Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PC - 08-26-2008MINUTES City of Milton Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008, 7:00 PM 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 the Planning Commission, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by the Planning Commission and invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the City of Milton Planning Commission meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio recorded. ROLE CALL Commission Members Present: Members Not Present: City Staff: INVOCATION Paul Moore Curtis Mills Fred Edwards George Ragsdale Jennifer Fletcher Joe Creamer Cary Schlenke Robyn MacDonald, Community Development The invocation was lead by Commission Member Curtis Mills. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chair Paul Moore called the meeting to order. RULES AND PROCEDURES OF MEETING Chair Paul Moore r ea d the Rules and Procedures of the City of Milton Planning Commission, including procedure for filin g out public speaker cards and time allowance for speaking. CONDITIONS AND STATEMENT OF COMMISSION Chair Paul Moore r ead the conditions and statem ent of the Commi ss ion. 1 Planning Commission Regul ar M eeting Augus t 2 6 , 2 008 A GENDA Agenda Item Description I. INVOCATION II. CALL TO ORDER Ill. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV . PUBLIC COMMENT A. Approval of Minutes from th e Jun e Minutes 24, 2008 Plannin g Co mm ission M eetin q Minutes fr om th e July 3 1, 2008 Special C all ed Planni n g Co mmissio n M eetinq V .REZONINGS /U SE PERMITS New A. RZ0S -08 / 3501 , 3499 Bethany U0S-04 / Bend Rd . VC0S-04 To rezone fr o m A G-1 t o TR (Town hou se Res id e ntia l) a nd o bta in a use p e rmit fo r sen io r hous in g t o develop 98 res id e ntia l u ni ts a t a density o f 19 .4 8 un its per a c re (A rti cle 19 .4.4 1 (2 )). Th e app licant is a lso re ques ting a 2 part co n curren t variance: Partl)Tore d uce th e se t back from l 00 feet t o l O feet for sw imming poo ls, pool e q u ipment, accessory st ructures and f encing (Article 19.3.12.3). Part 2) To increase fr om 2 stories (30 f eet) t o 3 stories (40 f eet) fr om average fin ished g rade to bott om of roof eave (Art icle 12G.4.F .14). Meeting Staff Dates** Recommendation A pprova l A pprova l CZ IM -RZ08-08 7 /22 /08 A PP RO Y A L CON DIT IO N A L PC U03-04 8/26 /08 A PP RO Y A L COND ITIO NAL M CC 9/1 5/08 VC 08-04 -PART l AP P RO Y A L CONDITI O N A L VC08-04 -PART 2 DEN IAL 2 , Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Agenda Item Description B. U0S-05/ 1150 Birmingham VC0S-05 Road To obtain a use p ermit t o d evelop a cemetery on approximately 17 .3 13 acres (Article 19.4.9). Th e ap p licant is a lso requesting a co ncurrent varian ce: 1) To delete the 75' buffer and 1 O' impervious se tba ck t o O' along western property lines N 00°32'03" W fo r 36 0.96', S 89°27 '5 7" W for 65.23', and N 00 °32"03" W , a long all eastern property li nes , and along th e northern property lin e fr o m northeastern corner to the 50' str eam buffer lin e for a distance of 320' ( 12H .3.1 Sectio n C.2). VI. Adjourn PUBLIC COMMENT Meeting Dates** CZ IM - 7/22 /08 PC 8/26/08 & MCC 9/15/08 Chair Paul Moore called for public comment. There was no public comment. Staff Recommendation U08-05- AP PROV AL CONDITIONAL VC08-05 AP PROV AL CONDITIONAL Motion and Second: Fred Edwards made a motion to close public comment. Joe Creamer seconded the motion. Th ere was n o discussion. Vot e : 6-o. Moti on unanimou sly carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Paul Moore ca ll ed for a motion to approve the June 24, 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes of the Planning Commission. 3 , Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Motion and Second: George Ragsdale moved to approve the June 24, 2008 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Fred Edwards. Discussion: Curtis Mills: • Wanted to see the last couple of corrections. Chair Paul Moore: • Corrections on pages 5 and 6. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Said on page 7 as well. Brief moment while minutes were being reviewed. Curtis Mills: • Under my comments, remove the parenthetical comments in the 2nd and 3rd bullets on page 5. • Under my comments on page 5, 3rd bullet, clarify that sentence. • Under my comments on Page 7 at bottom of page, remove parenthetical comment in 3rd bullet. • Under my comments on page 8 at the top of page, clarify 2nd bullet. Discussion about the minutes process (summarization versus verbatim). Curtis Mills: • Stated that metaphors are being mixed with using exact quotes in some cases and in other cases just trying to capture meaning of what was said down. City Clerk's Representative Francesca Ivie offered to provide a burned CD for Mr. Mills of the meeting so he could actually listen to his comments. Curtis Mills: • Said he was not interested in that in the sli ghtest. • Stated if we have not beaten it to death already, let's just move on. Chair Paul Moore: • Asked City Clerk representative if historically the minutes are summarized. City Clerk Representative Francesca Ivie: • Explained the minutes are summarized unless a question that comments are too brief. • Stated may go back and type more detail for clarification. • Said in some instances have typed more verbatim. • Motions are always typed verbatim . • Stated try to always provide "d etai led summary". • Summary minutes are usuall y a lot more brief than what is provided. • She ha s always tri ed to capture as much of the discussion as possible. 4 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 • If a question about a comment, she will re-listen to the recording and type exactly what was stat ed . Chair Paul Moore: • In order to allow for minor adjustments to be made to the minutes, would propose deferring until next meeting. Curtis Mills: • So that the Commission can move on, can we just approve on that basis? • I am going to vote against it whether it is next month or tonight. • Do not want to slow down the process on my account. Chair Paul Moore: • Wants it correct with your approval or not. • Think we need to defer it to the next meeting. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Deferral would require withdrawal of the motion. George Ragsdale: • I am with Curtis on this issue. • Spending too much time talking about a summary of what happened at the meeting. • It appears to be an accurat e reflection at a summary level of what happened at the meeting. • Believe we should vote on the motion and then decide what to do. Chair Paul Moore: • Called for any further discussion. Th ere was none. Vote: 5-1, with Curtis Mills voting in opposition. The motion to approve the June 24, 2008 meeting minutes with the changes carried. Chair Paul Moore: • Asked if Staff had the July Special Called meeting minutes. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Stated we have the minutes for signature. • Felt the issues had been resolved through the different conversations. • Provided the hard copies to the Commission at the last minute. George Ragsdale: • Stated he was still confused about the Speci al Called minutes. • Same reasons as the conversation that was just had. • Minutes have always b ee n summary minutes with exception of motions that are verbatim. • Asked why there was so much focu s and attention on these minutes. 