived at this point in time, is a subdivision of single family detached
homes. This is the use that the majority of the neighbors felt was the most viable for this piece of
property. It provides a quality single family residential use in a transitional area with two schools,
nearby retail, and heavy traffic. Approving this use, will have no adverse effect on health, safety, or
welfare of the citizens of Milton. Building quality homes will not serve to decrease the values of
nearby homes. I don’t believe anyone would buy a house on a one acre lot right there staring at the
high school parking lot, the high school buildings, and being one of nine driveways sitting at this
intersection exiting out onto Bethany Bend. I believe based on the input we have had through an
extended process, this is a reasonable use of this piece of property. The Staff recommends approval
of the use and the variance. All of the conditions proposed by the Staff are acceptable to the applicant.
I will be happy to answer your questions at this time; otherwise, we reserve our remaining time for
rebuttal.
Mayor Lockwood
Probably, what we will do is go ahead and listen to the other comments and if there are any
questions…
Curtis Hicks, 8647 Ellard Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004
I am the applicant. I am going to reserve for rebuttal but I did want to say that we have been through
numerous meetings. We think we’ve got an excellent plan. It has resulted through a lot of input from
the community. The stakeholders and the neighbors and we hope that we can get to a resolution
tonight. I will reserve the rest of the time for rebuttal.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 17 of 85
Robert Cizek, 3244 Watsons Bend, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004
I have been here since 1996 and I am in support of this project. I want to commend Kathleen Field
and her department. I lost track at about 20 conditions for this project. It sounds like the developer
is prepared to meet those and I would just say that I think this project with its density would add a
little diversity to Milton. I am about ten years away from wanting to downsize and I think a smaller
lot would be great so I am in full support.
Mike Nelson, 115 Cox Acres Drive, Woodstock, Georgia
I do own a business right up the street as well. I am in support with Mr. Cizek of the plan. I have
grown up in this area, raised children in this area, and getting to the next phase in my life where I
want to downsize and not have a big piece of property and I think this is an ideal growth step for
Milton. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood
Next, we will hear from those in opposition to this application.
Roger Kubler, 560 Devonshire Farms Way, Milton, Georgia 30004
I want to tell you that I am a citizen’s committee drop out. I began participating in the city funded
mediation effort and from the first meeting until I finally dropped out, my perception, right or wrong,
was that this was going to be a pre-determined event. We spent $10,000 on a hired gun, a mediator,
to make this happen. It never started from a plane of, “what are the city’s current objectives.” It
started from a plane of a developer who needed to cram a sufficient number of homes on that property
in order to make a profit. It’s all about profit. I also admit that I wasn’t aware of the Trojan horse that
started this whole issue and that is, that Bethany Bend is not a part of Highway 9. How and when that
got started, I don’t know. But, I would urge the council to reject such an obscene increase in density
and it is only going to get worse. Cambridge High School is going to add another 480 students. Your
Christian High School is going to add another 200 that is darn near 700 students and you’re going to
have an access point, a single access point, with no light and the majority of residents trying to make
a left turn. It just flies in the face of what I thought was one of the principles for the founding of the
City of Milton and part of the justification for not wanting it to become just another element of North
Fulton county. Seems to me it is all about the money as opposed to supporting what the City of Milton
claims is an underlying objective. I urge you to send the developer back to the drawing board with a
more reasonable density approach. Thank you.
Maryanne Hayes, 335 Stone Hill Point, Milton, Georgia 30004
I live in the Oakstone Glen subdivision. Our property is not exactly behind the nine acres but
cattycorner to it. I was one of the stakeholders that came to the meeting. I have been to…we have
lived in our home for 16 years and over that 16 years I have seen many times that land tried to get
developed. And, I can tell you that my husband and I, we want to see that land developed. We are
not opposed to development. We live in a beautiful area and that land has the potential to be beautiful
as well. So, I was a stakeholder that went to that meeting and when they told us that we were going
to be meeting together to come up with ideas on what the homeowners and also the developer, we
could come up with ideas to develop that land. But, the way it went down is that, even though we
came up with ideas, the developer came in with one plan and one plan only. It wasn’t like we said,
oh, we would like…we would have said we would have liked less density, but it was, we can only
make money with 28 homes. Actually, they thought they were putting 30 on the paper but when they
added it up, they missed two and it turned out to be 28. So, it was 28, take it or leave it. And, it is
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 18 of 85
true, they did try to sweeten the deal by coming up with a buffer and the park. But, the way it was
presented to us was that these were going to be high-end homes. They were going to be over 3,000
square feet, 3,200 square feet. They were going to be approximately between $400,000 - $450,000
with brick and stone exteriors. They were going to be really, really high-end homes. And, our homes,
we value our homes. Our homes are in the market for the low $500,000. And, now that we see what
is going in there, the density is not what we wanted, but now we look at the photos of these homes and
they’re not beautiful brick homes the way it was presented to us, or stone. The area has dropped to
2,800. Originally, I thought it said heated area of 2,400, but now from what was presented today,
2,800. These are not the homes; the homes will devalue our property. We would like to see this land
developed. What we want to see on this property is less dense homes. We are not saying it has to be
one per acre. We realize that is too ideal and not good for this property but we want to see maybe 10-
15 homes on this property. We also want to see higher value on this property. We don’t want to see
this tiny little street that has a potential for fire because a fire truck can’t get down there with a narrow
road. We would certainly really like something in the AG-1 category. Anything that doesn’t require
a zoning, but if it is not that, we would accept a church, we would accept, again, less dense, higher
priced homes. So, in essence I am urging you to vote against this and we hope that we can find
something better to put on this property. And, I am asking anybody in the audience that supports my
position that might be afraid to speak, would they stand up, that is all I am asking.
Karen Asherbranner, 13965 Cogburn Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am an adjacent property owner. I was unable to attend the August 21st meeting due to my work.
At that meeting, the stakeholders were asked to deliver a spontaneous ruling on the proposed
development and I want to just state my opinion that I would wholeheartedly deny any of their
proposals and please do the same.
Dot Blair, 13965 Cogburn Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am an adjacent property owner. I’ve decided to speak tonight because I believe the future of Milton
is in jeopardy. How can the development of one nine acre lot on Bethany Bend Road have such an
impact on the future of the City of Milton. I believe if this development is approved it will establish
a legal precedent for future development which is inconsistent with the citizen’s vision of Milton. This
development has contended with community opposition from the very beginning. The primary
objection that has remained consistent throughout this process has been density. This parcel lies within
the boundaries of central Milton. A character area defined in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. This
plan was established by the City of Milton to implement the citizen’s vision of their city and define
central Milton as an area that is to be reserved in order to protect Milton’s rural character and heritage.
Specific development guidelines for this area are defined in this document. Residential developments
are limited to a density of one house per acre or more. Keep in mind the density of this development
is 28 houses on nine acres. At every single meeting held regarding this development, the citizens
screamed the density is too high. The outcry was so loud during the Highway 9 Visioning Study that
a special interest group was established by the city to deal with the opposition. The community
stakeholders, who tirelessly attended these taxpayer sponsored meetings, and negotiated specific
conditions of zoning that have now mysteriously disappeared, did concede that a residential
development was the best option for this property but the cries still rang out, the density is too high.
At the CZIM meeting, the public participation meeting, community members continued to complain
about the density. Even the members of the City of Milton Board of Zoning and the Planning
Commission expressed concerns regarding the density. So, why is the city even entertaining a
development that is so inconsistent with the stated standards for density in this area? It appears the
city has developed a new classification for zoning for land that is adjacent to a school or institutional
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 19 of 85
development. The city is classifying this area as a “transitional area” based solely on the fact that it is
adjacent to a school. The term “transitional area” is not currently defined in Milton codes or mentioned
in the Comprehensive Plan. If this development is approved, due to this new classification, it opens
the door to similar developments of adjacent properties to existing schools in the City of Milton that
are currently zoned AG-1. When the Fulton County Board of Education is forced to develop their
land in the heart of Milton to meet demand, what will stop a developer from using the documents
related to this development to seek approval to use the documents from this development and get
approval as a precedent to establish another “transitional area” in the heart of Milton? To wrap it up,
I fear this development, if approved by the city, it will lead to future development with similar density
patterns that are inconsistent with the vision of Milton. The developers, who are in charge of the
brigade of bulldozers that are at our door step, could use the approval of this development to justify
more high density projects on Bethany Bend as well as in the heart of Milton. Tonight, I ask the
council to hear the voices of the citizens of Milton who are all stakeholders in this decision tonight
and heed the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial of this application.
Please utilize the tools you have been provided and maintain the vision of the City of Milton. Thank
you.
Laura Rencher, 1060 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am here tonight to represent “Preserve Rural Milton.” I want to say that this is an excellent example
of the use of conservation type subdivision design. Almost half the plat remains undeveloped with
large naturalized buffers; in fact, these are 75 foot buffers which are much wider than anything we
have through our Agricultural Zoning. I hope the city will be able to adopt this model moving forward.
It gives wildlife a place to live, retains the rural wooded view from the street, this is an excellent style
development for a city that values its rural character. In this area, it makes sense to have slightly
higher density housing and homes that are a step smaller and a step less expensive. For those who do
not want to see this land developed, this model is a good compromise of citizen and developer needs
with one exception and that is the density. There are few places in the city where an increase in density
is acceptable; this being one of them, however, 28 homes with an average of three homes per acre is
just too much. This is more like two or three steps of greater density than existing housing in this part
of the city. The result will likely be a price point significantly less as well. This does not fit with a
rural city model, does not match with a small town feel that we aspire to. One step up in density and
one step down in cost is reasonable. Given the history of this piece of property, and what can happen
if we completely turn down the request, I am asking for an alternative, in which, you could approve
the request with a strict modification decreasing density to 18 homes, which is two homes per acre,
the resulting price point would be one step below the existing subdivisions on one acre lots further in.
This seems much more appropriate for our city and this property’s location. Thank you.
Niraj Kumar, 595 Oakstone Glen, Milton, Georgia 30004
I have a corner lot which is the largest boundary with the nine acre lot. I make the similar argument
that I made at the Planning Commission meeting earlier which I would request that you go back to the
Conclusion page of the presentation. There are a couple of gentlemen who spoke in favor of this
proposal. I don’t know where they live; they probably live far away. They used the term
“downsizing.” So, this is an area that they want to downsize to and this is the area that is right behind
my house. So, it is obviously an area that somebody would want to downsize to. That is not a very
attractive option, is it? The gentleman who spoke first talked about the quality of the houses. The
whole idea of constructing these $450,000 houses for 3,200 plus with brick and all; if these are quality
houses the city and the developer should have put a stipulation in the agreement that these are going
to be brick, this is what the quality will be, etc. They chose not to do that. At the Planning Commission
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 20 of 85
meeting, it was $2,400 tonight it is 2,800 because there was a lot of opposition to that. So, just saying
that these are quality houses doesn’t make it so. You have to back it up to ensure that these are in the
$400,000 - $500,000 range. I created a blog that I shared with some of you. If you go there, you will
know that the properties of this kind do not sell for this kind of money unless you specifically ensure
that they do stand that kind of price in the market. Anyhow, to go back to this; if you go to the very
last page of this, the one that the title was “Standards of Review”, if you go down toward the end of
the paragraph it says there is a Kings Ridge Christian School and, of course, the high school. These
large institutional uses affect the future use and development of subject property and this provides an
appropriate transition from the south. I have done a fair amount of study on the property prices around
Milton High School and the Northwestern Middle School and there is no indication that there is any
transition needed. There isn’t any transition existing and there hasn’t been any effect of those schools
with adjoining property. Those properties continue to sell and go up in price from $400,000 - $500,000
and even $1 million across the road on Birmingham Highway. There is no reason for you to consider
the concept of a transition zone. This is just put here along with the developer and the Staff just to
rationalize why such a high density development is feasible. It shouldn’t be considered. So, all in all,
I was one of those two people out of ten who were opposed to it at the beginning. And, as of today,
most of those people who were okay with it are not okay with it now. Because the conditions and the
spirit in which we finally conceded, we really conceded, because we were tired of 13, 14, 15 meetings.
We finally kind of gave up and settled for something but what we settled for is not what came forth.
Maryanne who spoke for me, she was one of those persons who agreed to it and you can see her
viewpoint today. So, there in, I think you should refuse it.
E.B. Peebles, 725 Bethany Green Court, Milton, Georgia 30004
I’ll be brief. I don’t know if there will be time for rebuttal but others want to speak. One thing that
has not been mentioned is sewer which I am supposing you will have to run. Obviously, against the
existing plan. Land values are certainly a concern. The fact that one of the people are in support lives
in Woodstock, we could have gotten a few friends to come up that live in town to speak against it if
that was going to do any good. I’m curious about why the city felt the need to retain southeast
negotiators when clearly the Comprehensive Land Use Plan precludes this type of development. I’m
not sure why you felt the need to hire them. Again, I speak for most of my neighborhood that was
unable to be here tonight, 42 homes, only one of which I think to be in favor. Everyone else I know to
be against. So, please consider that as you make your decision.
Kurt Donner, 15475 Alpha Woods Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004
Ten years ago, my wife and I came across an AJC article about Milton and it was a compelling
article about the equestrian, the rural development and the spirit of that. Within the last year, my
wife and I finally moved out to Milton and have tremendously enjoyed the environment that you
guys have created over the last ten years and before that. So, I actually represent the new blood
within Milton. At this present density, I don’t feel that it is within the spirit of what brought me out
to the suburbs from downtown. Thank you.
David Damiani, 935 Post Oak Close, Milton, Georgia 30004
Like the gentleman who just spoke, I am new to Milton as well. I have been out here just over two
years for primarily the same reasons he mentioned. I like the lifestyle, the rural feel of Milton, and I
have been following this issue passively for probably eight or nine months now via the email updates
from the gentleman that sends them out. Tonight is the first meeting I have attended and what I have
seen and heard here from the Staff and the folks who are speaking, something doesn’t feel right here.
We are talking about a plan that is being proposed is not in consistency with the 30-year masterplan.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 21 of 85
It is being done prior to the Highway 9 study, whenever that is supposed to be, and it is not
economically viable. If I heard correctly, over the next 20 years it is supposed to lose $35,000. The
density issue, I can’t say anything more about that. I applaud all the people that have gotten up here
and spoken to that affect this evening, but 28 homes on that small track, yes, it makes sense from the
standpoint that no one else will buy it. It sounds like it is economically profitable for the developer
but it is not, in my opinion, keeping with what this community was designed to be. Thank you.
Joe Schippert, 545 Oakstone Glen, Milton, Georgia 30004
I just want to speak about the process. There has been a lot of discussion about who agreed to what
in the process and, I’ll say, it was a rigorous process. I also have to say the agreement is invalid
based on dollars. We were told the units would be $300,000 - $350,000 at the November 20th
meeting. Previously, it had been $450,000. I know there are lots of detailed specs; setbacks (10
feet, 14 feet) bottom line to a homeowner is what it is going to do to my property value. We agreed
to it when we thought they were going to be high-end homes. They are not going to be.
City Clerk, Sudie Gordon read the following comments into the record:
George M. Elkins, 2130 Double Creek Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004
No building high density and extending sewer. Keep all stream buffers and do not give variances for
less than one acre per home. Three units per acre is against all we stood for when we established
Milton.
Rachel Elkins, 2130 Double Creek Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004
Single family residences should remain at one acre per home. Do not extend sewer. Maintain all
stream buffers.
Dawn Cushing, 3355 Plantation Trace, Milton, Georgia 30004
Oppose Rz13-16/VC13-06 rezoning. This is already a congested area and is zoned non-sewer. This
is against our current plan to maintain the spirit of what attracted all of us who live in Milton. We do
not want cluster housing. Let’s maintain our variances that were put in place.
Dian Zlatev, 530 Oakstone Glen, Milton, Georgia 30004
I just wanted to state my opposition to the proposed plan because of the high density. What we have
on the table is a good effort and I truly appreciate the city and developer’s efforts in coming to a
reasonable resolution here, unfortunately, the final result of this product between certain neighbors of
ours and the city and the negotiators, we don’t feel that this is a viable product and I hope we can come
up with a solution that has much lower density and much higher space between the homes. I think
there was a comment earlier about two homes per acre and 20 feet is probably a good distance between
the homes. I was looking at the Crabapple Subdivision that was mentioned a few times in the
discussion and I do believe that those homes are at least 20 feet apart. Thank you very much.
Richard Knox, 2170 Double Creek Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004
Good evening. My name is Richard Knox. I ride by this property every day and it was very
disheartening when both schools were allowed to be built there but now that traffic is there, I’ve come
to realize that it is really not as bad as I expected it to be. We’ve got a piece of property north of
Cambridge right now that is undeveloped. At some point, it is going to be developed and based on
what I have seen just in looking at the proposal is that this gives us the opportunity to build something
in our community where the density may be a little higher than we would like but it is aesthetically
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 22 of 85
pleasing to the environment. So, from that perspective even though I don’t live, I’m not adjacent to
it, but I ride by it twice a day, I’m very much in support of this.
Curtis Hicks
Hopefully, we won’t take that much time. Again, I have been the applicant from day one on this piece
of property, when I say day one, from the times of the daycare center; it was an application for a church
that pre-dated our application. When we came to the community with an assisted living facility for
the corner along with similar housing to be a joint development, the community did not like the size,
the square footage, or just the use in general for the assisted living although it seemed to be something
that could fit into the community. We withdrew the zoning application at that time. That is when the
visioning process and then the mediation began. We were asked to participate in that as it relates to,
we did not come with this plan from day one, the mediator came with a blank piece of paper and asked
for ideas and information and thoughts from the community. The first meetings we were not even in
attendance. They were floated out to potential office condo, bank sites, daycare centers, doctor offices,
dentist offices, either on the corner or on the entire site or up closer to Hwy. 9. Through that process,
the community said no, we want residential. We don’t want to see any office institutional type use or
any other higher commercial type use. We would rather limit it to residential. At that time, we started
trying to address how the property interfaced with those most impacted. That is where the design
came from. At one time, we had an entrance coming off of Cogburn for traffic flow. They said they
didn’t want to see anything coming off of Cogburn. We did away with that access. We created green
space there. We are not required to have any buffer, residential to residential, per code. We created a
75 foot buffer to basically, again, limit what the homeowners would be seeing, what they would be
interfacing with. We agreed to come in and plant inside that buffer at a major expense. A security
fence was requested as one of the items they would like to see just to keep any pedestrian access
between the two parcels. That was negotiated with the community. The type of fence was negotiated.
The plantings that were agreed to, the type of evergreens to create a true buffer. We have a copy of
that buffer now. The homes have always been the homes. We have never shown anything other than
these pictures. This is an existing development, existing homes with the same builder we have been
with to develop with on this site from day one which is Acadia Homes. It has always been this product.
It is a product that has been approved architecturally by the Design Review Board in the City of Milton.
It exists in Crabapple. We have given comparable sales. We have always said that these houses would
be from the very high $300,000 to the mid $400,000 and we still expect that especially with all the
commitments and conditions that we have agreed to on this piece of property. Obviously, we have
agreed to the intermodal access, sidewalk along the fencing, and again, this is a Crabapple look.
Crabapple is an architectural vernacular which is basically a mix of materials which is siding cedar
shake, brick, stone, and a mixture to create a variation of product and we think it will be a beautiful
streetscape and we will truly address an entry point as you enter into the City of Milton along this
corridor. Again, this plan was worked out with the homeowners, the stakeholders, we agreed to all of
these various conditions in order to make it acceptable. And, again, as it was stated and as Michael
Elliott said at those meetings, we had approximately 15 people at those meetings of which 12 could
be seen as non-property stakeholders and non-developers and out of those 12, two expressed
opposition at the end of the last meeting. We then went into the technical meeting where stormwater
was addressed, further changes in the design was because Mr. Kumar wanted us to move the pond as
much away from him as we could. We relocated and moved the pond closer to Highway 9 so that it
would be a minimal impact. As it relates to the roads we have to meet fire code, we have to meet
standards provided by the fire department to be able to fight fires on either side of this property. We
have agreed to do that. We have provided guest parking. Out of the Planning Commission, one of the
things was what are these houses going to look like from the rear although no houses will be fronting
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of 85
the road. I took pictures of the existing houses in Crabapple just to demonstrate the architecture on
four sides because this was a Planning Commission concern. Again, the design of this development
is for every house to front Bethany Road and for no garages to be seen from the road. Everything is a
rear entry. No driveways to impact Bethany Road. It is a very attractive development. And, again,
we have spent this time and what we have shown from day one has never changed. Thank you.