5 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Advised that the Clerk's Office needed to go through the minutes verbatim for their own use to make sure the motions were all correct. • Minutes before the Commission to be approved are not verbatim minutes. • They are summary minutes with exception of the motions. George Ragsdale: • His recollection was there was a timeline. • Feeling was "got to get them done." • Made to feel minutes would have to be verbatim. • Told a tape wo uld be provided if Commission wanted. • Tapes were actually made of that meeting. • Trying to understand what was different about that meeting. • Entire process appeared to be different than prior meetings. Curtis Mills: • Stated it took days to get a reading on the motions. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • • • • • • • • All was based on trying to have a correct motion for the Council meeting on that next Monday. There was a question stemming from Curtis asking that Staff write out what was said . I did not write it out until the following morning . There had been some discussions about the titles and different parts of the motions . That is when the timeline developed so Commission wou ld have for the Monday Council meeting. Various email s from some of the Commission members to staff and the City Clerk. That is what prompted the Clerk's Offic e to listen to the tape . Because of these issues the Clerk felt it necessary to type them verbatim for their own use to make sure the motions that were restated were accurate motions. Curtis Mills: • Only the last five minutes of the two hour meeting was when the motion was made. • Puzzled why somehow it took 3 days to get to the last 5 minutes of the recording of the motion transcribed . • Obviously there was something more involved in this case. • Do not think we are going to accompli sh anything by continuing to talk about it. Chair Paul Moore: • The first motion return ed to the Commission was unfortunately incorrect. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Francesca Ivie was not present at that meeting so did not know when the final motion was made and did not h ave the b ackg round. 6 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 City Clerk Representative Ivie: • The motion was made and restated several times throughout the Special Called meeting. • Only way to accurately capture would be to listen to the entire tape and try to capture all the motions in detail. Chair Paul Moore: • Advised Robyn MacDonald he had not seen the minutes in hardcopy. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Sent the final version via email to all the Commission members. George Ragsdale: • Do not want to beat a dead horse. • It was just a routine motion and no different than the motion that was just made to approve the minutes. • The motion itself was not being presented to City Council. • The motion was to have the Chairman present the PC's recommendation to City Council. • There appeared to be something totally different being done in that case. • Appears there was more attention given to that motion being made. • Could not remember ever having had that same process on another motion. • The nature of the whole process made it feel very uncomfortable. Curtis Mills: • Ms. Marchiafava's insertion into the process was clearly the issue. • That was the difference and that was the issue. • Do not understand why that happened. • Do not believe that had any value. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • There had been discussion about my inserting something into the motion regarding the actual title of what the documents were. • Clerk was saying that even though it was requested, the motion had to be verbatim. • Could not change a motion after it had been seconded and voted on. • That was how the Clerk got involved. • She had to make sure the motion was correctly captured. Curtis Mills: • Stated they will know better than to try that again. Motion and Second George Ragsdale made a motion to approve the Special Called meeting minutes of July 31, 2008 . Seconded by Joe Creamer. 7 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Discussion: Paul Moore: • He apparently missed the email with the attached SC meeting minutes to review. • Would abstain instead of opposing the approval of the minutes. There was no further discussion. Vote: 5-0-1, with Paul Moore abstaining from vote. The motion carried. Paul Moore: • Asked Staff to present RZ08-08/Uo8-04jVC08-04. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • • • • • RZ08-08/Uo8-04jVC08-04, located at 3501, 3499 Bethany Bend Road . To rezone from AG-1 to TR (Townhouse Residential) and obtain a use permit for senior housing to develop 98 residential units at a density of 19,48 units per acre (Article 19,4.41(2)). The applicant is also requesting a 2 part concurrent variance: Part 1) To reduce the setback from 100 feet to 10 feet for swimming pools , pool equipment, accessory structures and fencing (Article 19.3.12.3). Part 2) To increase from 2 stories (30 feet) to 3 stories (40 feet) from average finished grade to bottom of roof eave (Article 12G,4.F.14). Stated their Intern, Matt Zyjewski, would present the case . Staff Matt Zyjewski: • Presented case to Planning Commission . • Staff recommends approval conditional of RZ08-04. • Staff recommends approval conditional of Uo8-04, Part 1. • Staff recommends d enial of Uo8-04, Part 2. • In conclusion, it is Staffs opinion that the propose d 98 unit senior housing development is consistent with the Focus Fulton 2025 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the City of Milton's Zoning Ordinance. • Staff recommends approval conditional of RZo8-o8 and Uo8-04 if developed with the recommended conditions. Paul Moore: • Called applicant forward to present the case. Applicant Don Rolader, 11660 Alpharetta Highway, Suite 630, Roswell, GA • Attorney representing Bajun American Prop erties. • Steve Rowe is present with AEC Engineers who are in charge of the proj ect. • Reque st is to rezone property from AG-1 to TR. • 4.94 acres for senior housing. • Property located on Bethany Bend and is presently improved. • Dir ec tly across th e street and to the east is Forsyth County. • Proposed use is in complia nc e with the Compreh ensive Land Use Plan. • 5 -3-st ory buildings and 2-2 story buildings . • Po ol, courtyard and wa lkin g ame nity as recreational opportunities for the faci lity. 8 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 • One entry off Bethany Bend. • Variance requested is to reduce the setback for the swimming pool from 100 ft. to 10 feet. • Staff supports this request. • Variance requested to increase height of the structures from 30 ft. and 2 stories to 40 ft. and 3 stories for 5 of the 7 buildings. • Parking is underneath the buildings and elevator service is provided to them. • City Attorney stated density is allowable. • Generate minimal increase in traffic. • Adequate parking and open space. • Buffers and landscaping provide adequate screening . • Everything at code except for pool variance which Staff supports. • Should be no impact on the school system. • Strong positive impact on the tax base. • Senior community should not create any noise issues and lighting would be minimal. • Feel right development in the right place. • Staff has prepared multiple conditions . • Want an enhanced sidewalk system instead of the bike trail. • Do not see Bethany Bend as an active place to ride a bicycle. • Second condition concerned with is the black 4-board fence with chicken wiring along Bethany Bend. • Prefer to build a brick and stone post fencing structure with aluminum that resembles wrought iron. • Last issue is regarding detention pond where it calls for a 6 ft. fence around detention . • Want to go before Design Review Board and present something nicer. • Senior housing is de s igned to be dense. • Referenced King George Village. Chair Paul Moore: • Called for anyone speaking in opposition. Leon Cole, 16700 Birmingham Highway, Milton, GA • Spoke in opposition. • Referenced Standards of Review. • Senior Housing is appropriate for this property. • Not at the proposed scale. • Challenged Staffs ass umption no impact on traffic or schools. • If 55 years of age can still have children . • There are single family homes abutting near the proposed pool area. • Asked if d evelop er is required to adhere to th e st andards of 19-4-41(2). • If not a r equirement, urg ed that it be implem ented. • 19.48 3 story units per acre is way upon the intent of allowing more d ensity for senior livin g. • Intent in this cas e is mor e money for the d eve l op er. • Ask ed that this d eve lopment be d eni ed . 