Don Rolader
If I may complete our presentation, the product exists today in the city in Crabapple Station. That is
the product you see. It exists there denser. What I would note is that the complaints in general tonight
circle around density but when you consider the real hard case which is what affect does doing these
homes have on people in the neighborhood, there are no more than five homes in the abutting
subdivision that back up to this, one is unrelated, the rest is far away. There is an undisturbed buffer.
All things are there. I haven’t heard a broker, appraiser, a real estate agent say that selling these houses
is going to lower the price of the people in the area surrounding this. I don’t think that is true. I don’t
think anyone has said, well, I might maybe see a rooftop from somewhere if you build this. I don’t
think that is true. Traffic is an insignificant argument unless they quit building homes in Cherokee
and Forsyth County and South Gwinnett. It is there and it continues to increase. Trying to alleviate
it with some right lane turns and some other stuff is beneficial. So, when I get down to the real
question, what real harm does it cause whether we build nine houses or 28 houses, I don’t get an
answer. And, I think that is the important question. There are always concerns with development that
comes in and when you look at this piece of property, it is handicap, it is unique, it didn’t ask for the
schools, Fulton County put the school where it wanted it to be. The King’s Ridge school was
approved. It is not even in your city but it is there. This is where they landed and they are trying to
do a quality job based on negotiation. We would appreciate your kind consideration and if you have
any questions remaining we would love to answer them.
Mayor Lockwood
I want to make a statement. I’ve heard a couple of times about this process and it being decided from
the beginning and all that and being in on the discussions that I was in on, I do not see that at all. I
mean, obviously, you’ve got one side that the developer or property owner would want to put as many
homes or whatever buildings on there and all the way down to next to nothing. So, I just want to make
that statement. I don’t think this started out at all….I want to applaud our staff and the citizens and
the developers and the people that put the time in together to try and come up with something that
works for both. Obviously, we are not at the point where everyone was happy with…my point is that
I want to say, I want to commend our staff for going through this process and I don’t think that the
comments that it was decided beforehand or not, I sincerely don’t believe that. Anyway, we will open
it up. Does anyone have a question?
Councilmember Thurman
I’m not sure who to address this question to but I have heard that this is different from what was voted
on, I guess ten to two, on the mediation hearings that we had. Can someone other than I have heard
that the square footage has changed. I have heard that the price point has changed. Are those the main
differences that people are feeling like are different from what was approved? Because the whole
purpose of going through the planning process was to come up with a plan for the area and it sounds
like we went through a valid process and I am just trying to figure out how this plan is different from
what was agreed to through that process.
City Manager Lagerbloom
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 85
I guess it is appropriate to let Kathy address the answer to that question. I can address the part that
deals with the house price question. That is not something that the city can control the conditions of
whether that is believed or not, that is not something the City Attorney is going to advocate that we
do, it is not something that I can advocate that we do. So, to the extent that was something that was
agreed upon, that is not something that we can do moving forward.
Mayor Lockwood
That is market driven.
Councilmember Kunz
I guess in that regard too, I know in the likes of Karen’s question, I’ve got a list of questions about
that process that I would like to go ahead and ask…
Mayor Lockwood
Are these the same as what Karen asked or Karen, you have the floor, do you want to have Kathy
answer your questions or Matt…
Councilmember Thurman
Do you just want to answer one question at a time or go ahead and start asking questions next or…
Kathy Field
Sure, why don’t I respond to you first. There was some discussion about size and maybe this is a
question for Curtis as well, a question for him to answer. There was some discussion about the
3,000 square foot range and I seem to recall that it was going to be an average that some were going
to be a little under but then there would be others over the 3,000 so it would average out to 3,000.
I’m not sure we ever said that the minimum would be 3,000 but with your permission maybe Curtis
could respond that as well in terms of the discussion that we had about what you would do and
stated.
Curtis Hicks
We have a copy of the technical meeting and Kathy is quoted in there as saying that we would
discuss from 2,800 to 3,200 square feet and it is in the city sponsored technical meeting of
November 21st or whatever the date was on that technical meeting but it is in your actual report there
and that has always been the plan. It was 2,800 to 3,200; 2,800 is the minimum and a maximum of
3,200 and the price range was always the very high $300,000 to the mid $400,000.
Councilmember Kunz
There was obviously from a covenant perspective rental properties were a concern and that no more
than 10% of the properties could be rented. Just explain that as far as conditions.
Kathy Field
Yes, that was an issue that came up and we discussed that and from a city perspective we did not feel
that we could require that but that was an issue that should go into the covenants of the homeowner’s
association. And, again, with your permission, maybe Curtis can respond to that because it really,
rather than being a city issue, it really needs to be an HOA issue.
Curtis Hicks
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 25 of 85
As the city requested, we will do a mandatory HOA that will maintain all the common spaces and
that kind of thing. Inside the HOA, these are all for sale homes. There are no houses to be offered
to the public for rent; however, we will as things happen, people move, things happen, we would put
in there that at no time more than 10% of the total homes constructed could be rented per the HOA
agreement. So, if there are two houses rented in the subdivision and somebody wants to put their
house up for rent then they would have to get permission from the HOA to be able to get when they
could not exceed 10%.
Councilmember Kunz
At what point would we see that has taken effect?
Curtis Hicks
That would go into our HOA documents. It would run with the land as all HOA would precede the
lender, the construction loans, everything because it would be the covenant that runs with the land.
We have done this in several subdivisions before. It is something that has come up because of the
market having gone through the big meltdown that people want to make sure that if people get into
tough times that it is not going to turn into a rental project.
Councilmember Kunz
The question about grading and the park area, obviously, I assume as construction is taking place
that we may have to grade in the park area, the undisturbed buffer area. Explain that process.
Kathy Field
If you saw the original conceptual plan, it defined a 75 foot undisturbed buffer. As we got more into
the engineering of that, we realized that those homes that are in the back part of the area when the
concrete pad was being constructed that there would have to be some incursion into that buffer in
order to construct the basement area. But, what we did is that we mandated that they be replanted
with the approval and oversight of the arborist in order to ameliorate that issue.
Councilmember Kunz
How long would the encouraging be in effect?
Kathy Field
Well, maybe that is another, with your permission, a Curtis question. Curtis, could you respond to
how long it takes to clean that up?
Curtis Hicks
Basically, part of the grading in there is that if we have to do anything in order to put the power pole
in place to serve the adjoining property and at the edges to be able to fit the houses in so that they
will drain properly. Obviously, hydrology drives a lot of that. Once the grading is in place then it
will be replanted or vegetated, again, a lot of this area is deciduous trees and needs additional
evergreens in order to create the buffer the community wants so, actually, a lot of what we are doing
in there is to help create the buffer that they have requested. Basically, it is a 120 day process.
Councilmember Kunz
Stormwater, I guess there is some question about the runoff of the stormwater and why we made the
decision to relocate it as we did. Can it be suffice to relocate it as we did, obviously, we did that for
Mr. Kumar.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 26 of 85
Kathy Field
That is a Carter question.
Carter Lucas, Public Works Director
Can you repeat the question?
Councilmember Kunz
Let me make sure I’ve got this right here. Engineer to redirect stormwater runoff from the western
area including the park area to the stormwater pond on the northeast side of the development site.
That is not really a question but I think it was regarding how could that work if you redirect the
stormwater away from Mr. Kumar’s home if that is where it was supposed to be. Does that make
sense? No, I’m thinking western side, there is a western side of the park.
Carter Lucas
The western side would be the Cogburn Road side.
Councilmember Kunz
Yes, the western side. So, engineer to redirect stormwater runoff from the western area including
the park area. Is water on the western side going to make it to the eastern side?
Carter Lucas
The piping is not shown on the grading plan that you have probably seen but the grading that was
shown would support piping back toward the detention facility. So, the park land in those areas that
are not disturbed are going to obviously drain where they currently drain but the developed area
looked like it was going to a low point in the parking lot which would then have the ability to be
piped back to that stormwater facility on the eastern side of the site.
Councilmember Kunz
So, is it suffice to say that maybe the further western house will have water drained toward the
eastern side?
Carter Lucas
Yes, if I followed that correctly, yes. He will be required to meet the stormwater requirements for
both water quality and quantity for all those areas that are disturbed.
Councilmember Kunz
This next one is for Kathy. We are specifically allowing TDR transfers here so obviously no
developer can continue to build out or buy TDRs or anything, is that right?
Kathy Field
One of the conditions of zoning is that no TDRs be allowed, that it not be a sending or receiving
area. That is what the stakeholders agreed to.
Councilmember Kunz
A permanent conservation easement applied to the 130 foot wide paths of greenway park that will
have deed restrictions preventing future sewer easements through the property so, obviously, if they
were to connect to sewer no one else could connect to sewer through that, is that what we said?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 27 of 85
Kathy Field
That’s right. The creation of that 130 foot wide park was specifically to stop the sewer and putting a
deed restriction in to make sure that it would not go through.
Councilmember Kunz
So, there was a connection from that standpoint if you didn’t have the park then someone else could
connect into that.
Kathy Field
That was the concern and that was one of the reasons to put that park in there with deed restriction.
Councilmember Kunz
Obviously, explain again the pricing. We can’t control the pricing according to the Fair Housing Act
in the State of Georgia. Is that right, as a lawyer?
Ken Jarrard
I would be extremely uncomfortable adding as a condition to zoning that we begin to establish price
points for private development. The best you can do is add conditions that perhaps affect some of
the characteristics of the subdivision and you do that, perhaps, by way of building materials and
things of that nature but once you start identifying price points, I believe, you are in a legal
problematic area.
Councilmember Kunz
I know in New York they have rent control and things like that but in Georgia they don’t offer it.
Councilmember Thurman
So, we could require that a certain number of the homes be brick, we could require things like
granite counter tops, we could require things that…without requiring, without setting a price limit
that would lend themselves to a more expensive home.
Ken Jarrard
Very common.
Kathy Field
If I might add to that, one of the zoning requirements is that all these homes must be reviewed by the
City Architect for design and we have found, historically, that we’ve added bells and whistles to the
extent that we have added a certain premium on to those homes.
Councilmember Kunz
I see here that we are talking about approximately 3,000 square feet, we mentioned that already, and
that is just the average of what we are talking about. Is there a minimum that can be set?
Kathy Field
2,800
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 28 of 85
Councilmember Lusk
Kathy, one of the requests is to reduce the side sets from seven feet to five feet. That obviously is
not consistent throughout the whole development. It appears that it is just along Bethany Road from
unit one to fifteen, then probably from 19 to 23. What was your recommendation for addressing that
variance?
Kathy Field
We felt that going from 14 to 10 between those homes was nothing that was…it met the building
code and we really felt that it was not harmful to the general design of that site as you fronted along
Bethany Bend.
Councilmember Lusk
At the top end of the development here units 24-28 separation goes up to 20 feet in some cases…17
and 18 there is about 20 feet. What was your department’s opinion of the variation in the separation
of these units as far as from an architectural or aesthetic standpoint?
Kathy Field
When the site plan was originally developed, the idea was to place as many of them up to Bethany
Bend as possible in order to not only create a streetscape but to move them forward from the homes
to the rear and so the idea was to the extent that we could do that, we did it. And, then there were
obviously it was impossible to fit all 28 along the frontage so, therefore, some were set in that
second row behind. We had different configurations. Before, we had created that 130 wide park,
some of them were actually in that area so they fronted on Cogburn Road so we went through
several iterations but the intent was always to pull them forward away from the subdivision to the
north. That was always in the back of our minds.
Councilmember Lusk
One other thing that jumps out at me here too is that on the west end of the roadway, we have a “T”
intersection that is somewhat of a hammerhead intersection. On the east end of that same roadway is
squared off. What is the fire marshal’s opinion of a dead-end road like that behind those houses?
There are 12 units back there.
Kathy Field
We did have the plans reviewed by the fire marshal and we did incorporate his input into the plans.
Councilmember Lusk
Did you specifically address that end of the road?
Kathy Field
Yes, Robyn can you add anymore to that but as far as I am aware of, yes.
Robyn MacDonald, Principal Planner
After speaking to the fire marshal, he saw that the applicant had made sure that was okay on the
eastern end and the fire marshal indicated that length was okay. I think the reason is that there is
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 29 of 85
also some accessibility from the Bethany Bend side as well so that if there was a fire there would be
access from the Bethany Bend side.
Mayor Lockwood
What would the setback and buffer be if this were to stay AG-1 and there was just one home per
acre? What would the setback from the property line be?
Kathy Field
The setback in the front would be 60 feet and the rear would be 50 feet and there would be no
requirement for a buffer, just a setback.
Mayor Lockwood
That is from the house itself?
Kathy Field
From the rear property line there would be no buffer requirement but it is a rear setback of 50 feet
and then the side setbacks are 25 feet.
Mayor Lockwood
I have heard comments about letting the schools in and, obviously the two schools that are there, that
was not a decision that the city or the citizens made, and they have changed the area. Does any of
our staff know what the density and the zoning was for the property, the 60 something acres, the
school is on?
Kathy Field
Yes, before the school came in that property had been rezoned to 2.98 units per acre.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, that’s about the same. I guess my point talking about the buffer, if I lived behind there,
personally I live on a piece of property that I bought and I couldn’t see anything when I first bought
it and with the AG-1 zoning now all I do is look at the back of houses. I think there is more
protection for the neighborhood behind in Oakstone Glen with this 75 foot buffer undisturbed and
the replanting than if there were 9 homes that all sat back there so I do think that is an improvement
there as well as the buffer and the park and it will look a whole lot nicer with the houses facing there
so anyways.
Councilmember Lusk
Maybe further to your point there, what we have been looking at up here for the last several minutes
is the distance between the homes on Oakstone Pointe and the distance from them to the backside of
what is proposed here and just going down through the six homes starting with Asherbrener, it looks
like you have about 180 feet of separation from Mr. Haslet’s house, 230 feet from his house to the
nearest unit, Mr. Fredland’s house you have 205 feet, Mr. Periswane and Mr. O’Nair you’ve got 305
feet, Mr. Dewberry’s place 180 feet, from Mr. Kumar’s house there’s about 155 feet between his
house and the nearest unit there so I guess to the Mayor’s point here, you probably have a lot more
separation in here than if you were to develop on one acre lots with the 30 foot buffer behind them.
Councilmember Mohrig
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 30 of 85
Kathy, was there any discussion at all in this process of coming to something maybe in between.
I’ve heard a couple of homeowner’s say they would like to see residential on the spot, they don’t
want to see institutional but they don’t want to see 28 units and units this close together. Was there
discussion at all about a compromise somewhere in between a little bit different and I know in that
case you wouldn’t have all the buffers and things we’ve been talking about but was there any
discussion?
Kathy Field
I think the discussion started off in terms of what type of use do they prefer and the developer
showed mix and I think he mentioned where there was a mix of just office and residential and some
all office and some all residential and they came to the conclusion that they wanted all residential.
Then the discussion was well, what are those issues that you want made part of the plan and we
included those and based on all those issues, the buffer issues, the sewer issue and the egress issue
and all that and the fact that they wanted residential, when the next meeting came, the developer
came in with a proposed residential use and he had mentioned that it was probably going to be
around 30 units and when he came in it was 28 and he really felt that he responded to all of the
stakeholders issues that they wanted addressed and he had 28 and that is sort of where that stopped.
We looked at that plan with the 28 on it and with the buffers and the single egress and the other
issues and that’s really where the discussion stopped. We didn’t go to a lower density because the
argument was made by the developer that he would need that density in order to respond to all of the
buffers and the park and the fencing and the plantings and whatever so that is how it sort of evolved.
Councilmember Mohrig
And, again I am coming to the table a little bit late. I wasn’t here for all the meetings. I had calls
and talked to eight of the neighbors a number of them that actually adjoin this property and the
concern that I consistently hear is that we were only offered 28, we really want something like Mary
Ann Hayes spoke, something in between that and that is why I asked the question, was it even a
consideration, was it given due diligence or discussion or was it this is the offer that is before.
Kathy Field
Dr. Elliott who was the facilitator did go around the room and say, here is the plan on the table do
you agree with this or not and there was a majority who agreed with it and so at that point it became
a viable plan.
Councilmember Longoria
I actually have some questions for Mr. Rolader. First of all, I want to compliment you on your
introduction because I am in agreement with you. The property in question is going to be developed
whether or not it would support one acre homes or something smaller and more dense was the real
question. And, so I appreciate the fact that you pointed all that out with some clarity. At your
conclusion, you talked about the questions people aren’t asking or the issues that they are not raising
and you said nine or 28, nobody has asked us about that so the follow-up question I have to you on
that is, is there a difference between 28 and 20 or 28 and 25? How did your client get to this specific
point of 28 is the magic number? I know there is a lot of marketing data, a lot of formulas you use to
try to figure out how all this pans out but why 28?
Don Rolader
That is a very fair question. It really, in some ways, backs itself in. This group identified the most
important concerns and when they identified those concerns, the rear buffer, the park buffer and
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 31 of 85
getting this development as far as possible from the existing homes were the keys and when we take
the homes and shift them around and move them away from a very viable and usable piece of
property and get it set up where it A) looks good; B) is marketable; and C) is reasonable, Mr. Hicks
came to the 28 units. That is what it took because he gave up substantial property in the rear that is
developable property and could have been used at one acre and the park down there moved all that
away from the intersection and gave us an acre that won’t be developed and block sewer. Those
were the trade offs.
Councilmember Longoria
In my simple way of thinking, the whole supply and demand thing coming into play, the more
homes you try to fit on this space, really the less you can ask for a home like that. The fewer homes
that are there, potentially the more you can ask. So, there is a relationship between the number of
units that are on this property and the amount that you can ask or charge for each unit and I don’t
know if it is a constant. In other words, the lower the number you get the more you ask for the home
and everything remains in equal or a constant. I guess the question I would have is, if we knock that
number down from 28 to 24 or from 28 to 20, does the whole thing get messed up? Are the
economics now out of whack? Does it cause your client issues?
Don Rolader
Yes, it would cause my client to walk away from the property but the real answer is what controls
the price and what controls the quality of the development is what the builder puts on the ground and
the product that people are looking for exists right now in Crabapple. People don’t want a big yard
anymore. They don’t want to deal with it. They want to go away on the weekends. What they are
looking for is 2,800 – 3,200 square feet of really nice house and as little lawn as they have to
contend with so to a buyer, does it make it more valuable if there are 20 or 24 than 28; I don’t think
it has nearly as much affect as, what am I getting for my money. I think that is the key. I want to
see the brass kick plates, I want to see the granite counter tops, I want to see 9 and 10 foot ceilings, I
want to see this, I want to see that, I want hardwood floors, those are the keys in today’s market.
Now, ten years from now it may be an entirely different thing. But, having a wife that cares about
those things, I understand what is important to a woman and that is usually the person who makes
the decision on who is going to buy the house. It is what you put on the ground much more than
how far apart it is in this market.
Councilmember Hewitt
Where would you propose hooking into sewer?
Don Rolader
Let me let Mr. Hicks answer that. He is more technical than I am.
Curtis Hicks
It is at the school at Cambridge and it is also down the creek that runs between Cambridge and the
Publix shopping center and it comes up towards Highway 9 where the tire store is. We are doing a
routing right now but we probably the route will run between he school and Publix and tie into a
manhole in the creek down there off the site so it will drain to the east which is part of the reason we
are saying it won’t go down Bethany because everything flows east going to get to that low point.
Councilmember Lusk
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 32 of 85
Relating to the side sets, if we maintain a seven foot side set or even something greater than that, a
ten foot side set, that would apply to units 1-16 along the right-of-way; what would be the net effect
of reducing the number of units there? Have you calculated that?
Curtis Hicks
We have looked, if the variance was not granted, it would result in the loss of a unit, we would go
from 28 down to 27. And, again, as it relates to density price point, keep in mind that some of the
same things that people have brought up about the traffic along Bethany Road and the fact that we
pushed these houses as close to Bethany Road as we can get them, you start getting a resistance to
price point and when you get to the $500,000 price range, when you get to that price range, people
have a lot of places to go not to necessarily live on top of Bethany Road so it is a balance. Again,
we pushed everything in so part of the reason we asked for the variance is because it is like an
accordion, they have asked us to push it this way and push it that way. If we are not granted the
variance, we are at 27 and we have come to the conclusion that we could live with that number. It is
a hardship, again, what drives the density and we actually wanted to be 32 units, we removed houses
that were inside the buffer to keep it consistent, we moved houses away from the park area to create
that and then we agreed to, and I didn’t go through the landscape plan, but it is a tremendous
landscape plan, we agreed to all of the conditions there at a tremendous cost and it will relate to the
price point of the house because we are having to do all those condition improvements to the
property. Anything below the 27, anything greater than what is allowed under the code, will
probably produce a hardship that will make us not be able to move forward with the project or at
least seek some type of relief against the condition we have already agreed to.
Councilmember Lusk
Can you address in that undisturbed buffer where you are going to augment the plantings where it is
sparsely planted? What is the plan for that?
Curtis Hicks
We have an actual landscape design that was shared with the stakeholders. I can show it to you. It
is a detailed plan with a list of plant materials, caliber of trees, gallons of shrubs, where they would
be, we have identified all of the specimen trees to make sure that we don’t interfere with the
understory of those trees so that we don’t get into the root section with our plantings there. It is
really to supplement the trees that are there and to go underneath and it is a detailed plan that has
been shared with the community that is a full landscape design plan and it was submitted to the city.
Councilmember Lusk
Who is the landscape architect?
Curtis Hicks
Planners and Engineers. They have an in-house landscape architect and they actually met with the
architect on site to view the property to identify the specimens to be sure that they were in
agreement.
Councilmember Mohrig
If you had to reduce the number of units, you would have to renegotiate some of the variances that
you have already agreed to like the setbacks. Would you be willing, what I have heard from the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 33 of 85
people that I have talked to is, I think, including the people that have bought that property the people
that are most impacted, what I heard is that we would be interested to talk and give up some of that,
renegotiate, so we can get the lower density. Is that even something you are open to at this point?
Curtis Hicks
Again, we are open to doing away with a side yard and going to 27. I really do not want to commit
anything below that. We have run economics based on that model, grade plans, landscaping,
because if you go down that path and you say, okay, we will live with something less than 27 and
then we start going back to the conditions and then we are back to the same place and really what we
have is that we are willing to do away with not getting the variance approval and live with the
permitted side yard setback and the 27 lots but we don’t want to commit to anything less than that,
we don’t think we can.
Mayor Lockwood
When you look at this development and you look at the affected neighbors and property owners, this
is actually better for them. A huge buffer, undisturbed and planted, as Bill said, the distances
between the homes, if it were just nine homes, the neighbors would see a whole lot more. When you
hear people talk about square footage and they want the homes to be larger thinking that will drive
the value up, I think it is the opposite. I think that is detrimental. There are so many people now
that are looking for a nice, quality, smaller home to downsize in which could be this versus if you
make the houses bigger, they will attract kids, families, more traffic, noise, etc. I have to say,
honestly, the best thing and the worst thing you can do is buy a house with woods behind it. It is
great as long as you get the free look but at some point something is going to happen whether folks
like it or not. I do think the plan is getting the best relief from actual impact of neighboring
properties as well as the community with green space and the park, etc. I think you have done a
good job to make the best of a not so good situation.
Councilmember Thurman
Kathy, the property that Cambridge is sitting on now, what did you say the density of that was?
Kathy Field
When it was pre-the school, it had been rezoned to 2.98 units per acre.
Councilmember Thurman
So, that is roughly the 27 homes would be a 2.98…
Kathy Field
Yes, they are at 3.04 to be exact.
Councilmember Thurman
The 28 homes were 3.04…
Kathy Field
Yes, you are right, sorry; the 27 homes would be 2.97.
Councilmember Thurman
Do you know what kind of conditions were on that particular zoning?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 34 of 85
Kathy Field
Robyn, do you remember?
Councilmember Thurman
It was done in Fulton County prior to us becoming a city but I wasn’t sure what conditions were…
Robyn MacDonald
It was a CUP, but I would have to find the case to give you. It was Community Unit Plan but…
Councilmember Thurman
Because it was going to be a good many homes over there, I just wasn’t sure what the square footage
was, what the side yard setbacks were and would you be willing to ensure that at least half the
houses would be brick; 3 sides brick, Mr. Hicks?
Curtis Hicks
Again, this is an architectural issue that, again, when you look at, and again this is Crabapple Station,
Crabapple Crossing, when you look at that area, there is a certain look, if you all have heard the
vernacular Crabapple Cottage, and that actually, before there was a City of Milton, there was the
vernacular of we would like to build a Crabapple Cottage, it is something Steven Fuller took, took
into Dunwoody and other places, it is basically a mix of materials. We will have at least 25% brick
but there will be siding homes, it is a part of the look of Milton. There will be some cedar shake
homes. There will be some painted brick and there will be what we call hardy plank, cement siding
homes but it is, it really gives a much better look, architecturally, to create a streetscape that is not
uniform. So many times, really, when you get a production builder and they go, yea, we will do all
brick and boom, everyone looks the same. This is really to create the look that has been embraced in
the heart of Crabapple but really throughout the City of Milton. It is some of that farm look, some of
a turn of the century look, traditional look, but we would prefer not to not say 50%, we could
certainly say 25% because, again, you would like to see that variation because it really creates a
better palate of materials.
Mayor Lockwood
I think siding gets a bad rap. The old days of vinyl siding or whatever, but these hardy plank do not
have a negative connotation.
Councilmember Thurman
I think it is nice to have some differences. You don’t want all the houses being siding, you wouldn’t
want all the houses being brick because it just would not fit in but it would be nice to ensure that you
had a certain percentage of each of them.
Mayor Lockwood
Again, going back to the price point, you mentioned Crabapple, the townhomes in Crabapple now
have gotten to the point that they are $400,000 and up and that is not even these homes. I would
think the market would pay more for these homes.
Councilmember Kunz
I have three questions and just for my history as well. This was first going to be a day care, then a
church, then a senior center, is that right? What was the…
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 35 of 85
Curtis Hicks
Assisted Living was what our original…we had an operator that had a site in Roswell that wanted to
do a second location in the City of Milton. We actually met with staff prior to filing an application.
Although there are Assisted Living facilities around Milton, there are not any in the city, actually. It
was going to be memory care, all contained, but because of the size of the building and the number
of units and the fact that it is 24 hour care so there are shrift changes, the community said that it is
not an acceptable use that they wanted to embrace. That is what the original application was to be an
Assisted Living on the corner with a 75 foot buffer and all that. That is where that kind of evolved
from. They determined that was not a use they wanted to see there.
Councilmember Kunz
Carter, I have a question for you as well. And, I guess we have a Comprehensive Transportation
Plan proposed, I think it is intersection improvement PL0012625, Bethany Bend and Highway 9. I
guess the question is, if that plan works then the road may head north a little bit, will that cut into
any of the buffers or the planning they have put in place?
Carter Lucas
Well, we are just now starting to look at those concept plans and one of the plans has a split
intersection at Bethany Bend and Highway 9. It is the split intersection potential that has a little bit
of impact on that southeast corner of the property. How much is just in the concept plan right now.
It wouldn’t affect the buildings but it would affect some of the front setbacks along that very corner
where the storm water facility is. That last unit in that particular area. Right now, if you look at
where the plan is coming together for that split intersection, it would probably place the right of way
line at Bethany Bend about 38 feet north of where it is on that very corner of the property.
Councilmember Kunz
So, essentially you are not pushing everything further north and cutting into the 75 foot buffer on the
plan?
Carter Lucas
No, and typically the way we do those reservations is we do the reservation but the setbacks are still
measured from the existing right-of-way as long as the future buildings are not within that future
right-of-way, then you just end up with a much closer building if the future project ever goes
through.
Councilmember Lusk
Just a comment. I was sitting here in 2008 when the Mormon Church tried to develop this property
and the outcry was so fierce that they chose to withdraw their application. Probably one of the least
impacted type of development for that property and it disturbed me at the time and it made me
wonder, what can go in here? I would hope that there is enough consensus out there and the
stakeholders that were involved in this exercise that we are pretty close to some consensus. If it is
not a church, if it is not an Assisted Care Facility, if it is not cluster homes, what’s next? Offices, or
does it revert to pure AG-1 and fence it off and put cows back in there.
Councilmember Hewitt
This area on the western side that we refer to as a park, what is it really, is it just going to be the
woods that are there now or is it going to be accessible by just the residents or the public or what?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 36 of 85
Curtis Hicks
We had planned to actually on the very pin corner to create some type of community park where it
would be landscaped on the corner there and then leaving the balance of it undisturbed going up
Cogburn because that seemed to be what the community wanted was to keep it natural but we had in
that triangular area that partially touches Bethany and then in a certain area going up Cogburn we
would see that being a corner pocket park that would be accessible to the community and to the
neighbors. It would really be more ornamental. When you think about it, who is actually going to
sit in it but we would try to landscape it and put some benches and a gazebo just to create a little
focus point on the corner. We have not fully addressed that and again there has been some
difference of opinion of whether to just keep it totally but our plan would be to kind of landscape it
behind the sidewalk and fencing and create it to be kind of a little pocket park like some other
developments had so it had a community focus and feel. That is the plan.
Councilmember Longoria
This is more a statement back to what Bill said more than a question. I think that we have heard a
lot from the people that are for this and the people that are against it and there are a couple of things
that everyone agrees on and that is that residential is the right solution for this piece of property. I
think the only question that we are trying to resolve is the density issue. Coming into this meeting
tonight I was think that 28 wasn’t the right number. I was thinking that it needed to be something
lower than that but I’m starting to get convinced that there is a lot of homework that has been done
on the number itself and whether it is 27 or 28, I don’t think it gets much below that area. And, so if
the preference is to have residential in this space, which, again is what I think I have heard tonight,
then I think this is a viable option for that. I think that the setback or buffer area that is between the
development and the homeowners in the adjacent subdivision is substantial and like you said Joe, it
is a better deal than what they would get for AG-1 development.
Councilmember Thurman
I agree with Bill in that I think 5 foot setback is a little narrow. I really think there is no room for a
variance to that. I think a 7 foot setback should make it work.
Councilmember Mohrig
I guess I am still going back to the conversations that I have had with people and trying to weigh it.
We did meet with the developer. He asked for some time and I have seen the product that is over at
Crabapple. I think it is an attractive product. I guess I am still graveling with the density because
that is what I have heard from people. Knowing that many homes in one place…I guess I am still a
little bit not comfortable with it. I understand the economics but I am wondering if there is
something that is in between those that is closer to what the neighbor…and I understand what Mr.
Hicks is saying that they don’t want to go back to the drawing board and start over. And, Mr. Hicks
if I could ask you…you are saying if you go to a bottom line, your final point is 27 or nothing, is that
what you are saying?
Curtis Hicks
At this time, if you are asking me what I can live with…27 based on the commitments we have
made, the expense to develop the site, the amount of money that is going to be invested in
landscaping and all of those things. And, again, it appears a lot more dense than it is because we are
squeezed in from the two sides but yes, 27 is where we need to land or we would rather not move
forward with the project.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 37 of 85
Mayor Lockwood
I know density number is a hot topic but the reality is that it is a math equation, it is a business
decision, if you do less lots there is not going to be enough money left to do big buffers and
landscape and a park area. Sometimes you get the number down and the neighbors are going to see
a whole lot more and will really affect them more negatively. That is my perspective.
Councilmember Kunz
I just want to talk about the elephant in the room that no one has really mentioned. There is an
enemy that we have never really discussed here and that is the bank. As far as this goes, the
developer has gone through a lot, we know the economics of the situation, we know the houses, we
know the density, my biggest concern is if we lose control over what we have done, which has
happened to us before in the past and this happens to municipalities all over the place, and that can
happen if the bank takes over, where you have shareholders that don’t live here, they live in
California, New York, Illinois, etc. , they didn’t go to the CZI meetings, they didn’t go to the
visioning meetings, haven’t really talked to any of the neighbors here. If they feel that they can sell
to another governmental agency outside of us, whether the Fulton County Board of Education
Cambridge High School reaches capacity next year, it would be a lot easier to buy that land for them
and they can do what they want to with it and we have no control over it. No one has really given
me an answer to the fact that we have that starring at us in the face which is Cambridge High School,
great school, but that still wasn’t what the community had envisioned at the time. I look at it, if it
was AG-1, granted they can put a road off Cogburn and Bethany Bend and built a lot of homes there,
the pond would still be where it is, I don’t know if that would change, the quality of the product
there is out of our control because they have that property right. I think in this case from what we
have done from a visioning process, it wasn’t easy, it wasn’t pretty, it is like making sausage, but I
worry about what happens if it doesn’t pass, what happens then. If that is the case, and that goes
through and we lose that control and I worry about three years down the road and we get something
that nobody wants. King’s Ridge across the street that is Alpharetta property and tax revenue but we
are responsible for the traffic. Cambridge High School, the Fulton County Board of Education was
going to lose that land and now we are responsible for the traffic. I look at it now that this is an
opportunity from a transitional perspective to perhaps stop that and maintain whatever control we
would like. I just worry about what happens if it doesn’t go through and I think that is how we have
to look at it.
Mayor Lockwood
Is there anything else or we will open it up for a motion?
City Manager Lagerbloom
Mr. Mayor, before you do that I think there is a question to what some of the setbacks were on the
rezoned parcel in Fulton County. Robyn has gotten that information for us so I can give you a quick
summation of that. If that project had moved forward it would have required front setbacks of 10
feet, a side yard separation of 7.5 feet, rear setback of 10 feet, heated floor area 2,200 square feet, a
50 foot buffer along AG-1 and a lot size of 71.50 square feet. It was conditioned for 187 homes just
to give you an idea of what that was rezoned for by Fulton County.
Councilmember Mohrig
I had a question from earlier, did we actually find out how many homes were actually represented in
the stakeholder group?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 38 of 85
City Manager Lagerbloom handed Councilmember Mohrig a list of attendees.
Mayor Lockwood
I just want to make a statement that is kind of like the white elephant in the room too, while I think
that every stakeholder has the same value, everybody that is affected, but quite honestly the biggest
stakeholder is the property owner. They are the ones that have the legal right to do something with
their land that is economically viable and again, I am just going back, I know everyone is concerned
about the density but the reality is that stakeholders, besides the property owner and the
neighborhood behind it, Oakstone Glen, and the affected property owners which I agree are
important stakeholders, I believe we are getting a better deal with this plan as far as what they are
actually going to look at and be able to see and with the park area and wooded area along Cogburn
Road. And, I have driven several times around here through the neighborhood and looked, by the
time you drive around the neighborhood; this new development would not really be associated with
it. They are far enough away from each other. I think this is our win-win for both sides but I know
some folks may not agree. Does anybody have anything else or do I have a motion?
Mayor Lockwood
Going once.
Councilmember Lusk
Let me figure out how to craft this.
Mayor Lockwood
Alright, Bill.
Councilmember Lusk
I make a motion to approve RZ13-16/North, without VC13-06, Northeast corner of Bethany Bend and
Cogburn Road by Arrowhead Real Estate Partners, LLC to rezone from AG-1 Agricultural to NUP
Neighborhood Unit Plan to develop 27 single family homes at a density of 2.86, 2.97 units per acre.
Two, with a seven-foot side setback, 2,800 square foot minimum heated living area with a 3,000 square
foot average heated living area, 25% of the units to be 3 sides brick…
Councilmember Thurman
Conditions as stated by staff in the report
Councilmember Lusk
And the conditions other conditions stated by…
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 39 of 85
Mayor Lockwood
And, can I make a clarification?
Councilmember Longoria
Yea go ahead.
Councilmember Mohrig
You need to deny the….
Mayor Lockwood
I think the 2,800 to 32, you know, was the range, I don’t think that, you know, in the discussions that we
heard, a 3,000 average it was 2,800 to 3,200 to 2,800 being the minimum.
Councilmember Lusk
Okay.
Councilmember Longoria
Bill, the other question I would ask is do we really want to get into explaining or deciding what
materials were going to be used. I thought that the conversation opted out at let the builder build
something, a product that’s going to sell as opposed to try to dictate what’s going to sell but, I mean, it is
your motion, you do what you want.
Councilmember Lusk
Oh, I think Mr. Hicks, and correct me if I am wrong, agreed to 25% of units to be 3-sided brick. Is that
correct, sir?
Curtis Hicks, applicant
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 40 of 85
Basically, it’s a mixture of materials it be at least 25% will have brick fronts and they may have cedar
shake on other sides around them, but we had agreed just to be brick fronts with again the Crabapple
product has been approved by the staff it has some siding and some cedar shake as a combination of
elements wrapping the house.
Councilmember Mohrig
Question.
Mayor Lockwood
You could do a 25% parts you know if could be a brick or stone, you know.
Councilmember Mohrig
And, Bill are you going to suggest that we deny the variance of the width between the homes
reducing….
Councilmember Lusk
I am going to address that….
Councilmember Mohrig
Okay.
Councilmember Lusk
So, going back to clarify 25% of the units to have brick fronts.
Curtis Hicks
Correct, brick elevations, yes, front elevation, brick on front elevation.
Councilmember Lusk
Front elevation and you captured that.
Mayor Lockwood
You want to restate it Bill? Let’s clean it up and let’s restate it.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 41 of 85
City Manager Lagerbloom
Could you yea give me 60 seconds to kind of summarize the thoughts of what I think he just did, and I’ll
try to read back what I think we captured that would make it that would capture your motion. And, I’ll
start that then I’ll have Ken maybe explain how you can get rid of, if you want to, the variance. I think
what I heard you say was to approve RZ13-16 with staff’s recommended conditions amending condition
1(b) to change the number 28 to number 27, to change 3.08 to 2.97, further amending 3(h) to change 5
feet to 7 feet, further amending 3(e) by adding that the average square footage would be a minimum of
3,000 square feet, and changing 3(l) to include after assistance from the city architect with a minimum
of 7 seven homes having brick elevations. I will turn it over to the city attorney as to how you could
structure doing away with the variance.
Councilmember Lusk
Excuse me, could you clarify the 3,000 square foot number? I believe you said 3,000 square foot
average.
City Manager Lagerbloom
I think that’s what I heard you say.
Councilmember Thurman
A 2,800 square foot minimum with 3,000 square foot average.
City Manager Lagerbloom
Correct, yes, to keep it as it was but add to it that, add to the 2,800 square feet minimum that an average
would be 3,000.
Mayor Lockwood
Kathy, do you want to just clarify because I know there was some conversation and I think you had said
2,800 minimum, and again I’m…
Kathy Field
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 42 of 85
Yes, our condition was 2,800 minimum the technical report that Curtis quoted me saying which is
contained in there says that it would be an average of 3,000 because there would be a minimum of 2,800
and up to 3,200. If I might also in terms of the brick, I think that what needs to be captured is front
brick elevation and then or alternatively is the city architect sitting behind me has suggested is that we
just put in there something along the lines of a mandated 360 architecture so that all sides are designed
and captured so there is no back side or whatever so that is another alternative just to put into the mix.
City Manager Lagerbloom
So, I guess I just need to hear you articulate what you’re intending to do and then we will put the words
around it.
Councilmember Lusk
I agree with Kathy’s last explanation and definition of the use of brick.
City Manager Lagerbloom
Okay, so let me take one more stab at this then. So, I believe the motion would be to approve RZ13-16
and deny VC13-06 with the following amended conditions: to make condition 1(b) to change the
number 28 to 27 and to change 3.08 to 2.97, further amending condition 3(h) to change the number 5 to
the number 7, further changing condition 3(e) by adding after the minimum heated floor area per units of
2,800 square feet to include a minimum average of 3,000 square feet and amending 3(l) to indicate that
after the words with the assistance from the city architect, to have a minimum of 7 homes have front
brick elevations.