9 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Heidi Sowder, 525 Sunflower Court, Milton, GA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Supportive of development in general. Oppose some of the things they are asking for . Asked to support Staffs recommendation to deny Part 2 of the variance request for the building height. Requested each building have an elevator. Number of parking spaces of 1.4 per unit is confirmed by Staff as adequate . Development should adhere to all the State Route 9 Overlay standards . Requested that 100 % of the housing units be required to be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older. 80% of these types of housing should be for ages 55 and over . If not impacts on utilities , transportation and schools will be far greater . Specimen trees and half acre wetland are reported on site plan analysi s . Requested that the 3 oaks located at the front of the property be preserved in a tree save area on this property. Trees are 35 inches, 34 inches and 37 inches in diameter, respectively . Trees are healthy and vibrant trees . Trees are an asset to the site for a host of reasons . Wetlands should also be preserved . Chair Paul Moore: • Called for additional public comment. • There was none . • Called for a motion to close public comment. Motion and Second: George Ragsdal e made a motion to close public comment. Joe Creamer second ed the motion. Th ere was no further discu ss ion. Vote: 6-o. The motion unanimously carried to close public comment. Chair Paul Moore: • Called for questions for staff, applicant or the opposition. Curtis Mills: • Asked Mr. Rolader about hi s reference to the other 3 story or 40 ft. buildings on that side of Bethany Bend. • Asked if Fairview was 30 ft. or 40 ft. Applicant Don Rolader: • Re sponded to Mr. Mills by r eferencing from his rendering. • It is a combination. • Th e townhouses are designed to be 3 stories. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Th e townhouses are 3 stories. • Cannot quote exact height. • Are permitted to go up to 40 feet in the TR district. • Milton previously did not have the rule of 2 stories and 30 feet. • Now if someone came in a nd requested, they would b e restricted to 2 stories and 30 feet. 10 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 George Ragsdale: • Referenced applicant's rendering on the l eft. • Elevations at eave and peak of roof? • Appears to be a significant amount of space above the third floor. Steven Rowe, 8995 Roswell Road, Atlanta, GA • Engineer for project. • Architect did very conceptual and visual tool for the Design Revi ew Bo ard. • Ac tual heights and finished floors not yet been set. • Height could b e accomplished within the 40 feet. Curtis Mills: • One of De sign Review Board's recommendations dealt with planting Evergreens along fence line. Discussion with Mr. Rowe about plantings referencing rendering. George Ragsdale: • One of the Design Review Board's requirements was that buildings be 30 feet apart. • Understands drawing is only conceptual. • As shown does not appear to be 30 feet apart. Steven Rowe: • As currently shown are not. • Doing some design work in house. • Are able to get 30 feet apart but sacrifices the park some. Chair Paul Moore: • Would the elliptical sidewalk area disappear? Steven Rowe: • Not disappear, but would ge t small er in scale. • Will be a central courtyard attached. Steven Rowe reviewed amenity area from rendering with Commission. Paul Moore: • Orientation of the buildings? Steven Rowe reviewed the orientation of the buildings from rendering with Commission. Paul Moore: • Driveway to no-wh ere t o serve what purpose ? Steven Rowe • Fire truck turnaround . • Access t o the det ention pond for maintenance. 11 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 George Ragsdale: • Requirement of Staff that flood plain study b e done. • Do not anticipate that the flood plain will cut across where detention pond is? • What if it does? Steven Rowe: • Concur with that. • This is currently a zone "X" flood plain which gives no elevations to it. • Referenced on rendering when the flood plain is. • Anticipate flood plain will move back within boundaries of the state and county buffers. • Do not anticipate flood plain will cut across detention pond location. • If it does, site plan will have to be adjusted. • Do not have any issues with the City Staffs Jim Seeba's conditions. • Puts me on notice that minimum requirements of the l aw have to be met. Chair Paul Moore: • Currently parking shown does not meet the requirements of the Code. • Minimal amount of external parking. • Guests would have to park either near clubhous e and walk to unit or is there additional underground parking? Steven Rowe: • Could be additional parking underground d epending on how many units and how occupied they are. • There is enough room to fit the required parking in the site. • Problem is it adds impervi ous surface. • Could meet parking requirement of the city. • They are following what market calls for senior developments. Chair Paul Moore: • Discussion with Steven Row e about the bike path comments. • Is issue because of the co nnectivity? • Is yo ur reason for request because yo u do not want it to b e required? Steven Rowe: • Main r eason . • Adding a l ot of pave m ent that does not beli eve n ecessary. • Going to b e a long time until they really get connected. • Will not ge t used until it ge ts connected for miles to make sense. • Ri ght-of-way will be their when city is ready to put it in. • Mor e effective use of the land would be enhan ce d sidewalk that wo uld connect pedestrians through th e project. Chair Paul Moore: • Asked Staff if this area was considered part of the l on g-term bike path plan. 12 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Staff Sara Leeders: • Stated it was. • The Bike and Pedestrian Committee felt this area was better served with an on-street bike lane and connecting eventually to Forsyth County and Highway 9. • This is part of the Milton Trail Plan . Chair Paul Moore: • Milton wants a certain look and feel for fencing in the city. • What is being proposed is attractive from the rendering Applicant Don Rolader: • Plan to present fence plan to the Design Revi ew Board . • Would go with their suggestions. Chair Paul Moore: • Does not appear from location shown for the entrance of development that yo u would be able to save specimen trees. Steve Rowe: • That is correct. • Was one of the struggles for the entrance location. • Worked with the city's traffic department. • This was actually the safest and best ingress and eg ress. • Have serious sight issu es . • Concerned for safety of the senior citizens. • Know trees add value. • Will try to save as many trees as possible. Joe Creamer: • Where will visitor parking be located? Steve Rowe: • May be spaces underneath the building. • Still locating at parking spaces and how allocated throughout the site. • There may be additional spaces along the entrance road. • Want to keep the site as gree n as possible. • Parking is one of their