Councilmember Thurman
And, 360-degree architecture…
City Manager Lagerbloom
And, 360-degree architecture.
Mayor Lockwood
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 43 of 85
Which to clarify, I think means all sides would be equal….
City Manager Lagerbloom
It would have to have architectural review.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay. Is that your motion?
Councilmember Lusk
That is my motion.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, do I have a second?
Councilmember Kunz
Second.
Mayor Lockwood
Okay, we have a motion as read into the record from Councilmember Lusk and a second by
Councilmember Kunz. Is there any discussion?
Councilmember Hewitt
I’ve just got one thing to say. Four or five years ago we passed a sewer map and this lot wasn’t included
on it and I supported that map and in the past when we have had others that have come forward, I
haven’t supported those and for that reason I won’t support this one either. I do think it is a little too
dense. I don’t think I have heard from the neighbors arguing that they can see the roof tops or any of
that kind of stuff so that’s why I am not going to support it.
Mayor Lockwood
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 44 of 85
Okay, any other discussion? Alright, all in favor please say aye. Any opposed? (Councilmember Hewitt
and Councilmember Mohrig raised their hand) That’s 5 in favor, 2 opposed.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item 13-286 as recommended by
Staff with the following conditions:
• Section (1)(b) – No more than 27 total dwelling units at a maximum density of 2.97…
• Section (3)(e) – Minimum heated floor area per units – 2,800 square feet, minimum average
would be 3,000 square feet.
• Section(3)(h) – Minimum side yard setback – 7 feet.
• Remove Section (3)(j) which results in denial of VC13-06.
• Section (3)(l) – After “City Architect” add the verbiage “with a minimum of 7 homes to have
front brick elevations and 360 degree architecture.”
Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed (5-2). Councilmember Mohrig and
Councilmember Hewitt were opposed.
2. Consideration of U13-03/U13-07 – 13440 Cogburn Road by St. Francis Day School, Inc. for a
Use Permit (Sec. 64-1831) to Increase the Area of the School and the Total Square Footage from
92,616 Square Feet to 109,116 Square Feet that Includes a Practice Gym and Two Maintenance
Buildings. A Two-Part Concurrent Variance for the Following: 1) Buildings Shall be Set Back
More Than 30 Feet from the Edge of the Required Landscape Strip or Easements [Sec. 64-
1145(3)(b)]. 2) Buildings Shall Not be Oriented to a Public Street [Sec. 64-1145(2)(a)].
(Agenda Item No. 13-287) ORDINANCE NO. 13-12-193
(First Presentation at December 2, 2013 Regular Council Meeting) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the council. You have before you an ariel showing the site
plan that we are considering this evening. This is the revised site plan submitted on November 19,
2013 with the parking adjustments included. The subject site consists of 41.797 acres. It was
originally approved for a use permit for a private school in 1997 for a maximum of 600 students. It
was approved for a use permit for recreational fields in 2002. Recently the school acquired a single
family residence on the southern end of the subject site adjacent to Cogburn Road. The applicant is
requesting to increase the acreage of the school and the total square footage from 92,616 square feet
to 109,116 square feet to include a practice gym and two maintenance buildings. The request does
not include any additional students. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on
November 20, 2013 and they recommended Approval Conditional as recommended by Staff. Site
Plan Analysis: based on the applicant’s revised site plan submitted to the Community Development
Department on November 19, 2013, Staff offers the following analysis. Under the use permit
standards for a school, private or special, the applicant meets all the required standards. Under the
Northwest Fulton Overlay District, they are requesting two concurrent variances. VC13-07 – Part 1
- Buildings shall be set back no more than 30 feet from the edge of the required landscape strip or
easements. The proposed new buildings are accessory buildings to be used for storage, locker
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 45 of 85
rooms, and a practice gym, and therefore should not be required to be set back no more than 30 feet
from the edge of the required landscape strip or easement. It is Staff’s opinion that the Northwest
Fulton Overlay’s intent was not to require these ancillary buildings to a primary use, such as a
private school, to be placed less than 30 feet from the edge of the landscape strip or easement.
This placement would inadvertently give prominence to these ancillary buildings. By granting this
variance, it would not offend the spirit or intent of the zoning ordinance. Secondly, based on the fact
that this requirement if strictly applied, would create an unnecessary hardship because of an
extraordinary situation not caused by the applicant. Thirdly, relief if granted would not cause a
substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. Lastly, the public safety, health
and welfare are secured and substantial justice is done. Therefore, Staff recommends Approval
Conditional of VC13-07 – Part 1. In terms of VC13-07 – Part 2 - Buildings shall not be oriented to a
public street. The proposed new buildings are accessory buildings to be used for storage, locker
rooms, and a practice gym and therefore should not be required to be oriented to a public street. It is
Staff’s opinion that the Northwest Fulton Overlay’s intent was not to require these ancillary
buildings to a primary use, such as a private school, to be oriented to a public street giving
prominence to these ancillary buildings. By granting this variance, it would not offend the spirit or
intent of the zoning ordinance. Secondly, based on the fact that this requirement, if strictly applied,
would create an unnecessary hardship because of extraordinary situation not caused by the applicant.
Thirdly, relief if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding
properties. Lastly, the public safety, health and welfare are secured and substantial justice is done.
Therefore, Staff recommends Approval Conditional of VC13-07 – Part 2. Public Involvement – in
terms of the CZI meeting that was held on September 24, 2013 the applicant was present. One
resident also attended, the property owner to the south of the subject site. The original plan
indicated a storage building adjacent to this resident’s property. Since that time, the revised site plan
has relocated the building away from his property. The Design Review Board gave this application
a courtesy review on October 1, 2013 and the following comments were made: The DRB considers
the school to be a good neighbor. Proposed additions would not produce a significant change. Public
Participation Plan and Report: the applicant has met the requirements of the Public Participation
Plan. The applicant did speak to Mr. Edward Bachman on September 30, 2013 in which he
expressed his concern regarding the location of the garages. In response, a revised site plan was
submitted to relocate the garages away from Mr. Bachman’s home. Use Permit Considerations:
1. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the land use or economic
development plans adopted by the Mayor and City Council:
The City of Milton 2030 Comprehensive Plan recommends the subject site
as Agricultural, Equestrian, and Estate Residential. Private schools are an
appropriate use within this land use category. In terms of parking spaces;
the required number of parking spaces based on the number of classrooms is 360. The plan shows
363. The revised site plan submitted on November 19, 2013 updates the existing and proposed
parking to reflect this required 363 parking spaces which meets the minimum requirement of 360.
Conclusion: the proposed expansion for the private school is consistent with the City of
Milton Future Land Use Plan Map and surrounding uses. The requested two part concurrent variance
does not offend the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends Approval
Conditional of U13-03 AND VC13-07. Recommended Conditions: If this petition is approved by
the Mayor and City Council, it should be approved for a Use Permit for a private school subject to
the owner’s agreement to the following enumerated conditions:
1) To the owner’s agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 46 of 85
a) Restrict the use of the subject property to a private high school with
41 classrooms, a 19,955 square foot gymnasium, and accessory uses
at an overall density of 2,370.9 gross square feet per acre zoned or
a total gross floor area of 108,580 square feet, whichever is less.
b) Restrict the number of students to 600. Grades shall be limited to the
9th through the 12th grade.
c) Limit the height of all buildings to 2-stories or 40 feet, whichever is
less (existing structures).
2) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following:
a) To the revised site plan received by the Community Development
Department on November 19, 2013. Said site plan is conceptual
only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, all other applicable City ordinances and these
conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. In
the event the Recommended Conditions of Zoning cause the
approved site plan to be substantially different, the applicant shall
be required to complete the concept review procedure prior to
application for a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted
herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
3) To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations:
a) No more than 1 exit/entrance on Cogburn Road.
b) To allow the location of a softball field and its accessory structures and
a baseball field and its accessory structures in the front yard.
c) To allow proposed buildings numbered 1, 2, and 3 on the revised site
plan submitted on November 19, 2013 to be set back more than 30
feet from the edge of the required landscape strip or easements.
d) To allow proposed buildings numbered 1, 2, and 3 on the revised site
plan submitted on November 19, 2013 not to be oriented to a public
street.
4) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication and improvements:
a) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton prior to the approval of a
Business License, Land Disturbance Permit, Subdivision Plat or Certificate of
Occupancy (whichever comes first), sufficient land as necessary to
provide the following: provide 20 foot permanent construction, maintenance, and
access easement to the City of Milton adjacent to the Cogburn Road right of way along
entire property frontage for future multiuse trail.
And, that is my report Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Lockwood
Are there any questions for Kathy? If not, I will open it up to those in support of this application.
Mr. Drew Buccellato, 13440 Cogburn Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am the headmaster at St. Francis. Basically, what we have tried to do with this site plan revision is
locate these buildings so they would be as unobtrusive as possible. I think the nearest distance from
the practice gymnasium to Cogburn Road would be 185 feet. There is a natural depression that we
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 47 of 85
are looking at so we are trying to tuck that gymnasium as deep as possible in that depression once
again so it really can’t be viewed by the neighbors or even people driving down Cogburn Road. We
appreciate you participating in this process and I would save any additional time for any questions.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the Agenda Item 13-287.
Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
The Mayor and Council took a 5 minute recess.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 48 of 85
3. Consideration of U13-04/VC13-04 – 13895 Hopewell Road by Jeff Runner for a Use Permit to
Use the Existing House and Approximately Five Acres for a Special Event Facility (Sec. 64-
1812). A Three-Part Concurrent Variance for the Following: 1) To Delete the 8 Foot High
Opaque Fence Along the South Property Line [Sec. 64-1812 (b)(2)]. 2) To Delete the 75 Foot
Undisturbed Buffer and 10 Foot Improvement Setback Along All Property Lines [Sec. 64-
1141(3)(b)]. 3) To Delete the Three Year Period Requirement [Sec. 64-1812(b)(6)]. 4) To
Allow Access from a Local Street [Sec. 64-1812(b)(1)].
(Agenda Item No. 13-288) (First Presentation at December 2, 2013 Regular Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field, Community Development Director
Mr. Mayor and members of the council, you have an aerial in front of you showing outlined in red the
site that we are discussing this evening. This is the revised site plan that was submitted on September
26, 2013. The subject site is zoned AG-1 and developed with a single family residence, barn, out
building, garage, pool, and pool house on 4.687 acres. The legal description for the use permit is less
than the size of the existing parcel. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at its November
20, 2013 meeting in terms of to approve VC13-04, Part 1 to delete the eight foot high opaque fence with
the following condition: to delete the eight foot high opaque fence along the south property line
provided that staff receives a letter stating support from the property owner affected. The staff has
subsequent to that meeting received that letter from the neighbor supporting this request to delete the
eight foot high fence. In terms of to deny VC13-04, Part 3 with the understanding that after the three
year period if the applicant has been compliant with the regulations and no issues pending that they can
ask for a deletion of the three year limit at the renewal time. To delete condition request a five foot high
equestrian style fence along the east property line for a distance of 454.33 feet as recommended by staff.
To change the number from 100 guests to 150 guests and any artificial noise must come from the west
side of the house. Site plan analysis: based on the applicant’s revised site plan submitted to the
Community Development Department on September 26, 2013, Staff offers the following considerations:
In the applicant’s revised letter of intent received by the Community Development Department on
October 11, 2013, it states that the applicant proposes to host events in the range of 100 people to 200
people at most. The applicant proposes that the events will cease artificial noise at 10:00 P.M. The
intent is to provide a facility for these events and showcase what is uniquely the City of Milton, while
preserving green-space and rural/agricultural areas. The existing house, outbuildings, patios, drives, etc.
will provide for the proposed use. Parking including handicapped will be handled on existing
pavement/grassed areas and will meet the ratios provided by ordinance. The applicant states that he may
construct a pavilion in the future if the need should arise. The driveway at 13895 Hopewell Road will
be utilized for entrance only and the exiting of vehicles will be at the applicant’s property located at
13835 Hopewell Road to the south. This is based on the small size of the entrance and lack of site
distance at the subject site.
VC13-04, Part 1 - To delete the 8 foot high opaque fence along the south property line. The subject
site’s driveway abuts the single family residence to the south. This driveway will be utilized for the
ingress for the subject site which will impact the adjacent property negatively. Therefore, Staff
recommends denial of VC13-04, Part 1.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 49 of 85
VC13-04, Part 3 - To delete the three year period requirement. The applicant is requesting that the
requirement limiting the use permit to a three-year period from the date of the City Council’s approval
be deleted. It is Staff’s opinion that this time limitation is provided to allow each event or event facility
to be evaluated by the Mayor and City Council on its impact on adjacent and nearby properties. The
applicant may choose to reapply for the same use permit at the time the use permit expires. Therefore,
Staff recommends denial of VC13-04, Part 3.
VC13-04, Part 4 - To allow access from a local street. It is Staff’s opinion that a proposed use such as
an event facility should not be accessed from a local street. Based on these circumstances, it is Staff’s
opinion that granting this variance would not offend the spirit or intent of the zoning ordinance.
Secondly, based on the fact that this requirement, if strictly applied, would create an unnecessary
hardship because of extraordinary situation not caused by the applicant. Thirdly, relief if granted would
not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. Lastly, the public safety,
health and welfare are secured and substantial justice is done. Therefore, Staff recommends approval
conditional of VC13-04 – part 4.
Northwest Fulton Overlay District - Although there are no new structures being proposed, based on the
fact that the current use is a single family residence and the request is a non-residential
use, the application comes under the purview of the Northwest Fulton Overlay District.
The applicant is requesting the following concurrent variance.
VC13-04, Part 2 - To delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback along all
property lines. The applicant states in the revised letter of intent that the configuration of the venue
property will allow for at least a 100 foot buffer (setback) for surrounding properties, except for the
access drive affecting the property located at 13855 Hopewell Road. In addition, the applicant states that
the intent is to preserve green space and rural/agricultural areas. Except for the property at 13855
Hopewell Road, all the adjoining properties are owned by the applicant. In addition, the distance
between the subject site and properties owned by others ranges from 230 feet to 330 feet. Staff
recommends that an equestrian style fence, five feet in height, be constructed along the east property line
(labeled with a distance of 454.33 feet) and landscaping not to exceed the height of the fence, interior to
the fence. Approval of landscape materials and landscape plan shall be approved by the City Arborist.
This condition will be included in the Recommended Conditions and will provide protection for
nearby properties and define the area in which people can circulate on the site
defined as the event facility. Based on these circumstances, it is Staff’s opinion that the granting of this
variance would not offend the spirit or intent of the zoning ordinance. Secondly, based on the fact that
this requirement, if strictly applied would create an unnecessary hardship because of an extraordinary
situation not caused by the applicant. Thirdly, relief if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to
the public good and surrounding properties. Lastly, the public safety, health and welfare are secured and
substantial justice is done. Therefore, Staff recommends approval conditional of VC13-04 – part 2.
Fire Marshal - The event facility will be required to be sprinkled and provide handicapped
accessibility. The ingress and egress is sufficient for emergency vehicles to provide services to the site.
Public Involvement
Community Zoning Information Meeting was held on September 24, 2013 the applicant was present at
the meeting. Sixteen people signed the sign-in sheet. Attendees expressed concerns about the number of
people attending events, the potential impact of noise and light, how many events will be
scheduled, and the possibility of outside event structures. The City of Milton Design Review Board gave
a courtesy review on October 1, 2013. The following comment was made at the meeting:
Concerned that the approval of this use will open the door for other uses that may inconvenience the
neighbors.
Public Participation Plan and Report - The public participation meeting was held on October 9, 2013.
There were four residents in attendance. Their issues included the number of attendees, the hours of
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 50 of 85
operation, noise concerns, and types of events. The applicant stated that they would allow weddings and
anniversaries and would end by 11:00 p.m.
Use Permit Considerations:
Whether the proposed use is consistent with the land use or economic development plans adopted by the
Mayor and City Council:
The proposed development is located in the Agricultural, Equestrian, Estate Residential (AEE) land use
category on the City of Milton 2030 Comprehensive Plan Map. The proposed use permit is permitted in
AG-1 (Agricultural) districts which is an acceptable zoning district for the AEE land use category. In
addition, the following Plan Policy is consistent with the proposed use:
“We will support programs that retain, expand and create businesses that
provide a good fit for our community’s economy in terms of job skills
required and links to existing businesses and locate them appropriately
within the City.”
Compatibility with land uses and zoning districts in the vicinity of the property for which the use permit
is proposed:
The subject site is adjacent to a minor arterial to the west and agriculturally zoned property owned by
the applicant to the north and east. If the required eight foot opaque fence is constructed adjacent to
the entrance driveway. The applicant has asked in the Letter of Intent to have a maximum of 200 guests
but states that the typical event would have 100 guests. Staff will condition the maximum of 100 guests.
It is Staff’s opinion that event facility is compatible with adjacent and nearby properties if it is approved
with the Recommended Conditions.
The location and number of off-street parking spaces. The chart based on the capacity that is proposed
shows a requirement of 74 parking spaces. The number of spaces provided will be either 88 or 106.
The applicant submitted two parking plan options on November 20, 2013. It appears that Plan A
indicates a total of 88 parking spaces, including handicapped. Plan B indicates a total of 106 parking
spaces.
Protective screening: The applicant requested a concurrent variance to delete the 75 foot
undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback as discussed above. Staff is of the opinion that
there is adequate protection in the distance from adjacent property owners with the exception to the
residence directly to the south along the entrance driveway. In addition, Staff has included a condition to
require a 5 foot equestrian style fence with landscaping not to exceed 5 feet interior to the fence to
provide additional screening as approved by the City Arborist. Staff has recommended denial of the
deletion of the 8 foot high opaque fence to provide the necessary screening for the property to the south.
Ingress and egress to the property. One driveway does not meet sight distance for full access; therefore
Staff is requiring one way circulation. Neither meets the width for one way circulation must be widened
to meet the required width.
In conclusion - If approved with the Recommended Conditions, the proposed special event facility is
consistent with the City of Milton 2030 Future Land Use Plan and Policies. Therefore, Staff
recommends U13-02 be approved conditional. Regarding the Concurrent Variances, Staff recommends
approval conditional of VC13-04, Parts 2 and 4, and denial of VC13-04, parts 1 and 3. We have
included as part of our report the letter of support from the adjacent property owner to the south who is
requesting that the opaque fence that we have required be deleted.
Recommended Conditions - If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, it should be
approved for a Use Permit for Festivals or events, outdoor/indoor conditional subject to the owner’s
agreement to the following enumerated conditions. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulations
and offerings contained in the Letter of Intent, these conditions shall supersede unless specifically
stipulated by the Mayor and City Council.
1) To the owner’s agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 51 of 85
follows:
a) The existing single family house and property within the 4.697 acre
site utilized for events.
b) The existing barn, out building, pool house, garage, shall not be
expanded in size as depicted on the revised site plan received by
the Community Development Department on September 26, 2013.
c) The number of guests shall not exceed 100 people for a single
event.
2) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following:
a) To the revised site plan received by the Community Development
Department on September 26, 2013. Said site plan is conceptual
only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, all other applicable City ordinances and these
conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. In
the event the Recommended Conditions of Zoning cause the
approved site plan to be substantially different, the applicant shall
be required to complete the concept review procedure prior to
application for a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted
herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
3) To the owner’s agreement to the following site development
considerations:
a) To delete the 75 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement
setback along all property lines. (VC13-04, Part 2)
b) Provide a five foot high, equestrian style fence along the east
property line labeled 454.33 feet and a planted screen not to
exceed five feet in height interior to the fence. Plant material and
planting plan shall be approved by the City Arborist.
c) Permitted curb cut access shall not be from a local street. (VC13-04,
Part 4)
d) Artificial sound emitting from the facility shall cease at 10:00 p.m.
4) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following requirements,
dedication and improvements:
a) Access to the site shall be subject to the approval of City of
Milton Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of a Business
License, Land Disturbance Permit, Subdivision Plat or Certificate of
Occupancy (whichever comes first). Entrance(s) shall conform to
Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the City of
Milton Code of Ordinances, or be reconstructed to meet such
criteria as required by the Department of Public Works. At a
minimum the following shall apply:
• Driveway located at 13895 Hopewell Road shall be entrance only and driveway located at 13835
Hopewell Road shall be exit only
• Driveway(s) shall meet minimum width requirements
• Driveway(s) modifications shall include any required right of way reservation for future
intersection improvement project at Hopewell Road and Bethany Bend.
And, that is my presentation.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 52 of 85
Councilmember Lusk
Can you clarify the point that was brought up about no curb cut permitted on the local street?
Kathy Field
The requirement is that road is not a local street, it is an arterial street and so, Robyn, maybe you can
explain it a little better.
Robyn MacDonald
It is a mystery to us why that was a regulation or development standard and speaking to the staff of
Fulton County, originally this permit was used for the Renaissance Festival in South Fulton and we
think it was just a typo in their regulations and we adopted it so we will go back and do a text
amendment to fix it. It just absolutely makes no sense but technically it was in the ordinance so,
therefore, there was a variance required.
Councilmember Lusk
So, what bearing does it have on the issue on the ingress and egress road?
Robyn MacDonald
It says it has to be from a local street, i.e. a subdivision street which does not really make a lot of sense.
Kathy Field
Because it is on an arterial street, it is not a locally designated street.
Robyn MacDonald
If you look at all the other use permits, they say, “shall not be derived from a local street.” It is like they
forgot some of the requirement. Does that make sense?
Kathy Field
It really doesn’t make sense to us either and that is why we really need to go back and modify that
requirement, number one, and secondly that is why we are supporting this variance request.
Mayor Lockwood
Are there any other specific requests before we go forward?
Councilmember Mohrig
As far as traffic flow, is it that the one way direction is because of the safety when you exit on the road if
you go back out the same driveway you came in?
Kathy Field
Yes, the width of the driveway is one issue and the other is the site distance and Carter and Sara are here
but I think that is the point. Carter is telling me yes.
Councilmember Mohrig
So, a safety issue is why you saying direct out to the other point?
Kathy Field
Yes, so it is a one way circulation pattern; in one and out the other.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 53 of 85
Mayor Lockwood
We will now hear from those in support of this application.
Scott Reece, 13685 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004
Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of the council, I am Scott Reece with Reece and Associates. I
am here tonight representing Jeff and Sally Runner and their application to obtain a use permit for their
property located at 13895 Hopewell Road. They own a total of 30 acres there. We are proposing the
use permit area as approximately 4.69 acres included inside the 30 acres. We are applying under the
festivals and events; indoor and outdoor. It is a round peg in a square hole but there is not a specific
ordinance that meets what we are seeking. As Robyn and Kathleen alluded to, this is a Milton adoption
of a Fulton County use permit and we are stuck with all the parameters within that permit. Because of
that, we are having to ask for four variances to comply. Number one, the eight foot opaque fence; we
feel like there is sufficient screening, natural screening there. The neighbor to the south has requested
the deletion of the fence. They kind of feel like it is a solution looking for a problem. We don’t want it
and she doesn’t want it. Number two, the 75 foot undisturbed buffer planted for the northwest overlay;
we specifically tried to create the parameters of the special use permit to allow a buffer of Mr. Runner’s
property and to preserve the equestrian feel of the horse farm. The whole intent is for the area to have a
wedding or an anniversary to take place inside a horse farm, not a planted buffer, so we are asking for
the deletion of that. We don’t feel like it is necessary. We are providing adequate separation from
adjoining properties. Number three, and I guess this is the deal killer, three year renewal. Once again,
we are back to the adoption of a Fulton County ordinance that was created, in my understanding,
specifically for the Renaissance Festival for an event that runs not to exceed 180 days in length. We are
not looking for an event of that magnitude or that style. The improvements that Mr. Runner would have
to make to the facility, the building, handicap access, the sprinkling, it precludes doing this with the
thought that if he has done everything right in three years, this use is taken away. We feel like there
should be a way to create conditions that would control the property. That he will do what he says he
does and if he doesn’t then there should be a way to shut him down. If he is doing everything correct, he
should be able to go on and operate as every other use permit is mandated within the city. And, finally,
number four, as Robyn and I have discussed. We think it is just a typo. There is no reason for it to be
off of a local street, that is why we try to keep everything off of local streets, so that is the point of that.
Trying to keep brevity in, on the recommended conditions, we would like to delete 1(b); we would like
the number of guests not to exceed 200 people; we would like to delete 3(b) and 4(ii). We have met
with Carter and Sara and I think we have addressed all the traffic issues and the consensus was that if we
widen the entrance at the entrance drive that it would take care of everything regarding that issue. I am
going to turn it over to Mr. Runner because he can more gracefully express what his plans are instead of
me trying to express those. Thank you.
Jeff Runner, 13895 Hopewell Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I have a presentation. We are here to talk about Yellow House Farm and we are going to call it Yellow
House Farm in Milton. It will be an events venue where southern elegance meets rustic charm. I think
most of you have been out there so you have seen the place. Before we get started, I want to address a
couple of lingering issues and that is relationship to the barn that we built several years ago. We sat
with Fulton County numerous times, went over the plans, Fulton County knew what we were doing,
Fulton County knew why we were doing it, and what we were planning to do with it. We got all the
building permits that we were required to get. Everything about the barn in Fulton County is legal and
Fulton County has issued a letter, and most of these government issues always reference ordinances,
they were very explicit and very specific about what we are allowed to do in that barn and stated that
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 54 of 85
everything we are doing is all legal and up to standard. In spite of numerous sheriffs, code enforcement,
and building inspector visits, more than 50 in less than a year, there was never anything found that was
not in compliance. We were never cited for anything; there was never an issue. That is enough said
about the barn. Let’s move on to what we want to do. We are looking for a way to keep this property as
it is. The property is very expensive to maintain. It is not that we can’t afford it, but we are getting
older so we are looking for a way for our kids to be able to keep doing what we are doing. Taxes,
insurance, and maintenance exceed $10,000 per month. Our plans are to use the house, guesthouse, the
RV barn and approximately five acres as the event venue. We are going to renew the license for the
qualifying barn, arena, and approximately 25 acres that remain and continue its agricultural and
equestrian use. We will deed the rest of the property to either a family trust or a family corporation to
ensure its continued existence after our death. The facility is approximately five acres and is nestled in
the heart of a 30 acre estate. The house is 175 years old and over 10,000 square feet, it has eight
bedrooms and parlors. We have parking to accommodate over 100 vehicles. We have indoor meeting
and ceremony areas that can accommodate groups as large as 200 people but the fire marshal says we
can have up to 465 in there. The outdoor decks and ceremony area will accommodate groups up to 400
people. We want to be more of an elegant, quiet, intimate, events facility. We don’t want to do
adolescent parties. Our target group size is less than 125 but we will allow up to 200 in case someone
plans a wedding and realized they forgot Great Aunt Sally and it has created all sorts of a fuss in the
family. We are asked to host an event of more than 200 people, we want to come in and talk to the city
and see if we need to get a special permit in the event something like that comes up. I want to remind
everyone, this is our house. This is our dream so we don’t want to do anything that is going to tear it up
so we want to keep it down to a low number of people. We want to be open to all types of events but we
are going to focus on two areas, family memorable events, weddings, bridal showers, anniversary
parties, baby showers, engagement parties, in addition, charitable events such as fundraisers and
awareness parties. We will operate from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday; 8:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. on Sunday, although, we don’t know anything about this business but most of the time events
will be on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. We will have valet parking for large groups and smaller
parties will have self-parking. Most of the live bands will be restricted to inside the house. Anything
that is outside the house will obviously have to abide by the City of Milton’s noise ordinance and we
have on-site monitoring equipment to ensure that happens. We will also hire off-duty Milton police
officers for security for large events. As far as future expansion, we have nothing planned. The only
thing that is a possibility is that sometime in the future we have an outside area where we are having the
ceremonies and we might want to put a 40 by 60 foot covering, or something like that, in case there is
inclement weather. This is an ariel view of the house. Our house faces the subdivision so everything we
are doing is in the back which is on the road side of the house. All the weddings will be on the left side
of this picture or will be inside the house. Here is a picture of the sunroom shown for one of the
weddings we set up for, here is a picture of the set up for the reception in the family room, this is a
bridal shower we had for my daughter-in-law, this shows the outside wedding area set up; and again,
this is all away from the subdivision. The gazebo where we would have the outside band coming off the
deck. It fits with Milton’s development plan. The types of businesses that we are going to be
supporting and helping us will obviously be party and event equipment rentals, restaurants and caterers,
florists, photographers, hotels, travel agencies, security and valet parking, cleaning services, laundry and
dry cleaning, landscaping, DJ’s and taxis. Other places in Milton that hold events are schools, parks,
churches, subdivision clubhouses, private residents, and other horse barns. Just about every horse barn
has an event of some type. They all make noise, they all create traffic; the only ones that create a
problem, unfortunately, are the schools and parks because they do not have to comply with the local
ordinances. Everyone else does and since they have to comply they rarely create a problem. We will
abide by all of Milton’s ordinances and noise will be monitored on site. There is also a watch dog that
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 55 of 85
wields a bigger club than any of the neighbors or the city and that is the horses at the horse barn. If we
do something to disturb the horses, the horse owners remove them from our property and that is what
this is about, an equestrian facility, so we aren’t going to do anything that is going to disturb or take
away from the horses. That is all I have.
Michael Stannard, 13870 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
After the three or four meetings that I attended and then visiting the Yellow Farm, my house is directly
in front of his house so if I wanted to I could look in his window. So, I can hear and see everything that
is going on at his property. After the tour of his facility, I determined and my wife determined that we
are not in opposition of this going forward.
Jeff Wright, 13880 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am also right behind Mr. Runner and my wife, Stephanie, and I went to visit the property and it is a
beautiful property and quite honestly I am not really concerned about it. I am convinced that any noise
would be minimal. Like Mr. Runner said, everything is on the exact opposite side of the house and so I
am definitely not opposed to it.
Brent Reeves, 15030 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
First and foremost everybody knows the Yellow House. Anyone who has come to Milton, even just
passing by, everyone says. “Oh yea, the Yellow House.” It is a shining star, if not the, it is definitely
one of the shining stars in our community. As you mentioned earlier, Mayor Lockwood, we have to do
everything we can to preserve those types of properties. Anything that we would do here that would
take away his right to economically use his property which would be a detriment to his property and
potentially push it into another use that may not be as detrimental would be completely against what
zoning is all about. Zoning has never been about trying to restrict someone’s use, restrict someone’s
possibility to use; it is about making sure that the freedom’s that people have in their own property are
protected but not at the expense of the surrounding landowners. The issue here is that he owns
obviously the four acres that we are talking about but he also owns all the surrounding land. If we can’t
support this, I don’t know how you can support a person’s rights and their property. It sounds like most
everybody that has reviewed this has been in support of it. There is just that one hanging issue that I
will use an analogy for. There is a three year renewal period that I think any business owner would see
as being a ridiculous thing that you couldn’t live up to. There is no business in the world that could ever
come before you, ask for a permit and say, “Okay, I am going to invest all this money in this and all the
improvements you are asking me to make, expanding the road, meeting the fire code, putting in
sprinklers, and all of the things that you are going to ask and make Mr. Runner do, and then I’ll come
back in three years after I have established my business and ask you if I can keep doing business.” You
would never impose that on any other business. You wouldn’t impose it on a pizza place and say, “Go
ahead and open up, good luck to you, and in three years we will come back and make sure none of the
neighbors disapprove of the smell, the parking, etc. You wouldn’t impose that. It is a ridiculous statue
and I hope you approve his request for a variance.
Laura Rencher, 1060 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004
I represent Preserve Rural Milton. We feel very strongly that this is a very good example of a
landowner trying to save land and avoid any type of development. This helps him maintain his property,
it retains the horse farm feel of the city, we believe it is very consistent with the rural character and so
we are strongly in support of it.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 56 of 85
Amy Browning, 13895 Hopewell Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 asked that the following comment be
read into the record: I think this is a great use for this property. It would be highly beneficial to Milton.
I fully support the Runner’s and their use of their property.
Mayor Lockwood
We will now open it up to those who are in opposition to this application.
Karl Haase, 2085 Double Creek Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004
Really? This is preserving the rural Milton to have a party facility that is operating seven days a week
until 11:00 p.m. at night right in my backyard. I know that folks that have spoken are living in the
neighborhood opposite of where this facility will be. Double Creek Lane and Crabapple Forest is
actually going to take the brunt of this if you look at the way the land goes across that farm behind us, it
is just going to roll right downhill. The horses on that farm behind us; my kids can’t swing on their
swing if it squeaks; I have to go out and oil it because it drives their horses crazy on the far side abutting
his property. Just imagine what bands and everything else is going to sound like. I don’t even know
where to start. I can’t imagine why we would want to approve something like this. This is a residential
area. This isn’t a city. To have a party facility operating seven days a week to 11:00 p.m. Unless some
Quakers are getting married; let’s talk about the alcohol, driving, things afterwards. That is just my
opinion.
Andrew Jordan, 13925 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am speaking tonight in opposition of the special use permit requested by Mr. Runner on the property
adjacent to my neighborhood Bethany Oaks. I let my neighbors talk about the adverse impact next to
our neighborhood which will include inappropriate noise, lighting, higher traffic, etc. All are good
reasons to deny a project in a rural residential area but instead I would like to focus on some issues that
haven’t been discussed as much in the previous meetings. Mr. Runner developed this property with
obvious commercial intentions. Your own staff indicates that structures on this property could not and
would not have been allowed if they were proposed today. This is the second attempt to commercialize
this property, the first being in 2006. At that time, he sent a note to the residents of Bethany Oaks
indicating that he was not trying to build close to the property line or remove any of the existing buffers
or in any way intrude or encroach on your property. These permit exactly what it is, a permit to allow
agricultural related instructional events. And, right behind that he states that this doesn’t allow us to
conduct commercial activities, have shows, or become a big party place. Now, Mr. Runner wants to put
in a big party place and we are supposed to live with that. In presenting the application for the permit,
the planning and zoning staff quoted the Milton Comprehensive Plan stating they support programs that
retain and expand great businesses and provide a good fit for the community’s economy. What they
didn’t emphasize is that it also says and to locate them appropriately in the city. There are several other
citations from the land use plan that indicate the permit request is inappropriate for this location. The
property is located in the central Milton character of the plan. Under the development patterns for this
area, it states that new development should match the typical density found within this area and should
minimize undesirable impact on surrounding rural and agricultural uses. While you can argue this is not
a new development, the intent of the plan is clear that undesirable impact on existing uses should be
considered by the council. Appropriate land uses for the central Milton business character area include
AEE (Agricultural Equestrian and Estate), residential, private recreation, parks, conservation and
recreation, residential low which is one unit per acre or less, and community and facilities. What isn’t
included as an appropriate use for this area is retail and service. Retail or service business uses are
documented as appropriate for land uses in Arnold Mill, Deerfield, and the Bethany character areas; but
not in the central Milton character area where this permit is proposed. The Economic Development
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 57 of 85
policy section of the plan where your staff took that previous quote about supporting businesses that are
a good fit in the community also states that you will consider access and impacts to housing and
transportation when considering economic development projects and limit the expansion of businesses
and/or commercial uses in established and stable residential areas. Let me repeat that. The Milton
Comprehensive Plan states that the City of Milton will limit expansion of businesses and/or commercial
uses into established and stable residential areas. You are all familiar with this area. It has been
established and stable for a long time. Bethany Oaks subdivision has been there for 18 years and a lot of
the surrounding homes have been there much longer than that. As you review this permit application I
ask you to consider three things; recognize that Mr. Runner chose to overdevelop his property for
supposedly personal use, his stated intention of personal use is inconsistent with his two attempts to
make it an income producing property. Regardless of how much money he spent or how much time has
elapsed, allowing him to convert it to a commercial venue would reward him for his approach to
building first and asking permission later. Approval of this permit will incent other land owners to find
ways to skirt zoning and land use plans that were carefully developed to preserve the best aspects of our
community. Approving this permit sets precedence for retail and service businesses on AG-1 zoned
property throughout Milton. I am concerned as our many neighbors that it is only a matter of time
before we are faced with additional applications to expand the uses of Mr. Runner’s property for other
commercial activities. If the permit is approved you may be creating future liabilities for the City of
Milton when you try to deny applications for commercial uses on his or other similarly located and
zoned properties. When you throw out the land use plan, as you are considering doing for this permit,
you give away one of your best defenses as a city in future permit and zoning applications. Finally, I
ask you to be sympathetic towards the homeowners in our area and put yourself in our shoes. We
bought our home in this neighborhood because we knew it was insulated from the noise, lights, activity
and traffic issues of commercial areas. I ask you to consider these questions: How would you feel if
this permit was for a property next to your family’s home or your neighborhood. Would you or your
staff be as open minded about approval of this permit if you were faced with the prospect of a
neighboring property hosting unlimited parties, seven days a week, for up to 200 guests until late
evening hours with all the music, lights, traffic and alcohol consumption that goes with it? Would you
be comfortable that this commercial enterprise wouldn’t impact the value of your home or the peaceful
enjoyment of your home or your quality of life? Those are my concerns. I hope I can make them your
concerns tonight. A wedding venue may be a good business to have in our community but clearly it is
not appropriate for this residential area where we live with our families. As your neighbor and your
constituent, I am asking you to honor the spirit and intent of the Milton Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and protect our neighborhood from encroachment of this commercial enterprise. Thanks for listening
and thank you for your service.
Tom Chapin, 13900 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
Mayor Lockwood and members of the City Council, my name is Tom Chapin and my wife and I reside
at 13900 Bethany Oaks Pointe in the Bethany Oaks Subdivision. This comment pertains to special use
permit U13-04/VC13-04, 13895 Hopewell Road. I am opposed to granting this special use permit. Our
home is directly across from the proposed location in this residential area and I want to point out one
aspect that may have been overlooked along the way and that is the topography of this land. It has a
bearing on the final decision and it is worth consideration. The land is hilly and this venue location is
elevated relative to the homes adjacent to the property thus there is a valley between the proposed
location and Bethany Oaks Subdivision. This creates a special challenge for noise and lighting emitting
from the potential commercial gatherings and will be objectionable to the homes adjoining the property.
Substantial steps must be taken to minimize noise and lights with proper screening and restrictions.
Fulton County originally approved the applicant’s barn and riding areas as accessory structures to the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 58 of 85
home on the property for personal use only. Now, they are requesting to have a commercial business in
the home with these dependent accessories. The applicant is also, keep in mind, a non-resident and
owner who will not be affected by the noise, lights and travel from this business activity. The
surrounding neighborhoods, however, would be adversely affected. If this proposal were to be
approved, the following limitations should be set: 1) the City of Milton planners suggested a low fence
and vegetation facing Bethany Oaks subdivision and this should be an essential part of the decision. 2)
no outdoor music should be allowed and artificial noise should not be allowed after 10:00 p.m. Keep in
mind, he is requesting six days a week until 11:00 p.m. 3) the variance to delete the three year renewal
should be denied. Renewal requirements should be implemented to provide a review of the
implementation of this radical precedent in a residential area. At this point, all of these discussions on
the commercial activity are theoretical and should be validated to ensure compliance. Lastly, this permit
should not be transferrable to any new owner if the property is sold. Thank you very much for your
attention.
Sandra Chapin, 13900 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am opposed to granting a special use permit for the farm on Hopewell Road. This special use permit
would allow commercial activity in the midst of a residential neighborhood. This type of permit does
not currently exist in Milton on AG-1 property. I feel that it is a dangerous precedent to set. It is
inconsistent with Milton’s developing goals and should not be allowed. Milton is allowing the farm to
be grandfathered into the city and has indicated that the current configuration would not be approved
today. There are not proper buffers for the structures that are located close to Bethany Oaks
homeowners. There is already a traffic problem on Hopewell Road. I feel that if this goes in then we
will have additional traffic. In the report it said that this would only be on weekends, but as you can see
it could be any day of the week. So, I feel that now it is so difficult to get out of our subdivision on a
Friday night that this would exasperate the problem. I am concerned about the noise. Weddings and
other events can occur every night of the week. Some activities will be outside. There is talk of outdoor
pavilions for the future. This type of noise on a regular basis is not in keeping with our neighborhood
and why we moved to Bethany Oaks. One of the city’s Comprehensive Land Use plan’s goals is to limit
the use of expansion of business and/or commercial uses into established stable residential areas which
is what our neighborhood is. I have lived there for 16 years. This is precisely the situation here. I
believe that the council has the responsibility to look at this and the intention of the plan. If this
proposal were to be approved, I think the following limitation should be set. The city planners
suggested that low fence with the bushes at five feet high and I feel like this would be critical because
our house sits right across from the parking area and all of the cars coming and going, the lights would
shine into our house so if you had a fence with the bushes at least it would screen out the car’s lights. I
don’t feel that there should be outdoor music and I like the idea of the artificial noise stopping at 10:00
p.m. The variance to delete the three year renewal requirement should be denied. There has to be a
check and balance. If there are any problems that are going on, there has to be a review period. The
maximum number of attendees, I believe, should be limited to 100 because greater numbers will
increase the traffic, noise, and lighting. And, lastly, I believe there should definitely be a limitation on
the number of events. Thank you.
Janice Cox, 13860 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
Good evening Mr. Mayor and City Council members. I am against the special use permit. I feel it could
be detrimental to our quality of life at Bethany Oaks. The frequency, the traffic, the hours, the noise, the
loud music, the PA system, DJ’s, alcohol, and lighting. I just feel that, and many others feel as well, that
it does not fit in our community, an established residential community. It has been mentioned
previously that at a previous wedding, we could hear the toast from our deck coming from Mr. Runner’s
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 59 of 85
property. He may state in the documents that we are 230-330 feet away but as mentioned previously,
there are open fields, there is a slope and just how voices carry across water, we hear everything. For
that to be imposed upon us after 18 years, thinking that we are safe in our little community, to have a
commercial operation like that come in is just unprecedented and I think you should really consider what
that will do to the residents. This is one family that wants to run a commercial operation at the expense
of many of us and I feel that it is a slippery slope. As mentioned again, I don’t know what is coming
next. I feel that anytime any of you have been to a wedding, the noise does not decrease as the evening
goes on, it gets louder, it gets more raucous, more music, more toasting, hooting and hollering and I
don’t think that is something we should be subject to. I just think that if all of you were adjacent to a
property like that, you would be opposed to it also especially if the applicant didn’t live there. Thank
you very much.
Theodore Cox, 13860 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
I live directly across from the covered riding rink. I guess it is no longer in dispute that the fact that the
traffic is intending to come in one direction and go out another. I understand that some of the city
council members visited the property but this was never brought to their attention. The original
application for review, I think it is noteworthy, that the original intent was 7.5 acres. Somehow in
consultation with staff and other things, this has been paired down to 4.7 acres but that was never the
intention originally. I think you need to look at this map. The direction of the traffic is coming in this
way and then it goes north up towards this primary parking facility. Yes, now they are talking about the
traffic going out this direction. We are talking about a buffer in this zone, what about the people that
have to face the traffic that are turning this way? We see lights coming into our property because it is
elevated directly into our living room, directly into our dining room, directly into our bedroom,
consistently. Our kids were so upset at age 14, they couldn’t find us, we were across the street at a
neighbor’s house, they thought there was someone in our backyard with a flashlight. This is something
that goes on all the time. I think when you look at the map of what is actually there, this will become
even clearer. Yes, Mr. Runner owns five lots. This one little parcel is part of one big property that goes
all the way to the Bethany Oaks Subdivision. This is from a 2006 zoning variance request. This is the
actual map of the parking. I find this very interesting. We’ve got 106 parking spots in this scenario. I
can’t imagine what it will be like for the people that have to be in these homes across the way. This is
the direction that the headlights will be facing constantly. A four foot fence is not going to stop lights in
this direction. Every single home alongside this property is going to be confronted plus they are going
to be coming in the entrance way then turning up to park then turning around to park with all the lights
shining. Has Mr. Runner discussed whether anything is going to take place outside of this particular 4.7
acre sub-parcel? I find it basically inconceivable that, first off he is already saying that the traffic is
going to exit that way, there is a parking lot on the other end of Yellow House Farm, is the intention to
use that at all or is everything, every truck, every delivery, every tent, every set up, every band, none of
those trucks are going to be next to this facility, because who would want to have a wedding and have
all the trucks set up, I think the intent is very clear to use the facilities at the other end of the property.
In 2006, and I know we have had some discussions with staff about this, in 2006 Mr. Runner is
contending now that he is in compliance with all the rules, if that was the case then why did he seek 13
variances in 2006? Why do we have all these pre-existing conditions about lacking of buffers and
setbacks? There is a reason why because when the application was made he was saying that these
properties were being built for his personal use and for his family’s use when he had no intention of that.
But, after he went before the Fulton County Planning Commission and was unanimously rejected those
13 variances, he said he wanted to qualify the properties as accessories to a personal residence. Why
does that matter? I will read this. Article 12H of the Fulton County Zoning Resolution states that the
Northwest Fulton Overlay only applies to properties zoned and developed as non-single family
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 60 of 85
residential use as long as the property is being utilized as a single family residential use, the barns,
arenas, etc. are considered an accessory. By rezoning this particular property as special use, as a
business, those properties are no longer deemed accessory, what are we going to be doing about that, we
have 13 variances. He makes a point that this is good for the community but I think Andy Jordan made
the point very well; limit the expansion of business or commercial use in established, stable residential
areas. This area has been established and stable for 18 years. And, lastly, t his property is 230 to 300
feet, that is what he actually says is that it is 320 feet. Agricultural use though is under the CLUP which
states that agricultural uses require a new non-agricultural use abutting within 1000 feet of active
agricultural land must sign a waiver and deed restriction against future nuisance, complaints about
agricultural operations and their noise into perpetuity. He needs a waiver from everybody within 1000
feet that owns agriculture. Thanks so much.
Richard Calhoun, 49 Atlanta Street, Marietta, Georgia 30004
I represent Ted and Janice Cox and I have given a letter to the Mayor and Council this afternoon in
which, I think, pretty well explains our position. I’ll be very brief. The folks that have gotten up here in
opposition have made all the points, I think, that are important here. A couple of reminders. In the
special use permit process that the city has set up, it describes the council’s discretion as a limited
discretion. The applicant has said that part of this is jamming a round peg in a square hole. I think if
you look at what the emphasis has been here tonight from Mr. Runner; it is an emphasis on expansion of
a business. And, again if you look at the comprehensive plan that has been mentioned by several of the
speakers, the plan recommends limiting the expansion of businesses into stable residential areas. None
of you would want to see this sort of expansion of a business in your backyard and certainly not on a
perpetual basis. So, asking to eliminate the three year sunset provision on a use permit is equivalent to
asking that the property be rezoned which is, again, something that none of you would want in your
backyard so we request that the application be denied. Thank you.
Art Pashayan, 13895 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
I am neighbors with the folks here. Very brief, I am also concerned about the noise levels that are going
to be generated through loudspeakers or just by the number of people that will be close to our homes.
I’m concerned about increased traffic as well. Sometimes getting out of our subdivision is okay but
sometimes it is very very difficult. There is a lot of traffic that comes up and down Hopewell Road; a
tremendous amount of traffic. The round peg in a square hole comment actually is really good because
it seems like that poses as being a negative thing but in reality this isn’t really asking for an event
permit, this is asking for a commercial operation seven days a week so I am opposed to that.
Janice McCloy, 2600 Bethany Creek Court, Milton, Georgia 30004
I live in the neighborhood that is adjacent to the proposed variances. I just want to say that everything
that I had on paper to say has already been said so I just want you to know that I am definitely opposed
to all of this. If it should happen to be approved, I think there are several things that need to be
addressed. The number of guests that would be allowed to participate, additional buffers need to be
added, and no outdoor music. Thank you.
City Clerk, Sudie Gordon read the following comments into the record:
Lauren Craig, 13915 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
Opposed due to concern regarding noise, quality of life, property value, hazardous road due to increased
traffic.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 61 of 85
Walter J. Craig, Jr., 13915 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
Main concerns are traffic, noise from unlimited events.
Margie Cherggis, 13945 Bethany Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004
As a resident of Bethany Oaks Subdivision for 18 years, I have seen much development in this area.
After construction of the Christian High School, I have to listen to the loudspeakers while sitting on my
back porch in the evening. I do not want to have the same coming from the front side of my house as
well. In addition, I feel that the approval of this zoning opens up Pandora’s box for future rezoning and
amendments on this property as well as others in our area. The end result will be devaluation of my
property and my neighbors.
Scott Reece
Nothing stays the same. This property is not going to stay the same. Mr. Runner is either going to do
this or something else. This is not in any way meaning to be threatening but it is just a fact. There is a
huge amount of development pressure in the area. He is not going to continue to hold this property and
just have it be a money pit. He originally came to me on the premise of how many lots can we get in
and I said, “Is that exactly what you want to do?” He said, “No, really I would like to but we are going
to have to do something.” So, there are other use permits or other uses that do not require a permit. We
sat down and we sat down with staff and thought this was the best use for this particular piece of
property. Put a fair amount of foresight in, created it where we thought we were buffering the neighbors
and coming up with a good plan. As a lifelong resident, anything that preserves the larger tracts and
gives us the character that we have now, I really think we need to be focusing on that instead of just
another one acre lot subdivision. Thank you.
Jeff Runner
I want to respond to a couple of things that were said during the opposition. One is, we do not live on
the property. Our intention when we bought the property was to actually have burial plots put on the
property; we were never going to leave the property. Unfortunately, we are driven off by some
harassment from the neighborhood and we just decided life is too short. Go live somewhere else. If you
don’t want to do it there, go live somewhere else. We’ve never built the barn to be a commercial
venture. When I made the original application for the building permit, we checked commercial on it
because it had two choices; was it a residence or a commercial operation, and it obviously wasn’t a
residence. It is not an accessory structure to the house. Most of the things that Mr. Cox said about how
the barn is set up is not correct. It is an accessory structure. The arena is an accessory structure to the
barn which has an apartment in it which makes it a residence. It never had anything to do with the house
at all. Going on with my presentation, we talked about the variances, the eight foot opaque fence,
neither of us wants it. The buffers, we have a concern. We do not want to affect the rural feel or charm
and the Planning Commission went along with that. That five foot fence with the plants in front of it, if
you feel that we need to do something there, we are more than happy to go down to the Bethany Oaks
property line and put a buffer there and we can certainly plant some Leland Cyprus trees or something
along that line to protect them from the lighting. We do not want to block the views of our pastures or
our arenas. We do not want to create the pinned in feeling for the wedding and we do not want to buffer
ourselves from ourselves. We have over 250 feet of pasture between us and the neighbors. We are
going to have all the cars along that east corner back into the parking spaces that way the headlights
won’t be shining into the neighbor’s houses. That is something we did with the first two weddings that
we had there. Milton is a distinctive community embracing small town life and heritage while
preserving and enhancing our rural character. The buffers that we are doing take away from that rural
character. You go out in the country and you don’t see buffers between every two houses or between
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 62 of 85
every house. It just takes away from that. The next thing I want to talk about is the three year renewal
period. The actual ordinance reads that the festival event shall be limited to a three year period from the
date of the city council’s approval not to exceed a total of 180 consecutive days in a calendar year. So,
obviously it wasn’t set up for a wedding. You wouldn’t have a wedding that is 180 consecutive days.
This is a non-starter for us. Scott said we can do everything right and still be shut down. It does not
allow us enough time to recoup our substantial investment. In certainty of being able to continue
operations interferes with the booking of events. It requires that we go through this process every three
years and having been through it now, this is enough. We are not going to do it again. It is very
expensive and very exhausting and it doesn’t close the zoning action which then allows us and our farm
to continue. It doesn’t stop the issue. We are going to have to re-do the driveway entrance. We are
going to have to put sprinklers throughout the house which we don’t want. We have to do handicap
accessibility and handicap bathrooms so we are going to have a $150,000-200,000 investment. We can’t
get that back in a three year period. This next chart shows the actual uses that we can do in AG-1 and I
am sure you are all familiar with this so I am going to hit it very briefly. We can do a single-family
dwelling. We can do some sort of agricultural things like a chicken house or green house or cattle farm.
We can do a roadside stand or, and this is the one I find most interesting, we can do a kennel, veterinary
clinic or a veterinary hospital. When we bought the location that our barn sits on, the neighbors talk
about how they have had 18 years of peace and all that, well that is not exactly true. When we bought
the place, the lady had 72 dogs there and these very same neighbors that are here tonight spent years
trying to drive the dog lady, as they called her, off the property. We were able to go in and buy her
property from her. If you don’t like what is on the property, buy it. That is kind of our philosophy, so
that is what we did. Again, this is not a threat. I am just trying to show you what could happen. I am
trying to make a point here. We could turn that into the dog castle in Milton, we have room for over
1000 dog kennels on the property. We could take the lower ten acres and put rental houses there. That
is not what we want to do. That is not what Milton is about. That is not what we loved about this
property. This is a charming rural setting and we want to continue to keep it that way. Here is a list of
all the miscellaneous uses that are in our ordinances. Now, this is more than AG-1. This is every
miscellaneous use that Milton has. I am not going to go down through them but I wanted to pick out a
couple. We could do a landfill, a rock quarry, an airport, a heliport, there are a number of things we can
do on our property but not one of them, the only one that requires a renewal period is a festival; festival
events, outdoor and indoor. That is the only one. Nothing else has a renewal period on it. Under the
actual things that we can do on our property with a use permit is we can have an aircraft landing area,
we can have an amphitheater, we could have church, temples, and places of worship, we can have a
driving range, I highlighted the ones that make noise, we can put a campground retreat area, we could do
a racetrack, I was shocked about this one. We can do recreational fields, schools private or special, or
we could be asking for a stadium associated with a private school. We could be here tonight asking for
any one of these. None of these have a renewal period. I’m not sure what the deal is against weddings
but for some reason it appears that someone is against weddings. All of these uses create significant
traffic and make noise, some more than others, and are not required to renew the permit, however, we
are going to throughout a carrot, if you feel that you need to do something then set my limits whereby if
we exceed it, you take the permit away. Allow the zoning action to be done. If we exceed, say you give
us five citations, and I am just picking a number, in a year, if they are upheld by the court then we have
to come back before you and show why we should not lose our use permit rather than come back and
beg you to give it back to us in three years. Whichever way you go, we request something else, and that
is that you take action against false reporting. You cannot allow the neighbors to continue to use a fact
that governmental agencies must investigate every report as a means to harass other neighbors. This is a
for sale sign in Milton where development is going on. There is an uprising by landowners in Milton by
evidence of the large number of farms for sale and the number of subdivisions in Milton that are already
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 63 of 85
under construction. You have to allow us more options to keep our land not try to drive us off. Thank
you.
Councilmember Hewitt
If you have the approximate five acres carved out there, with the egress going out the southern
driveway, how does that affect, does that need to be included in that too with that traffic flow going out?
Kathy Field
It is a condition of zoning that it is a one-way traffic pattern; one way in and one way out and if you
want Carter to respond…
Councilmember Hewitt
I guess my question is if that driveway is being used because of what may go on in the special use
permit, why isn’t that a path or right-of-way for lack of a better term. Why isn’t that included in the
special use boundary?
Robyn MacDonald
Currently, it is owned by the same property owner so it was just a part of that he could access it on his
own property.
Councilmember Hewitt
The barn and the existing arena, what accessory use is it tied to, is it tied to the Yellow House?
Jeff Runner
The barn is the residence because Fulton County made us put a 3,000 square foot apartment in the barn.
The barn is established as a residence then the arena is an accessory structure to the barn. They are on
their own separate 10 acre parcel.
Councilmember Hewitt
Do you propose anything to do with any wedding or event going on outside of the boundary that you
have carved out?
Jeff Runner
We don’t even propose parking a car or a truck outside of the boundary. Everything will be done within
the boundary with the exception that they do something at the barn because every property is allowed to
come in twice a year and get a one-time permit so anything like that would go through the barn. And,
we have done that on a couple of occasions. We had a charitable event at the barn, the Downhome
Derby, a children’s function, they came in and got a permit for that.
Councilmember Hewitt
Kathy, changing the use of the current Yellow House to something other than residential has no effect
on anything with the barn or arena?
Kathy Field
That is correct. It only relates to the house on that four acre site. That is what they are asking.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 64 of 85
Mayor Lockwood
Can we get it confirmed, talking about zoning changes, but I believe this is allowed in the AG-1 zoning
just needs a special use permit.
Kathy Field
That is correct. So, you can look at it on a case-by-case basis.
Councilmember Thurman
So, a use permit does not set precedence by definition?
Kathy Field
Correct. It is an allowed use but it needs to be looked at individually.
Councilmember Thurman
So, we don’t have to worry about any kind of precedence being set.
Kathy Field
Correct.
Councilmember Longoria
Kathy, there have been a couple of comments from folks about the conformity of the property itself.
And, we in the past have even used the legal term non-conforming to describe properties that have come
into existence that basically the city inherited but didn’t have any say in terms of how it got the way it
got. One of my concerns is obviously if we are dealing with a legal non-conforming property, I think
there is always a little bit more attention that we need to take to it because through no fault of anybody’s
this property has sprung into being and the city would not have had it that way but what I am also
starting to realize is that there is a separation of these properties. If you are telling me that anything that
we do to this particular parcel in terms of the special use permit doesn’t piggyback, tag along, get
affected, change the status of the adjacent property, then I just want to make sure that the legal non-
conforming piece of this whole puzzle is where the barn and riding arena is because the house, the six
acres that we are looking at for the special use permit is actually just a home on the property. We
wouldn’t classify this as legal non-conforming, would we?
Kathy Field
Robyn can correct me but my response would be, “no.” Robyn, do you want to weigh in?
Robyn MacDonald
It is a total separate parcel and it wouldn’t affect the barn and the riding stable. Because it is a legal
description of the four points and some change so the use permit carries only with that legal description
and that is why it is part of the record.
Kathy Field
It is just that parcel, what clouds this is that he owns other parcels surrounding this one, but we are just
talking about that one.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 65 of 85
Councilmember Longoria
This may be a question for Ken but I will ask you. Regardless of the renewal period of a special use
permit, if it is one year, three years, perpetual, if at any point in time if we feel like something is amiss
with the operation under the special use permit, does the city have the right to revoke the permit on
demand or is there some legal issues that we get involved with in order to revoke a special use permit?
City Attorney Jarrard
The answer is certainly not on demand. The city has policies and you would have to follow those
policies, if it is three years then it will expire in three years. If there is conduct on the property that
results in the issuance of citations, we have recourse, we issue you a citation. I do not think we would
have the luxury of just on demand lifting someone’s special use permit. If that is something we want to
discuss with respect to the variance that is being proposed, we want to get the buy in by the property
owner as some sort of a special relief, we might be able to fashion that this evening, but in the normal
context of things, no, that is not the way a use permit works.
Councilmember Longoria
One of the reasons I asked the question is because a three year renewal period to me isn’t a big deal if
we can give the surrounding property owners some guarantee that if operations are not in accordance
with what the permit is all about, then we can keep that operation from being an ongoing thing.
City Attorney Jarrard
The applicant, I think, during the last presentation offered up sort of a solution on that with respect to the
“x” number of citations over a given time period results in some sort of a “show cause hearing.” I think
if you are going to set up a hearing process by which you are going to basically call into question
someone’s use permit, you will have to following the zoning procedures act.
Councilmember Longoria
In my way of thinking, a festival special use permit, while it contemplates multiple days of operation, it
is really about a single event. I want to make sure that the ordinance that we adopted, was it specifically
changed to envision the ongoing operation of a series of events that aren’t the same event or was the
original intention to support the idea that we could have a festival here and this special use permit that
covered the operation of that single event even though it might have been multiple days.
City Attorney Jarrard
I don’t know if I have the understanding of the intention of the 180 day period.