challenges. • Is hi gh on li st of priorities to d eal with. • Th ere will be eq u al parking spaces under each building. • Not certain but believes 16 spaces per building. Chair Paul Moore: • Amount of parking spaces consistent with the d emographics of the development audi ence? • Anticipating that a 55 year old adul t h ousehold whi ch for this area would be a more affluent h ousehold. • May require more than one parking spot for the price of the unit. 13 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 George Ragsdale: • I'm over 55 and his family has 4 cars. Fred Edwards: • Is Bajun American Properties the present owners? Applicant Don Rolader: • No, it is under contract. Fred Edwards: • Form C of the Disclosure. • Asked if people indicated were property owners. Applicant Don Rolader: • Looking at Mr. Jones. Fred Edwards: • Project should not exceed 30 ft. height requirement. • How could you change your plan? Applicant Don Rolader: • If that became a provision and had to build all 2-story buildings, would have to rethink the parking. • Price of the units would increase substantially. George Ragsdale: • How many units would you estimate you wo uld give up if you went to 2-story, 30 ft. elevation? Applicant Don Rolader: • Approximately 20 units. • 5 buildings are 3 stories. • 4 units normally on a floor. • Remove a floor off the 5 buildings. • 5 times 4 should equal about 20 units. Jennifer Fletcher • Will parking be assigned? Steven Rowe: • Have not go tten to that l evel of detail on the design yet. • Po ssibly could be. Don Rolader: • Handicappe d units would d efinitely all b e assigned parking. • Th ey would have accessibili ty to elevator. 14 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Curtis Mills: • Density would be 16 per acre. • Still well above the 3-8 in the 2025. • Less than 19.84. Joe Creamer: • Question about applicant's comment about no additional students in the schools. • What is basis for that statement? Don Rolader: • Experience in that type of adult communities. • Seeing the numbers that actually turned out. • Averaged l ess than one child per seven units. • Impact at best would b e minimal. • Depends on age of the seniors in community. • Not a significant number to make an impact. • Does not have the amenity base to attract children. Fred Edwards: • Mr. Cole mentioned the 19-4-41 that deals with the ADA requirements. • Will certain units be totally handicap accessible? Don Rolader: • Basically they all will be. • All will be on one level and elevator accessible. • All will be served by the parking down below. • Believe they all would meet the federal ADA senior requirements . • Lobby and front door would admit people on that level. Chair Paul Moore: • Have internal plans b een configured? Steven Rowe: • Architect still working on the schematics for that . • Wanted to get through this process first. • Need to determine the restrictions. Curtis Mills: • Ms. Sowder made a statement r egarding a requirement that at l east one person 55 years of age or older reside in each unit. • What is your re action to that comment? • You can restrict the presence of children but cannot discriminate on the basis of age. • They could covenant no children. • Not familiar with the law regarding this. 15 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Don Rolader: • Would violate the federal law if that were done in each unit. • The provision under federal law is 80%. • If you go against that then risk that they would not certify you. • They can tell a prospective buyer that they are not old enough and could not buy a unit. Chair Paul Moore: • City Council is in process of determining the land lots and whether this site is in a sewerable area. • Wanted to point out this matter has not been brought to conclusion at this time. • Sewer may or may not be available at this site. • Want to make certain applicant is aware of this matter. Don Rolader: • Sewer is accessible presently at this property as it exists. Steven Rowe reviewed the sewer area from the rendering pointing out to the Commission. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Alice Wakefield addressed the issue that no zoning guarantees sewerability. • This project is in the Big Creek Basin. • Once all is resolved it would not be an issue for serviceability. • This as not yet been totally resolved with the agreement with Fulton County. George Ragsdale: • At what point does the price point on the prop erty get to the point that it does not work. • What density leve l is that? • What is currently there is max 12. • What is there from a zoning standpoint is max 8 . • Relatively sure that 8 wo uld not work. • Tryin g to underst and what above 8 and belo w 19 wo uld work. Don Rolader: • Have not run those numbers ye t so cannot answer that. • What was planned and designed is what they needed. • Dr ew a project that wo uld fit the area and work. • Try to make it fit in with what was either there or coming there . • If price out of the price range they will not sell . • Housing is strugg lin g as it is right now. • It would be conjecture. • Senior hou sing is a different animal. • Want a comm unity for seniors that is desirable and affordable. • Believes that is why the code cont emplating the density issue. 16 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Curtis Mills: • Question for Leon Cole. • In the 2025 Plan there is a 3-8 unit per acre bracket. • For senior housing that is essentially removed and says we are not restricte d to that level. • You said that 19.84 violates the intent. • What do you believe the intent is? Leon Cole: • Understand it is allowable to have more density for senior housing. • This project appears to be way overboard. • The Commission and Council have to decide if the figure is acceptable. • Do not feel the intent was to jump from a 5-8 units to 19 units. • Concerned about precedence this might set in other places in the city. Curtis Mills: • Question for Heidi Sowder. • You mentioned an elevator and wanted to capture your point. Heidi Sowder: • Asked that an elevator be provided in each building. • Mr. Rolader stated there would be an elevator for each building. • Referenced Fulton County's policy at the time in the zoning ordinance restricted all building heights north of Webb Road on the State Route 9 area to 30 feet . • Was involved in the Bethany Road Residence Association for 7 years regarding rezonmgs. • No variances came forward. • Most town homes are not over 30 feet. • Council recently reaffirmed the 30 ft. height. • Would like that requirement to continue on. • Feels the 4-board fencing would work and fit in the realm of what is in that area already. • In 19-4-41 it says housing shall have at least 80% of the occupied b y at least one person who is 55 yea rs of age or older. • Assuming in order to get this classification yo u cannot drop below 80%. Curtis Mills: • That is a goo d point. • Asked Ms. Sowder if she would be comfortable if the Design Review Board made the decision on the fencing. • This is a gat eway to Milton. • Told H eidi he knows sh e is familiar with all the people on the DRB. Heidi Sowder did not come to podium and spoke from audience, so not audible on recording. George Ragsdale: • Question for Don Rolader . • Your price point is $300,000 and I assume that is at the low end. • What is your expectation at the high end? 17 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Don Rolader: • Speculating around the $365,000 range. • Square footage will not vary. • Question of improve ments and amenities owners may chose for upgrades. George Ragsdale: • Is it your experience that seniors would be willing to spend $375.00 a sq. ft. for housing? • Square footage for these units is about half of what you would pay for a h ouse in a similar price range. Don Rolader: • That is hard to answer. • Those that are affluent would not have a problem. • Thos e on limited budge t s would have more of a problem. Jennifer Fletcher: • What is the s quare footage of a unit? • Are these one bedroom or two bedroom units? • If b ase price is $300,000 would assume they would have to b e at lea st two bedrooms. Don Rolader: • About 1000 square feet wo uld be average. • Small are small er and some are larger. Steven Rowe: • Two bedrooms. • This market do es not function on one bedroom units. Curtis Mills: • Tec hnical question for Staff. • If everyon e is agreeable t o pl a nting Evergreens up against fence, how would that b e b es t made part of this? • Would this be in Staffs Conditions at the en d? • Th e DRB s p ec ific all y mentioned Everg reens . • Les s of a visibly p ermeable buffer. • Have a lot of confidence in the DRB. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • If excee ds what is required for a l a ndscap e strip. • If addition al planting, can put t ogether a condition . • Would n eed to l ook at the site plan. • Can put in wh ether it is a 10 or 15 ft. visual buff er planted t o buffer standards. • Before getti n g a Land Disturbance Permit they wo uld review that and make de fac t o co nditions. • Wou ld be required before getting an LDP . 18 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Chair Paul Moore: • Any additional questions? • Amotion? George Ragsdale: • Struggling with this. • The one unknown is the issue of the retention basin. • Whether if it is in a flood plain. • If it is the whole desi gn is going to change and look completely different when it comes back. • When do yo u expect to have results of the study and know where retention basis is located? Steven Rowe: • Due to cost usually d o as part of the LDP process. • Lengthy and expensive study to run. • Need to get a base data from FEMA. • Need to build a mod el that piggybacks onto their model to run the flows . George Ragsdale: • Thought he understood this was something that co uld be done within a week. • Personally uncomfortable with idea of doin g anything now that would then be subject to change with the LD P. • In event stormwater basin is in a flood plain it cannot be where it is. • If relocated you will not be able to put the building where it is. • Whole site plan would have to change. • Will then be a different plan? Steven Rowe: • Not unless the county already ha s that data run. • Need to go to FEMA first. • The TH development next to them had to do the same. • They have a similar flood plain elevation as we would. Discussion regarding flood plain referencing rendering. Applicant Don Rolader: • Mr. Ra gs dale, if you want to include a condition that says if due to the flood standards the sit e plan substantially changes, we would have to resubmit, they would not have an issue with that. • If that is what the city want s. Discussion among Commission members regarding density issue prior to malting a motion. 19 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Chair Paul Moore: • Before a motion is made. • Support what George is sayi ng. • We are looking at the d ensity in this range for the first time. • This is a gateway to Milton. • No question applicants are trying to build a quality facility for seniors. • Aesthetically it is pleasing. • Am also concerned about the density because it is far beyond what has b een supported. • Two big issues are the flood plains and sewerability. • Need to address these in any motion that is made. Curtis Mills: • Other condition that should be inserted would be the DRB's recommendations on the fencing as well as the Evergreen plantings. Motion and Second: George Ragsdale made a motion to approve the rezonin g of 3501, 3499 Bethany Bend Road from AG-1 to TR and move to approve the Use Permit for senior housing, Uo8-04, move to approve VC08-04, reduction of the setback for the swimming pool from 100 feet to 10 feet, move to deny the second part of VC08-04 which is the request for the increase of the building height from 30 ft. to 40 ft., and move that we make the approvals conditional on the applicant adhering to the DRB recommendations for additional plantings, the DRB recommendations for fencin g both at the Bethany Bend facing and at the retention basin, and that the Milton Bike and Trail Plan be adhered to with respect to the bike path, that the applicant be subject to re-submittal of the plan if the site plan changes for any reason, and changes substantially, and lastly that the approval is conditional on the City of Milton developing a sewer service plan that does support sewer on this location. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Want to clarify that when you say modification of the plan, is it your intent for it to go to Council as a modification of a site plan? George Ragsdale: • No, the intention is for it to come back to this Commission. Motion seconded by Curtis Mills. Discu ssio n: Curtis Mills: • In our briefi ng we discussed a minimum of 30 ft. distance between buildings. • Who made that suggestion? Staff Robyn MacDonald: • It was not di sc us sed in the briefin g, but it was addressed tonight. Curtis Mills: • That is the onl y remaining factor or variable. 20 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 George Ragsdale: • I left that out, but it should have been included in the motion. Curtis Mills: • Asked the Commission members if they were all amenable with doing this. Chair Paul Moore: • Could make a friendly amendment. Curtis Mills: • Do I have to propose a friendly amendment? Friendly Amendment: Curtis Mills moved to make a friendly amendment to Mr. Ragsdale motion that includes the Design Review Board's recommendation on page 16 of the application due to the proximity of the buildings to each other, as building codes will probably limit the amount of glass allowed on the side buildings. Buildings would have to be a minimum of 30 feet apart to remove requirement for fire protection. Curtis Mills: • That more than covers what the intent was. Fred Edwards seconded the friendly amendment. Discussion: There was none. Vote on friendly amendment: 6-o. Motion carried. Chair Paul Moore: • That will now be added to the original motion of Mr. Ragsdale. Vote on original motion: 6-o. Motion carried. Chair Paul Moore: • Asked Robyn to please call the n ex t agenda item. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Uo8-05/VC08-5, 1150 Birmingham Road . • To obtain a Use Permit to deve lop a cemetery on approximately 17.313 acres. • Article 19-4-9. • Applicant also requesting a concurrent variance to delete the 75 ft. buffer and 10 ft. impervious setback to zero along western property lin es . Staff Mat Zxjewski: • Read Petition Uo8-05/VC08-5 to Pl anning Commission. • Staff finds applicant's intent of prese rvin g pasture l and consist ent with the following plans and goa ls . 