Councilmember Longoria
To me, while I applaud the ingenuity of finding a piece of code in Milton’s ordinances that could cover
the operation that the applicant is seeking, I’m worried that it is the wrong application of an ordinance or
a use permit. In my way of thinking about this, I can certainly see the Renaissance Festival coming in
and saying, I want to run a three week event in October and so I need a special use permit to cover that,
but they wouldn’t get a special use permit to operate this event three weeks every October for the next
three years. That seems like a different thing.
City Attorney Jarrard
That is why, again, I do not want to speak for the applicant, but when the first presentation was made as
far as whether this actually fits, I think that was more of an expression with respect to the limitations of
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 66 of 85
our code as it was to the proposed use and whether or not our code is really a perfect fit for that. I think
this just goes back to the inheritance of a Fulton County code, correct?
Robyn MacDonald
More or less, yes.
Councilmember Thurman
What kind of parliament do these country clubs have that operate basically as special use permits
because that is where most of the wedding receptions are; White Columns, Atlanta National, Alpharetta
Country Club, they have weddings all the time. What kind of permit do they have because they are all
in residential areas? How do these differ from what he is looking at because I know they do not get a
special use permit?
Robyn MacDonald
There is an administrative permit for clubs that are permitted within a golf course so it is an
administrative permit and then that administrative permit allows for those types of occasions. It is only
because you already have a golf course…
Councilmember Thurman
So, if he put in a golf course, a nine hole golf course on his 10 acres then he wouldn’t have to have a
permit at all for the facility. I am just trying to understand how all this works.
Robyn MacDonald
Please give me a minute to get to the exact regulations.
City Attorney Jarrard
I think the point you are trying to make is the difference between a use permit and an administrative
permit. One being a zoning requirement and one being subject to…
Councilmember Thurman
Yes, I’m just trying to figure out what the difference is because, let’s face it; we have wedding
receptions in the city at these country clubs that are all very much in the middle of residential areas.
Every Saturday night at Atlanta National on the front lawn, if it is not raining, there is a wedding going
on.
Councilmember Mohrig
I think the only difference I would note is in that case you already have a golf course with a country club
in existence as people came in.
Councilmember Lusk
Maybe further to that point, to add more fuel to the fire, there are other farms and barns in the city, I
could cite three or four of them now on Birmingham Road, Wood Road, etc. that have special events.
Do they apply for an administrative permit or do they have a special use permit to conduct events?
Kathy Field
Robyn, do you want to respond to that. Quickly, it is usually a special event permit that they get
because it is not a continuous type of business so if they are having a fundraiser for something they will
call us so we are knowledgeable of it and we can watch the traffic and whatnot. That would usually
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 67 of 85
come under a special event permit as opposed to a use permit which is a business operation of a special
event facility. So, it is just a little different.
Robyn MacDonald
The problem with that is that you are only allowed so many administrative use permits for special events
per year. Mr. Runner knows he is going to exceed the requirement which is why he is asking for that.
Councilmember Thurman
But those don’t have to have all the different sprinkler systems and everything else that are required for
this type of facility because it is an occasional type. How many of those are they allowed to have a
year?
Robyn MacDonald
Let me look that up.
City Manager Lagerbloom
While Robyn is looking that up, let me weigh in very quickly so we have a reasonable parallel drawn
between that type of event and this type of event. Usually what catches the one off, I’m going to have
an event at a barn and I need to put a tent up, is the consumption of alcohol and that is usually what
causes people to find us because they need a license to be able to pour alcohol. Are there weddings that
probably occur in the northern expanses of Milton on a Saturday that are never once known by the city?
The answer to that question is probably yes. But, there are not any that occur with the type of repetitive
basis that would be four weekends a month. Once it starts getting that intensive of a use, that is when
we start to capture those things. But, the trigger that usually sends these special events to us is when
they decide they want to start pouring alcohol and they need a permit to do that.
Robyn MacDonald
It is two administrative permits that will be granted per year and no permit shall be effective for more
than 14 consecutive days for a single permit.
Councilmember Thurman
So, for a country club, since they are adjacent to a golf course, is that what that is?
Robyn MacDonald
I haven’t been able to find that information yet but I know it is allowed under CUP that a golf course
and a club and I believe with the alcohol license and maybe Stacey could confirm it is that an alcohol
license is allowed to be pulled at a club which is an exception as far as not requiring a full restaurant and
all that. Let me keep on researching how that happens.
Mayor Lockwood
What are you trying to parallel?
Councilmember Thurman
It just seems like we are trying to put something in a place that really doesn’t fit because we don’t have
an ordinance that fits a special event facility. We are trying to put it under this 180 days, I hope
nobody’s wedding would last 180 days.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 68 of 85
Councilmember Longoria
I have a question for Mr. Runner. First of all, your house is beautiful, this property is beautiful and it is
unfortunate that there seems to be a difference of opinion between you and your neighbors in terms of
how this could potentially operate but in contemplating all this, I wanted to ask you, is your intent to be
the proprietor, the custodian, the person that operates the business. Is it going to be a family business?
Is it going to be sold off to somebody else to operate? Who is actually going to run the business?
Jeff Runner
My wife, three of my daughters, and my daughter-in-law.
Councilmember Longoria
Who operates the business on the barn property today?
Jeff Runner
A trainer.
Councilmember Longoria
So, your vision for what is going to go on is to keep this in the family, make it a family business, that
kind of thing?
Jeff Runner
Most definitely.
Councilmember Kunz
I have a question for Mr. Runner as well. Explain why, since there is a history with your neighbors, that
there is not a plan for the far east property line at Bethany Oaks?
Jeff Runner
We built the barn. We operated the barn for about a year and a half. I went down to get a building
permit and Fulton County said they weren’t going to issue anymore building permits until you resolve
the issues with your neighbors. We asked, what issues? And, they pulled out a stack of complaints. All
the complaints were from one or two houses and I went and talked to them and it became readily
apparent that there wasn’t going to be much solution to this. So, I went down to Fulton County again
and talked to Randy Beck and he said the safest thing to do is that you are about to become the City of
Milton, apply for a use permit. I asked why I needed a use permit. He said because you don’t own half
the horses which we only own 13 out of 30. So, I only had a day or two to apply so I went ahead and
filled out the application. I saw Pete Hendricks walking around in the lobby. I grabbed Pete and he
said, yea, I think you need a use permit, so we applied. Then I spent the weekend going through all the
ordinances on the internet and called Pete Monday morning and asked Pete to see what he could set up
downtown. We need to go find out why I need this use permit. We got down there and about a week
later and I asked Pete to show me anywhere in the ordinances that horse ownership is relevant. We are
on residential land with a residential use, we are operating it, a third of the horses are ours, we are riding
them, where is horse ownership relevant and they came back with Mr. Runner, you are absolutely right.
I said, fine, give me my money back for the use permit application and we will go on down the road.
However, it had already been submitted to the paper for a public hearing so we had to go through the
whole process knowing from the get go that we were going to have to withdraw and the reason we were
withdrawing is because Fulton County ruled that everything that we are doing and wanted to do was
perfectly within their ordinances. I’m not sure where the non-conforming comes up. We were never
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 69 of 85
non-conforming under their guidelines. We didn’t need the buffers because we were a residential land
use but we proposed to the three or four individuals who sought an attorney that we would plant buffers
but they would never come to an agreement about what they wanted and what was reasonable and then
finally we had our lawyer send them a letter asking that they stop harassing us or we are going to go
after you. That is where it ended for a while and now we have started this process and it has all started
back up again.
Robyn MacDonald
You wanted me to research how a golf course differs. There is an administrative permit for golf courses
and it states required districts; all. It states standard and it goes into the standard. It doesn’t really talk
about anything about clubs or anything specific to what we are speaking of so I looked in the definitions
of golf course. Golf course means a use of land for playing the game of golf. 1) the term golf course
includes a country club and a driving range as an accessory use. The term golf course does not include
miniature golf. And, then just by the definition of country club, a country club would include food and
beverage and, I assume, an entertainment area. So, that is how those uses are permitted through some of
the country clubs in the subdivisions with golf courses. And, then the alcohol license is permitted
through allowing it at a golf course.
Councilmember Thurman
So, if he built a golf course on ten acres then he wouldn’t have to go through any of this. So, technically
this is just the way our ordinances work.
Robyn MacDonald
Like Chris said, there are probably a lot of things that go on around there that we don’t really know
about.
City Manager Lagerbloom
That is a strong conclusion for us to be able to draw on the spot. We do not want to presume that we
could interpret our code that quickly and make that definitive decision.
Councilmember Kunz
Would you be agreeable to buffers on that east property line?
Jeff Runner
Where the neighbors want them I will. Are you talking about between us and Bethany Oaks?
Councilmember Kunz
Yes, right there on that east property line.
Jeff Runner
You mean not buffering us from ourselves but buffering…yes, we would do that. We are trying really
hard to come up with a use that won’t interfere with them. We had tenants in the house and that didn’t
work out. We got more complaints when the tenants were there than when we were there. So, we are
trying for a use that won’t interfere with the neighbors. A lot of them tore out the natural buffers that
were there so they could see the horse farm. Like the Mayor said earlier, one of the worst things you
can do anymore is own land because they put subdivisions next to you. You were looking at trees and
now you are looking at the back of people’s houses. So, when we had these two weddings that we
inherited, we had the cars back in specifically so that the headlights wouldn’t shine across there. Even
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 70 of 85
though, if you go to your driver’s manual it says you have to turn off your bright lights when a car is 250
feet away. These houses are further away than that; 250 feet of it is our land and then there is another
100 plus between the border and their houses but we still had them back in just so the headlights
wouldn’t shine in their houses. Planting a fence along the line and putting a buffer there I think really
takes away from the rural character of the property. The Planning Commission didn’t want that because
it takes away from the charm. You start making these pinned in peninsulas with buffers and it just
doesn’t look good.
Councilmember Kunz
The next question I have is that a lot of people have said that you are going to have an unlimited number
of parties and events. Do you plan on doing this seven days a week?
Jeff Runner
I am 59 years…I don’t even know. I’m so old I can’t remember. I don’t have the energy to do it that
often. We want these events to be, and I say “we” but it is really my wife and daughters, something
special for the bride. We aren’t going to be a wedding mill where they have one on Friday night, two or
three on Saturday, and a couple on Sunday. We might have two on a weekend on a really, really busy
weekend but most weekends it will be one wedding. I don’t even think it is going to be every weekend.
I don’t see it getting that busy.
Councilmember Kunz
Are you open to it being only on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and maybe done by 6:00 p.m. on Sunday/
Jeff Runner
I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t want to limit the weekday events because there may be a baby
shower, bridal shower, etc.
Mayor Lockwood
I would almost think the market would dictate that. I don’t think there are many people out there that
want to get married on a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday.
Jeff Runner
One of the planning commissioners came out and said something about the Rotary Club having their
meeting there on a Wednesday afternoon but I don’t even know; like the Mayor said, the market will
dictate that type of stuff. We missed the biggest wedding day and that was 12-12-12.
Councilmember Kunz
If you were to get this permit and then sell, is there a transfer of ownership on this?
Jeff Runner
The use permit goes with the property. However, that is not our intent. To be honest, if we really
wanted to screw up the neighborhood, we would put a kennel in the barn and rental properties on the
other side. This is not what this is about. We love this property. We hated leaving this property. It was
a very tough decision to leave but you get to a point where the cops can only show up so many times and
you say enough is enough. The kids love the property. We are looking for a way for our kids to
continue to have the property and it not be a detriment to Milton.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 71 of 85
Councilmember Kunz
Do your kids live on the property?
Jeff Runner
My daughter is moving in next week.
Councilmember Lusk
Ken, on the conditions of the use permit with the three year renewal, as I understand it if you could
clarify it for me, anytime during a three year period, if we establish “x” number of citations that come
up, it is my understanding that we could suspend the use permit or give them some period to rectify it.
What triggers or either suspension or continuation of the use permit after the three year period is up.
Does it still conform to whatever conditions we applied in the first three years?
City Attorney Jarrard
Regarding the first question, the default rule is that you get a use permit and in Milton within this
particular subject matter it is for a period of three years. What I thought the applicant proposed in his
presentation was, and perhaps to persuade the council to be comfortable, during some period, I don’t
think it is three years, I think the applicant wants longer than three years, if at some point there are “x”
number of successful citations, in other words I assume either a plea or a finding of guilt by the city
court, then they would be required to come back before the council of what I heard was a “show cause”
hearing in which event you may strip them of the special use permit. I would be okay with that if we
have the applicant agreeing to it on the record and that last citation may be interesting because I suspect
it will go all the way to the Supreme Court to try to fight it if they think they are about to lose their
permit. I would be okay with this situation if that is going to be your triggering mechanism so if that is
your question, I am good with that.
City Manager Lagerbloom
I would like to add that that may be the legal answer but practically that would be impossible to monitor.
So, can we put it on paper and say that is a possibility, yes, but in the real world what does that look like.
If we send somebody out there to take enforcement action based upon noise or parking or something
else, if you have a threshold that you need three of those before it comes back to the council, practically,
that gets tied up somewhere so it can get drawn out for long beyond any kind of timeframe we could put
to it. I can see a noise violation ending up right down in Fulton County court and then 18 months later
when they lose it, the substantial justice that you are looking for has no teeth. The reality is not
practical.
Councilmember Longoria
After three violations it would come back to the city council. That doesn’t make it any sense. My
thought is that if the applicant is signing up for this type of monitoring, it is just three strikes and you are
out or eight strikes and you are out or five strikes and you are out whatever that is. But, to get to the
finer point that you are trying to make here, Chris, how many successful noise ordinance tickets has the
city given out in its history.
City Manager Lagerbloom
Two.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 72 of 85
Councilmember Longoria
What made them successful? In other words, what was the burden of proof? It is very specific in our
ordinance. It has to be above such and such level and has to be for this length of time, etc.
City Manager Lagerbloom
I am going to respectively disagree with you. We have a perceived and a natural component in our noise
ordinance. We have the actual with the decibel level. We have the perceived which deals with an
unreasonable standard by the person that responded. If the decibel level is not met, we can default to the
perceived part of the ordinance so it does have two components. I will take you back in time to when
the noise ordinance citations that we have written and that was at a restaurant on Highway 9 behind a
neighborhood so I can tell you exactly where they were but it was not the decibel level it was the
perceived level of noise. So, that is what was enforced.
Councilmember Longoria
That was my point. If it is difficult to prove by even setting this up as a triggering mechanism then it is
sort of silly on its face.
City Attorney Jarrard
Well, you many the point of “x” number of strikes and you are out and the trick is going to be the strike.
What is the strike? And, if it has to be a finding of guilt by the city court, then that is my point, as we
get closer to that threshold you can look for the defense to be a little more strident. To Chris’s point, we
have seen these demands for Fulton County state court that take a year and a half.
Mayor Lockwood
I have two concerns. One concern is that I have heard from residents and their concerns with noise,
lights, traffic, etc. My other concern is that we have heard from a lot of our citizens, and I think if you
look back at the mission of the City of Milton, we want to preserve equestrian, we want to encourage
people with larger pieces of properties to hold on to them. It seems like everybody is up in arms when
these properties are now being sold and developed into subdivisions even if they are AG-1 and we can’t
force someone not to sell their property or build houses on it or develop it but we want to promote that.
To me, this could be a win-win. You’ve got a beautiful piece of property. You’ve got a beautiful
historic home. You have a way to promote people coming to Milton. They see a beautiful horse farm
and maybe it will trigger some other people to buy some more horse farms and stay here. I see the
positives but I also see the issues and concerns for the neighbors. So, if we are all looking at it that way,
we need to look at two things; 1) how can we buffer 2) how can we address the concerns that the
neighbors have and 3) how can the applicant be able to use his property the way he is requesting. How
can we come up with something that, we know the intent here, the intent is that if there are problems, is
there a trigger point that we can halt operation or suspend their operation until whenever. Also, I think
we all realize that the three year mark is a problem too. I guess the question is that we need to think
outside the box because we haven’t ever had this issue to deal with before. What can we do? If we
approve something and the applicant agrees with it but then they don’t adhere to the agreement, what
can we do to enforce it?
Councilmember Thurman
I would like to say that regardless of whatever happens here tonight, I would love for us to look and see
how other jurisdictions handle this type of event facility. It has to be handled differently in other
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 73 of 85
jurisdictions than having to go through this kind of use permit with 180 day thing with a three year
renewal. It just doesn’t make sense for what we are trying to do.
City Attorney Jarrard
One thing that comes to mind because the City Manager’s point was a good one with respect to the
notion of trying to perhaps elongate the period by which the use permit allows so maybe it’s not three; it
is five. But, then again, I know the City Council is concerned about losing control of it so how do you
still make a mechanism by which you can come back and have the hearing in front of you. From my
perspective, if we were to get away from any sort of finding of guilt because that brings a whole range
of issues to the table, how about just the number of citations that are issued. As the City Manager said,
citations do get issued. And, we are not talking about an automatic penalty; it would simply trigger a
hearing. That would be an option.
Councilmember Kunz
Is that not what he was talking about originally?
City Attorney Jarrard
No, I think the original discussion was the notion of some sort of finding of guilt. I’m saying that is
almost going to tear the legs right out from under it.
Mayor Lockwood
So, what are you saying? If there are “x” number of citations then we bring it back to a hearing to the
court or the council?
City Attorney Jarrard
To the council.
Mayor Lockwood
And, then what? Do we suspend operations for a certain period of time until they get into compliance or
do we take the use permit away?
City Attorney Jarrard
You wouldn’t do anything automatically; it would literally be for a hearing not unlike what you are
having this evening where individuals both pro and con can come and speak; including the applicant.
And, then you could make whatever decision you wanted to and could render whatever conclusion you
think is appropriate. I think the council is talking about that just having a triggering mechanism to bring
it back before you so you can attempt to address it. For instance, it might be noise. Even if you didn’t
suspend it you might then allow some further sound buffering. Or, it might be light where you wouldn’t
shut down the use but you might allow some additional light buffers. I am just saying that is the option.
Councilmember Longoria
So, Ken, the difference here between citation and complaint; the original thing we were talking about, I
don’t want to call it conviction because that sounds so criminal, but a successfully prosecuted citation.
The difference there is the citation is issued when, on the surface, it appears that something has gone
wrong and the conviction is a statement of fact that something, in deed, went wrong. The last thing I
want to do is set up some other kind of a venue for whatever feud is going on between neighbors to
continue and the worry that I have is that if we set the bar at 15 citations, within the first day there is
going to be 15 calls wanting citations written.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 74 of 85
City Attorney Jarrard
That is true but I also don’t want to minimize the discretion that your code enforcement officers use as
well. Code Enforcement Officers have the discernment to actually know if something is going on
worthy of issuing a citation.
Councilmember Thurman
So, it wouldn’t be based on the number of complaints. It would be when our Code Enforcement
Officers decided when a citation is appropriate based on what they think is a violation of the ordinance.
Kathy Field
The citation process is really a three-step process in that first we do an inspection and give a verbal
warning then, secondly, we give a written warning if it continues, and then the third step is the issuance
of a citation. So, there is plenty of time for the Code Enforcement Officer to ascertain what is going on
and to convey that to the owner to work through it. So, it is just not going out every time and issuing a
citation.
Councilmember Hewitt
Say if there are “x” number of citations and before they are heard in the court, we have some kind of
hearing like we are having tonight and whatever decision we make; aren’t we hearing them out of turn?
Councilmember Jarrard
It depends on when the timing is but yes, one process would not necessarily affect the other.
City Manager Lagerbloom
This is going down a place we don’t want to go and the reason it is going down a place we don’t want to
go is because we are going to put our enforcement staff in a position of issuing a citation that is going to
have parallel tracks to some level of tribunal; one being the court, one being the council, what does the
court do if the council wants to do this, etc. If we are putting a round peg in a square hole, that round
peg has to be big enough.
Mayor Lockwood
Let me ask you this. In reality, and I see it from the property’s owner’s side too. A three year window
is just not enough. In all practicality, if we gave the variance, explain what would happen if they don’t
abide by the terms of this use permit. Basically, code enforcement would give citations then after the
“x” number of times they would go to court, would they be fined?