21 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 • NW Fulton County's existing rural character defined by historic resources , wooded areas, agricultural uses, horse farms, pastures, lakes, farms will continue to exist. • Staff recommends approval conditional of U 08-05. • Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is in line with the goals of the 2025 Focus Fulton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. • City Arborists states there are 6 specimen trees shown on the submitted site plan. • Staff notes that the proposed cemetery appears to meeting all requirements as stated in Article 19-4.9 of the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance. • Relief, if granted, would be in harmony with, or, could be made in harmony with, the general purpose and intent Applicant Jim Bell, 1150 Birmingham Road, Milton, GA: • Presented his case. • Trying to build a "green" cemetery. • Using only biodegradable materials. • No upright markers . • No burial vaults. • No embalming fluids are allowed. • Newer concept. • Hired some consultants with the Green Burial Council to follow their guidelines. • Tried to make it a city cemetery but it did not work out. • Decided to make it a private cemetery. • Will be additionally be following state guidelines on regulations with the Secretary of States Office concerning cemeteries. • Will look exactly like it currently looks . • A horse pasture surrounded by woods. • Game plan is to do this in three phases. • Take land and put it either in a land trust or h ave deed restrictions on it. • To make green space, but to bury p eo ple in that green space. • Locatable by a GPS system and perhaps a flat field stone. • Fields themselves will look exactly like they are now. • This is why the request is being made for the variances on the buffers. • Do not want to build anything. Chair Paul Moore: • Called for public comment. Leon Cole, 16700 Birmingham Highway, Milton, GA • • • • • • • • Not really opposing this project. Just have a few ques ti ons . What if the green cemetery fails to properly materialize per the d eveloper's ex p ectations/n eeds? What then happens to the land? Could it be changed to a regular cemetery with fami ly l ots with r eg ul ar grave markers? Will city h ave any responsibilities like maintaining graves already in existence? Th ere are h omes near this particular piece of property . If buffer is suffi cient to shield from s urrounding neighbors do not have a probl em . 22 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 • It is a great use for the land if it can be kept the pasture and use of flat stones on ground. • Shielding from people coming to visit graves. • Funerals being held there. • Trucks coming to bury people. Staff Robyn MacDonald • Explained to applicant that Mr. Cole is concerned because you are not going to provide a full 75 ft . planted buffer for the entire parcel. • Your point is does not look like a typical cemetery, but a field or pasture as it exists now. • Less maintenance to maintain a field than a 75 ft. planted buffer. • We also have to comply with state regulations. • Secretary of State will be making requirements as well. George Ragsdale: • What has been contemplated with regard to a conservation trust? Applicant Jim Bell: • That is still up in the air. • Do not know they can get conservation. • May have to use a deed restriction. • Leaving it as a pasture instead of restoring it. Curtis Mills: • My understanding from a lawyer is that deed restrictions only span 20 years. Applicant Jim Bell: • Secretary of State's Offic e requires yo u to notify them in the event of a transfer of sale of the property. Curtis Mills: • Not smart on green cemeteries or non-green cemeteries. • Do not understand the science of that. • Guessing there is a d ensity level and factors on burial at different depths that matter. • Also guessing that so high that you would never practically get there. • Asked applicant to talk about the science of green burial. • Also saw you plan on 10 x 10 tracts . • What if so meone bought property and changed their mind and wanted to change it to 8 x 4? Applicant Jim Bell: • Not buying land. • Buying internment rights. Curtis Mills: • Talking about the entire facility. • If you own it and hypothetically just change the whol e model. 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26 , 2008 Applicant Jim Bell: • If yo u want to study fo r en sic iss u es, Univers ity of Tennessee h as a fore n sic r esearch center. • Primarily for d ecay, etc. • Basically doing wh at ce m et eries did prior t o the civil war. • Not a n ew concept. • Just go ing in a differ ent direction. Curtis Mills: • If su ccessful , h ow m any b odi es wo uld b e there after full? Applicant Jim Bell: • If 10 x 10 , 4 2,560 s q. ft . per acre. • 4 3 0 p er acr e roughly. • That is op en fi eld. • In woo dl and it is differe nt . • Mu ch less . • That is phase two . Curtis Mills: • Phase two is the woo ds? Applicant indicated the phase areas on the rendering. Applicant Jim Bell: • In a traditi on al ce m etery there are 800 per acre . • Our den sity is less than h alf. Chair Paul Moore: • I s ther e an intention for b urial in the woo d ed area ? • Removal of t rees to d o that? Applicant Jim Bell: • Eventually ther e will be. • No r emoval of t rees. • Told arb orist we wo uld wo rk wi th so m eo n e to mak e sure we ca n work wi thin the t ree ar ea . • Act u all y trees make soil better. • Do n ot wa nt t o buil d anythi ng or tear d own anything . Curtis Mills : • I s the So uth Carolina fac ili ty b u rying people in the woo ds? • Is there any preparation of the body? • Read some abo ut the Musli m burial rights. • It is more ex t ernal t han anythi ng else . 24 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Applicant Jim Bell: • No embalming. • Put them in biodegradabl e gaskets. • Monks in Conyers have just opened one as well. • Designed by Billy Campbell who built the first one in Westminster, SC. Curtis Mills: • Question for City Arborist Mark Law. • Does not b ecom e fertilizer until d eco mposition starts . • Then generat es acids and all . • Asking if there is potential damage t o the trees in the woods. Applicant Jim Bell: • Essentially works the same way a septic system does. City Arborist Mark Law: • Not seeing any issues with the burials within the tree section . • This has been discussed. • Was told that we do not want trees removed for the burials. • He understands that. • Burials will t ake place amongst the trees. • Will not b e as d ense there because of the trees. • Do not see the remains wo ul d cause any adverse affect on the h ealth of the trees. Chair Paul Moore: • Was there any issue addressed regarding ground wat er? Applicant Jim Bell: • That is what I was trying to say. • Acts like a septic system. • Ground and layers of rock filters everything out before gets t o the water table. Chair Paul Moore: • Asked about the spreading of ash es . • Not sure if even allowable by state l aw. • Most states the spreading of ashes is not allowed. • It is my understanding that your intention is primarily the burying of bodies. Applicant Jim Bell: • We wi ll have all three available. • Spreading of ashes. • Burial of ashes in biodegradable containers. • Green whole body burial in biodegradable coffins or burials shrouds. 25 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Chair Paul Moore: • So for clarification, there are no permanent caskets. • Everything would be biodegradable. Applicant Jim Bell: • There may some exceptions. • Like a pin in a bone. • No metal caskets. • No bronze caskets. • No concrete vaults. Chair Paul Moore: • • I understand there may be some condition in the deceased that may not biodegrade. • Asking about the spreading of ashes. • Would spreading of ashes be intended to b e in a confined area? • Arn asking because understood the law in most states prohibits the scattering of ashes. • Must be in a s pecifically defined area. • Thought yo u may want to check this out. Applicant Jim Bell: • Probably would u se the woods. • Again are dealing with the Secretary of State l aws. • Cremation is the final act of disposal. • Scattering of ashes is not covered by cemetery law. • Only covered by private property law. • Would lean tbward scatterin g ashes in the woods . • Have not h eard that. • Know you cannot do so without the permission of the landowner. Chair Paul Moore: • Like that you intend for this pasture land to look just as it do es now. • Believe what you are proposing here is an asset to the community. • Will it look more groomed that it does know because it i s a cemetery? • What about the maintenance? Applicant Jim Bell: • Probably not. • Will not be turning a pasture into a lawn . • A pasture goes through several stages throughout the year. • In a green burial area instead of removing the dirt to make room for a vault, yo u mound the dirt on top and it settles down eventually. • From time to time there may have some places that will be somewhat raised. • The grass has t o be cut and it has to be lim ed to keep the PH l eve l up. 26 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Chair Paul Moore: • What equipment will need to come on property to do that? • Will be coming from an external site. Applicant Jim Bell: • Use of tractors. • Only from time to time as needed to maintain. • No equipment will be parked or stored on the property all the time. Chair Paul Moore: • In your plan talk about ground level grave site markers. Applicant Jim Bell: • This is the plan that is used at other facilities. • Conyers is also using this plan. • We wanted to buy the markers from the Monks, but they will not sell them to us. • Will have to find another source to do essentially what they are doing. • It is just etching of a field stone. • All markers are pinned and will have caps with numbers on them. • Can locate a grave two or three different ways. Chair Paul Moore: • How would a loved one find a specific spot at the cemetery? Applicant Jim Bell: • There is a GPS system. • There is also a map. Chair Paul Moore: • Planning to change the entrance? • Like that it is a very simple white board fence. Applicant Jim Bell: • Saw that Staff has it is a black board fence. Robyn MacDonald: • Fine with changing that and keeping it white. Chair Paul Moore: • Plans to mark the fact it is a cemetery in any other way? Applicant Jim Bell: • Whatever signa ge that would b e appropriate. • Will not be putting up a billboard. • Probably us e somethin g like wh at is th ere n ow. 27 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 George Rags dale: • Hours of operation on page 3 of yo ur l etter state 9-5. • Burial hours say on an "as needed" b asis. • Would that be within that 9-5? Applicant Jim Bell: • I gu ess there will be different h ours of operation. • Hours that people would come in t o buy a l ot. • Hours for people to come view. • Attendance at a funeral. • Visiting hour. George Ragsdale: • When will h ours of operation be for digging graves and burying bodies? Applicant Jim Bell: • Will not be at night. • Will be 9-5. Chair Paul Moore: • Is di gg ing of burial grave done by machine or by hand? Applicant Jim Bell: • It is done differently in different areas. • In cold areas have to use a backhoe. • Billy Campbell of Westminst er, SC prefers to di g by hand. • We will probably u se backhoes. • This is a contract by the funeral h ome to open and close the graves . • This is included in the burial contract with the funeral home. Curtis Mills : • How close are the houses next to the cemetery? • How solid is the buffer. • Could people out on their back deck cooking hamburgers be watching a funeral? Applicant showed the Commission on the rendering where the buffer was located in conjunction with the subdivision next to the cemetery. Also indicated where the power lines are located. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Appears the s ub division lot s are really l arge. • They have allowed the transmission line to bisect it and their houses are on the north side of the transmission line. • Really it is open space to the south of it whether with trees or pasture. 28 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Curtis Mills: • What is the buffer like? • Asked Mark Law if he saw it. City Arborist Mark Law looked at the buffer from applicant's rendering. City Arborist Mark Law: • Stated it was pretty dense. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Directed Commission members to page 6 that showed the view to the Northeastern corner of the site. • Gives an overall view of the vegetation. • More to the left of the picture would be the north property line Discussion with applicant about buffer around cemetery. Curtis Mills: • Are those the Breamridge lots that come right up to the property line? • They look like building lots . George Ragsdale: • I think what Robyn is saying is that those lots go all the way up to the cul-de-sac . • They are very large lots . • The houses are on the other side of the transmission lines. Curtis Mills: • Are those built out? Staff Robyn MacDonald: • We did not go to the back there. • Not sure. • Cannot tell by the aerial. • I do not know. • Did send all the adjacent property owners letters through the mail. • Did not hear from anyone. Fred Edwards: • Can you tell how far those homes would be from the back of your property? Applicant Jim Bell: • Ma ybe 500-600 feet. • I cannot say they are 100 % built. • There are houses yo u can see in the winter and at night you can see the li ghts on. 29 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Curtis Mills: • From a contour standpoint, where are they lo cated? • Are they above or on grade with your pasture? Applicant Jim Bell: • A little bit above. Curtis Mills: • Can yo u think of anything that would create a bullet proof barrier? • Something for a 12-month basis. • They may be a neighbor that said they did not know they were going to be looking at a funeral. • My concern is once bodies start being buried and funerals happen. Applicant Jim Bell: • The land will look the same as it does now. • Funerals are happening right next to it. Curtis Mills: • If I bought a piece of property that abutted a horse farm I am smart enough to know it may not be a horse farm forever. • I do not think it would not be an unfair assumption that you may not believe that someday it may become a graveyard. Applicant Jim Bell: • That is making an assumption that a graveyard is a negative thing. • I have lived next to a graveyard for 30 years. • I think it is a positive thing. Curtis Mills: • It takes all kinds . Applicant Jim Bell: • They are real good neighbors. Chair Paul Moore: • Have a question about the gravel road and the parking. • You stat ed the entrance wo uld h ave to be mov ed slightly. • I assume somewhere central to the frontage of the property. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • A littl e to the east. • It is not changing drastically. • Just slightly. Chair Paul Moore: • Are yo ur intentions are to have a gravel dri ve? • Will the parking on the gravel road area b e towards the front of the property? 