City Manager Lagerbloom
They could be and they would have all sorts of … because when we go out there and issue those
citations or those charges it then travels in the municipal court system through all the processes and it
could end up in the court of appeals, superior court, etc. Only a very limited scope of things happen
here before they become a matter of law or a matter of appeal; it can be taken out of our hands
completely.
Mayor Lockwood
Would that be enough of a concern as an event facility owner that it would keep them in check to make
sure that they stay in compliance? Is there enough punishment there that would keep them on their toes?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 75 of 85
Councilmember Longoria
What is the check and balance?
City Manager Lagerbloom
I am going to be very honest. Once it leaves here, it becomes a whole lot easier for the person that has
been cited. It is our easiest way to get compliance but also the hardest to control. As long as it stays
with us, we have control. Once it leaves here it can get out of control very quickly and it becomes a
small fish in a big pond. That is my experience regarding code violations. They are on the bottom of
the important scale.
Councilmember Lusk
What we have been discussing here for the last ten minutes or so are the consequences of not meeting
some standard. What are the standards? Should we not define the standards?
Mayor Lockwood
The noise, lights, etc.
Councilmember Lusk
I guess my point is that I don’t want to see the bar moving all the time. So, say we have corrected these
violations after two or three citations now some other violation comes up and the bar is never here.
Councilmember Thurman
I’m trying to understand why we have a different bar for this type of permit than we do for other
businesses.
Councilmember Longoria
The bar is essentially the recommendations from staff in the granting of the special use permit; they are
detailed there, plus we have the normal ordinances that exist in the city. Everybody in the city has to
conform to those so we are not talking about anything more than that.
Mayor Lockwood
That is one side of it. The other side is what can we do to protect the residents and what kind of bar can
we add to this to alleviate some of those concerns if we were to approve it. We’ve got two issues here.
City Manager Lagerbloom
You’re right and I am kind of sitting here watching it play out. The one thing that might get us off the
hook here about even having to have these detailed discussions is whether or not the council even feels
that this use is appropriate. If the use isn’t appropriate then the rest of the discussion doesn’t matter.
But, if the use is appropriate and you decide that this is something you would like to see at this location,
then I think we need to start doing the heavy lifting regarding what regulatory controls you are going to
put in place to stay within some type of framework that you are comfortable allowing that use to occur.
We can go down that road and have those detailed discussions but I would think we would want some
consensus of whether or not the use is even appropriate.
Mayor Lockwood
I’ve got concerns on both sides. I wish I could make both sides happy trying to think of some things that
would at least get both sides half-way happy.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 76 of 85
Councilmember Lusk
What I am hearing here is that some of the opposition several times have stated that if you approve this
application, here are some of the things we would like to see. So, I think some common ground there
that we can start talking about.
Mayor Lockwood
Maybe if I compiled a list of things and the council could discuss. We talked about buffers for lights
and sound along the property line of the homeowners. I think the applicant said he would even be
willing to do that. Is that something that everyone would want to discuss?
Councilmember Thurman
Except for the south property line because she specifically said she did not want it, correct?
Councilmember Kunz
I think if he got a letter from any of the residents that didn’t want that buffer.
Councilmember Thurman
The closest three to it do not want the buffer, the other ones do.
Councilmember Mohrig
What if you have transfer of property, if somebody sells then are you going to allow the new resident to
put up a buffer or go back to Mr. Runner?
Councilmember Lusk
Due diligence. Let the buyer beware.
Mayor Lockwood
The noise after 10:00 p.m.; what else?
Councilmember Kunz
Maybe reduce the time on Sunday from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 or 6:00. I think the neighbors should have
the expectation that there will not be noise late on a Sunday night.
Mayor Lockwood
I think the main things are lights, noise, time, etc.
Councilmember Mohrig
I think you mentioned the number of events.
Mayor Lockwood
I didn’t say that and I want to be careful with trying to put parameters on a business then being
responsible if the business is successful or not.
Councilmember Longoria
The things that we heard were lights and noise primarily; the number of guests affects both lights and
noise, buffers which he addressed, and outdoor music; which again is a noise issue. I guess I have some
real concerns for both parties involved. I would hate to send Mr. Runner away thinking that he is going
to be able to operate properly under this special use permit and then in reality it was never envisioned
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 77 of 85
for this kind of thing. I would hate to have confusion about what the permit is being used for and is it
being used properly. I don’t think I got that question answered when I asked it earlier.
City Attorney Jarrard
Your question was about the 180 day element?
Councilmember Longoira
Yes, the appropriate use of this special use permit for what we were talking about, in other words, are
you saying Ken, that there is no doubt that what the applicant is asking for can be done under this
permit?
City Attorney Jarrard
Yes, I believe it can be done to the extent you are questioning the 180 days. I don’t know that has
anything to do with this but I think under this permit you can do this use. It has been raised by multiple
people this 180 day thing which has nothing to do with this use but the overall classification is fine for
this.
Mayor Lockwood
The issue is the three year time limit on it and how do we handle that.
Councilmember Hewitt
I think it is something that needs to be handled but I don’t know how.
Mayor Lockwood
How do we normally do it when you have a use and here are the requirements and if they are in
violation, I guess we go through code enforcement? Going back to earlier saying is code enforcement
enough of a sting to where the operator realizes we can suspend their service until they get in
compliance.
City Attorney Jarrard
Theoretically, code enforcement is supposed to be exactly that sting. It is the same sting that all the
other residents in Milton are subject to as well and it is meant to ensure conformance with our codes.
Councilmember Hewitt
I think we need to look at a case that we have ongoing with code enforcement.
Councilmember Longoria
There is code enforcement that applies to city property where, let’s say they are doing something terrible
like operating neon lights when they shouldn’t, it is obvious that something is going on and nobody has
to call in and say, “That guy is operating his neon lights again.” In this particular case, what we are
really saying is that code enforcement becomes the one place where the residents that are affected can
go to make something happen. So, now all of a sudden we are putting the real impetuous on the people
that live in Bethany Oaks pick up the phone and call the city and say, “Hey, I can hear the drums being
played again.” Or, “I’m tired of that toast being said again. This is the tenth time this hour.” Or
whatever it is so, it is real different in this particular case in my mind.
Councilmember Lusk
I don’t think it is much different than the issue we had on Highway 9; two, three, four, five years ago.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 78 of 85
Mayor Lockwood
Unfortunately, this has got a little history to it.
Councilmember Thurman
I don’t think it is any different than a band playing at a country club.
Mayor Lockwood
I had a band playing at my child’s graduation party and the police came and told me to turn the band
down.
Councilmember Thurman
At your house?
Mayor Lockwood
Yes, so I don’t see how this is any different but I don’t know; is that not a simple…
City Manager Lagerbloom
It is simple to write but I just want you to have the reality that these types of clauses are a lot easier to
write than to enforce. I don’t want you or the community to have some false sense that all of a sudden if
this council elects to approve this use and if there are light or noise, etc. issues that rise to the level of
violating our code, it is not as simple as going out there next week and putting a closed sign up. There is
a process that goes along with it and to Councilmember Hewitt’s point, we have identified a nuisance in
Milton and now we are working on year seven getting it fixed so there is a process that kicks in when
you start to deal with these code things. When you make decisions, I just want you to do it with your
eyes wide open.
Mayor Lockwood
Let me ask the question, if this were a new restaurant on Highway 9 or somewhere else and they got
their license and they are supposed to follow these rules and then all of a sudden there was a noise issue
or whatever; outside of code and there was no history. Would we be discussing all this now or would it
be automatic; here is the special use permit, here are the rules you go by, and you agree to it Mr.
Applicant and if you don’t, code enforcement comes out and you get a citation and then you go to court.
City Manager Lagerbloom
That is a great example but there is one major difference between that and what we are dealing with here
and that is the zoning that would be required to operate a restaurant. There is no restaurant that is going
to operate in AG-1 so if you were going to make the parallel, you would have to make the argument that
this residential zoning was adjacent to a zoning classification that allowed commercial use and in that
circumstance there is some belief that those two uses are allowed to have…
Councilmember Longoria
The reason commercial is not an issue here is because this is envisioned as an appropriate use under a
special use permit. I argued with myself about this leading up to this meeting that what we were really
doing was special use permitting a commercial operation and I had to convince myself that no, the
reality is that this was envisioned as a use in AG-1 which is what this property is, which is what this
property is; AG-1 property, and they just need a special use permit to make it happen.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 79 of 85
Mayor Lockwood
Let me restate my question. Let’s say we were on the other side of town and this same issue; you had
some AG-1 property and we were doing a special use permit with the same parameters and there was no
history there; would we be discussing all this or would it just be automatic?
Councilmember Longoria
I think it would be more automatic than this has been.
Councilmember Thurman
And, what would happen if Joe Longoria and all his friends in Crooked Creek decided to have wild
parties in their clubhouse with noise, etc. Would the police just come out there all night? How would
that be handled?
Councilmember Longoria
Yes they would and yes they have; at the clubhouse. I wasn’t involved but I know of them.
Councilmember Thurman
But, that is more like what this would be than a restaurant which is a commercial use in a commercial
area.
Mayor Lockwood
The reality is that if this special use permit is granted, it has to have the parameters that some have been
discussed already and it will be up to the operator to let his guests know that at 10:00 p.m. the music is
off or the lights, etc.; all the different codes, and if they break that the police are going to come and they
are going to get a citation and shut it down.
Councilmember Hewitt
I think part of the difference, and we can argue this or talk about it for two more hours or not, and I
don’t know if we can come to a wise decision tonight or not, but you have parameters for a use permit
but they are asking for four variances that vary from those parameters and a couple of them are probably
trade-offs, we can all get there, I think the one big one is the renewal period and I don’t know if we defer
this and try to come up with something in a 30 day period. I think that were serve us better; whatever
we come up with which may be nothing than try to craft something in 15-30-45 minutes or an hour.
Chris asked a question; is this use something we see positive in this area or good with this area or fitting
with this area; let me put it that way, then we can craft some of those other things. Well, they go hand in
hand to me. I think that we could come up with something that satisfies our concerns and the resident’s
concerns and the applicant’s concerns as well, but I don’t know if we can do it at 11:06 p.m. tonight.
We haven’t done in the last two hours and I don’t think we are any closer to it. I hate to put things off
but maybe that is something we need to think about.
Mayor Lockwood
I hate to put things off if we are just going to say the same things but…
Councilmember Thurman
We don’t seem to be getting anywhere right now.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 80 of 85
Councilmember Longoria
The challenge that I see in the whole process is that I understand the flexibility that we are giving the
applicant by granting a special use permit; I don’t see the counterbalance that we are giving the
residents. Again, if I was living next door to this, I would have no problems with it, except I don’t live
next to it so, therefore, I can’t live the life these people have lived and they say they have suffered and
there has been pain and I have to take them at their word. So, I just don’t see where we are giving them
any options so I would like to figure out how we get options into this for the next door neighbors.
Councilmember Lusk
I think we have discussed those but I would agree with Burt. I think that at this hour of the night I
would recommend that we defy. Let’s get all our thoughts together and maybe we can survey the
situation again and let’s come back with a clear head and maybe a plan that is agreeable to both parties.
Mayor Lockwood
If that is everyone’s consensus then let’s define what it is we are specifically…
Councilmember Thurman
Which neighbors want to have a buffer; which neighbors prefer not to have a buffer because I think we
heard from both tonight.
City Attorney Jarrard
Going back to Chris’s comment, is the use that you see on the property or are we negotiating conditions
before we have decided that this is what we want to have on there. I don’t mean negotiating but just
give staff direction of what to come up with. I guess it is because that is the implicit instruction you are
giving.
Mayor Lockwood
Yes, I am not hearing from anybody that they are totally against this.
City Attorney Jarrard
I agree.
Mayor Lockwood
I think everyone wants a balance that would serve both parties.
City Manager Lagerbloom
I am trying to figure out how that is going to be successful when it comes back to you 30 days from
now. We’ve got to find the right people to sit down with Mr. Runner as well as folks representing his
interest, as well as the representatives from the neighborhood, and I think two parties that we have heard
from tonight really don’t share a lot of common ground on the desire for the use, and try to figure out
how we can bring them together in 30 days to create a plan that is a win-win for both. That is a pretty
tall order. We will try it.
Mayor Lockwood
I think it just started out with if you guys came back with a solution on how you would monitor
something like this without the three year drop dead date.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 81 of 85
Councilmember Hewitt
Like Councilmember Longoria said, we all want to feel like the folks of Bethany Oaks come away with
something that is positive. My big beef about the whole thing is the concurrent variance #3 and how we
can come up with something that is as agreeable as it can be to both applicant and neighbors and that is
our challenge to work out what that may be like; what we can write and practice.
City Manager Lagerbloom
Would it be fair then to say, without asking you to nod your head tonight, but would it be fair to say that
it is generally the consensus of the council that you would like to give them the opportunity to try this
use as long as you don’t give away your ability to reign it back in if it was a bad decision.
Councilmember Thurman
In my opinion, that is the case if that is what we need to do to preserve the property and the historic
home and all that is on the property. It would be nice to find some kind of use that would allow that to
be preserved and allowed it to be kept as an equestrian farm without it being turned into another
subdivision.
Mayor Lockwood
It can’t be an open ended thing. It has to be specific; here are the rules you have to abide by and as long
as you do that, you can run your business. If the applicant is going to invest all that money into his
business, he has to know what the playing field is and agree with it on the front end. And, on the flip
side, the staff can also look at the Planning Commission’s recommendations, what to buffer and what
not to, but I would like to ask our development staff how we can buffer everything from the neighbors
that are affected by this.
Councilmember Kunz
I have a question for Mr. Runner. You said three years is not enough time to recoup your investment.
How long do you think it would take to recoup it?
Jeff Runner
This isn’t about the investment. This isn’t about recouping the investment. The time limit is strictly
about keeping a zoning action open. I cannot allow for that to happen. I will go with something else
rather than keep the zoning action open. And, the renewal does that. So, if you can’t not do it without a
renewal, I understand, no hard feelings. We have other options. I showed you several of them today. I
don’t think we are going to do them but I can’t allow the zoning action because that allows the fight to
go on. You have tied my hands behind my back; given them a gun, and said go make your business
work and I can’t do that. I won’t do that. So, if that is what the issue is then let’s resolve it tonight and
vote, no. And, then I have to ask. Why is this the only use? Why is this the only use that you are
putting a time limit on?
City Attorney Jarrard
I think what I am hearing is that in the applicant’s position, with respect to the three year, it is not an
elongation of the three years, it is strip that all the way off.
Mayor Lockwood
And, what I am seeing is that this is the only special use permit that has that. Maybe we need to look at
that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 82 of 85
Jeff Runner
There are no others.
Councilmember Thurman
This is the only one that is a closed-end permit.
Jeff Runner
Right; all the others are wide open and you have the same rules for them. If they violate the noise or if
they drive too many trucks or whatever, you cite them. We left the property because the police showed
up and we were doing things right. Can you imagine what affect if would have if we were doing things
wrong? We aren’t going to do it wrong.
City Manager Lagerbloom
Maybe the better thing to do then, rather than try and put this round peg in a hole, is see if the applicant
is willing to withdraw and if the applicant is willing to withdraw let’s see if we can write a better code
that is more specific to this. Not written to the Renaissance Festival but written to a special use permit
for a wedding facility; a special event facility in Milton. That is an option too. I shied away from
offering that because my thought was that there was the willingness to have a decision made sooner than
it would take to do that. If that is truly the desire, I can’t imagine that would take us much longer than
doing the process that we would do tonight by deferring it another month or so to figure out some
regulatory controls that the council would feel comfortable with. Maybe we would work better together
if we can figure out how to get this one off the table for the short term and craft a code that is better
written for this use.
Councilmember Mohrig
Along those lines, I would ask that we also get the community, Bethany Oaks, involved to get their input
so that if this does go forward, what is it that is amenable. We heard a couple of things that people said
they would like to see this or that if you pass it. Well, if we defer it we want to make sure we have both
parties involved so that when we come back we have a solution that we can move forward one way or
another.
City Manager Lagerbloom
Mr. Runner has indicated tonight that absent moving forward with just something that strips away some
type of time requirement, if that is truly something that is important and non-negotiable, and if that is
something that is not negotiable with the council then maybe just deny it tonight.
Councilmember Longoria
Time periods are not the issue. The issue is the ability to prevent abuse from taking place. That is why
my questions was, can we just yank the permit at any point in time. Ken pointed out, rightfully, that
there is a process you have to follow, I understand, I get it, I wasn’t thinking that way but certainly the
applicant has rights as well as everybody else.
Mayor Lockwood
I’m not trying to be difficult asking this question again and I respect everyone’s opinion but if staff takes
the time whether it is a month, two months, or whatever and we write a different ordinance, how
different is that going to be than doing this ordinance with the variance and taking the three year
stipulation out of there? It will probably be the same thing, if they do not live up to the conditions, they
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 83 of 85
will have code enforcement on the property. My point is, if that is the only thing we are talking about
does it dictate taking 30 or 60 days, staff’s time, the applicant’s time, and everybody’s time; does that
dictate.
Councilmember Kunz
As a council, we have the responsibility to make decisions and on this particular one we’ve been through
the property, we’ve talked to the homeowners; with what you are saying, I don’t see any difference
coming through if we spend more time doing it. I think from what I heard from the residents, I think the
buffers and the time and the noise and the noise being indoors is the most important thing. Granted, we
want to make sure that he does that, if he does and he is amiable to buffers on the eastern property line
then that will solve the headlight issues from my perspective and I think we need to vote on that tonight
and I am okay with that.
Councilmember Hewitt
I’ll say, if we are talking about an up or down vote tonight, I would be okay with the use but not okay
with all the variances.
Mayor Lockwood
We have a couple of options here. Somebody can make a motion for approval with buffers and
variances; somebody can make a motion without the variances or whatever. The question is where are
we going to get to? We have three or four more zonings next month and are we going to be back here at
midnight again then?
Councilmember Hewitt
I would rather see if we can come up with something outside of this meeting to work on putting
something together that we can enforce.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to defer Agenda Item 13-288 to the January 22, 2013
Regular Council Meeting. Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed (5-2).
Mayor Lockwood and Councilmember Kunz were opposed.
End of verbatim transcription
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration for the Purchase of an Aerial Fire Apparatus as a Replacement for the
Current Front-Line Unit.
(Agenda Item No. 13-300) (Chief Robert Edgar, Fire Chief)
Robert Edgar, Fire Chief
Before you this evening is a request to purchase a new aerial platform truck to replace our current
aerial apparatus. As we presented last week in the work session, this new truck is expected to be
more economical to operate due to the design and weight of the vehicle. In addition, the platform
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 84 of 85
style aerial will provide additional safety for our firefighters and give a greater reach with the 100
foot aerial as opposed to the 75 foot we have today. Our plan includes keeping the 75 foot aerial as a
reserve piece of equipment at our Fire Station 41. It is our intent to take advantage of the Cobb
County contract which allows other municipalities to purchase from. We have researched all our
options for this purchase and the Cobb County contract provides us with the best price possible
which we have budgeted.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Agenda Item 13-300. Councilmember
Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
2. Consideration of the Second Amendment to Intergovernmental and Sublease Agreement
between the City of Milton and the City of Milton Public Buildings and Facilities Authority.
(Agenda Item No. 13-301) (Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager)
Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager
This is the document that would transfer the lease that the Public Buildings and Facilities Authority
approved to the City of Milton. This is the correct contract that we are adopting tonight. We are going
to have to go back into the PBFA at some point and reaffirm or ratify this version of the contract. There
were a couple of dates that were incorrect, nothing substantive, but we will have to ratify it.
City Attorney Jarrard
With respect to the incorrect dates, it is the fault of my office.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Agenda Item 13-301.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
STAFF REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to go into Executive Session to discuss land
acquisition at 11:25 p.m. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously (7-0).
RECONVENE
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to reconvene the Regular Meeting at 11:31 p.m.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Page 85 of 85
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 13-302)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 11:33 p.m.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
After no further discussion the Regular Council Meeting adjourned at 11:33 p.m.
Date Approved: January 22, 2013.
________________________________ __________________________________
Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk Joe Lockwood, Mayor