30 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 • Would like to see the pasture land like you not altered very much at all. Applicant Jim Bell: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • It will be an asphalt apron with a gravel drive . Parking will be more like a regular cemetery . Essentially you just pull off of the road a little bit to the side to park. Not have a parking lot. Like Arlington Cemetery . Have not done the entire interior design yet of the cemetery . I prefer not to have to build anything at all . I would prefer not to put the black plastic there for the trail to nowhere . I would like to escrow my funds for the trail instead of putting a trail to nowhere in front of my property and burying black plastic in a green cemetery. To the east of me is Boiling Springs Baptist Church . To the west of me is my other property . Purpose of this exercise is to also make green . So there will be a 300 ft. piece of trail out there that nobody can use and the City of Milton cannot maintain . Asking me to build something they cannot maintain by their own admission . I do not think buying plastic is very green . It is against the idea of what we are trying to do . Chair Paul Moore: • Appreciate your comments on that. • Will let City Council address that issue. • Think it would be wonderful if you did not have to do much gravel drive . Applicant Jim Bell: • These cemeteries are not made for 300 car funerals . • Not that type of thing. • The largest turnouts we have heard of are policemen, firemen and teenagers. Chair Paul Moore: • Unfortunately we have had some of these already. Curtis Mills: • How much would one of these plots cost? Applicant Jim Bell: • • • • • • • • Cannot say yet because they have not been approved by the Secretary of State . We have not gotten that far . Probably in between $1000 and $100 ,000 . They co st about a third of what a normal burial lot cost . Goin g to make part of the purchas e price of the final r es ting pl a ce t ax d eductible and donate it b ack to the city to buy more gr ee n s p ace with. City can us e that money to build more parks, r ecr eation and the Milton trail. Thi s is part of what th e Gr een Buri al Coun cil do es . Set up municipaliti es with land con servati on and burial s . 31 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Augus t 26, 2008 Curtis Mills : • Are you of the opinion that it would b e afford able b y a n yo n e? Applicant Jim Bell: • The aver age p er son , yes . • No p auper grave areas. • Rou ghly the co st wo uld b e 2 5% of the normal ce m et eries around the m etropolita n area . Motion and Second: Geor ge Rags d ale made a m otion t o a pprove Use P ermit Uo 8-05 a nd the va r ian ce VC08-05 subj ect t o the co nditions r e comme nde d b y Staff. Seconde d b y J oe Cream er. Di scu ssion : Curtis Mills: • I h ave a problem with the l ack of a 12 month buffer. • I b elieve a l ot of wh at buffer is ther e is d eciduou s . • Co n ce rned that it woul d affect som e of Bream r idge . • Do n ot know if there is a n y s olution t o that other tha n r e quiring o n e. George Ragsdale: • If we wer e to follo w the buffe r r equirem ents that a r e in the Ordina n ce, does that buffer re quirem ent include the n ee d for 12-m onth coverage? • Does it di ct at e wh at h as to b e pla nte d t o achieve 12-month coverage? City Arboris t Mark Law: • The buffe r r equirem ent would b e Eve r gr ee n p l ant in gs. • Exclusively Eve r gr eens . • Looking at picture wh ere the r e a r e pine trees, 1:1ost of tha t growth is up at the t op. • It is very d en se. • Ther e a r e a l ot of pine t rees ther e. • Sh owe d Co mmission from r endering a r ea that was p rima rily d eciduou s. • I d o n ot think the coverage is so much a n issu e . • I beli eve ther e is en ou gh d en sity on the Bream r idge side. Curtis Mills: • Eve n west of the Evergreen st a nd? Dis cussion at dais with City Arborist Mark law and Curtis Mills referencing photo. Chair Paul Moore: • Curtis, is yo ur main concern that the p eopl e living n ext to the ce m et ery cann ot s e e the b urials? • The only variable from what they currently s ee is wh en t he occasional backhoe comes in to di g the gr ave sit e . 32 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 Curtis Mills: • In m y mind, I do n ot see that it is not a fin ancial entity. • I live just north of Breamridge and have a pretty goo d idea what is going on in that development. • Asked if the photo shown to the Commission was a recent photo . • The owners of the property that is not built out may not know what is going on. • They may not even be resident owners. • May be surprised when they find out and may feel their property is le ss liquid. • You do not care about graveyards, but I do . • Everybody is different. City Arborist Mark Law: • The photo is from 2007. Applicant Jim Bell: • There is evidence that gr ee n space adds to property values. • Have not seen any evidence that it detracts from property values. Curtis Mills: • It is the interaction of the non-resident owners I am concerned with. • I gu ess if yo u are b eing buried in woo d en boxes yo u wo uld not h ave to u se the heavy crypt movers. Applicant Jim Bell: • Not s ure what you are yo u talking about when you say n on -resident owners. Curtis Mills: • The property that has not been built out. • The guys that bought the property and have b een trying to d evelop it for 3-4 year s . • Wherever they live I ass ume they still own the lots but h ave not sold them. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • Just pulled up a current Google map. • It shows absolutely no houses b ack there right now along that property line. Curtis Mills: • Ri ght, the property is probably owne d by people that bought the property 4 -5 year s ago and are trying to develop it to sell it. • Cannot believe with the money they h ave tied up in it they wo uld n ot h ave s hown up for a m eeting if they knew about it. • I am sure proper notice was given . • No t complaining about that. • Wonderin g h ow surprised they would be to find out that a graveyard is b ehind there . 33 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26 , 2008 Jennifer Fletcher: • Not familiar with that ar ea. • Are the lots individual owners? Curtis Mills: • I am guessing, but it can be. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • • • • It is Bream Drive and we have the li st of the owner s . It is hard to tell which lots belong to which one . Would have to get back to you about the owner ship . The property has b ee n subdivided but it d oes not appear any houses have been d eveloped on it yet. • • As suming the devel op er or who eve r bought the l ot s still own the lots . It do es not appear ther e are individual people who have those back few lot s adjacent to it. Jennifer Fletcher: • If a d evel o p er owns it at the end of the day h e p rob ably do es not care. • H e is going to build h ou ses and then they will b e sold. Staff Robyn MacDonald: • I fee l it is safer as it is n ow. • Anyb ody purchasing the property w ould du e their due dili ge nce to find out what is this va cant land n ext to m e. Curtis Mills: • There ar e a l ot of s urprise d fac es around h er e in the winter time. • A lot of p eo pl e buy p ro p er ty b efor e the le aves d rop. Applicant Jim Bell: • Ag ain yo u ar e making the ass umption that the green s pace is n ega tive . • If anything that is n egative it is the p owe r lines . Curtis Mills: • I think gr een space is a goo d thing. • I am t alking ab out the burial activities and fun eral servi ces. • That h as n othing t o d o wi th the gr een sp ace . • This h as t o d o with graveya rds and fun er als . • Essenti ally it is a n ear co mmer ci al ve nture . • It is n ot the gr ee n space I am co n ce rned wi th. • If this h appen ed t o be a full y built out subdivis ions, there wo uld b e people s itting out t h er e in t he ch airs. • Al l that ca n b e d on e t o n otify p eo pl e is wh at h as been d o n e. • A bullet p r oof buffer wo ul d b e a dded p rot ect ion. • Al l I am trying t o d o is expl ain my s imple point at the b eg in ning . • I do not m ea n t o thrash and b eat it t o d ea th . 34 Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 26, 2008 • I just had that concern. Chair Paul Moore: • Okay, there is a motion and a second on the floor. • Any further discussion? There was no further discussion. Vote: 6-o . Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: Motion and Second: George Ragsdale moved to adjourn the meeting. Fred Edwards seconded the motion . There was no further discussion. Vote: 6-o. Motion unanimously carried and meeting was adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Paul Moore, Chairman Planning Commission 35