HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 10/18/2010 - 10-18-10 Reg. Mins (Migrated from Optiview) (2)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 1 of 29
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 recorded.
The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on October 18,
2010 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Chaplain Remco Brommett, Chaplain for City of Milton Police and Fire.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Interim City Clerk Gordon called the roll and made general announcements.
Council Members Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Bill Lusk,
Councilmember Burt Hewitt, Councilmember Joe Longoria, Councilmember Alan Tart.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey arrived late at 6:24 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Approval of Meeting Agenda (Agenda Item No. 10-1257)
Staff recommends the following changes to the meeting agenda:
1. Under Zoning Agenda change the order of Agenda Items No. 10-1253 and
10-1269 for hearings.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to approve the Meeting Agenda as amended by staff.
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. (Councilmember
Zahner Bailey was absent for the vote.)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Lockwood read the rules for Public Comment.
• Public comment is a time for citizens to share information with the Mayor and City Council and
to provide input and opinions on any matter that is not scheduled for its own public hearing
during today's meeting.
• There is no discussion on items on the Consent Agenda or First Presentation from the public or
from Council.
• Each citizen who chooses to participate in public comment must complete a comment card and
submit it to the City Clerk.
• Please remember this is not a time to engage the Mayor or members of the City Council in
conversation.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 2 of 29
• When your name is called please step forward and speak into the microphone stating your name WR
and address for the record.
• You will have five minutes for remarks.
There was no public comment.
CONSENT AGENDA
City Clerk Gordon read the Consent Agenda items:
1. Approval of the October 4, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1258)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of a Task Order with Street Smarts, Inc. for Environmental Special Studies for
Intersection Improvements for Arnold Mill Road at New Providence Road in the Amount
of $9,404.96.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1259)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
3. Approval of a Task Order with Street Smarts, Inc. for Environmental Special Studies for
Intersection Improvements for Birmingham Highway at Providence Road in the Amount
of $9,404.96.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1260)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
4. Approval of a Parks and Recreation Event License Agreement between the City of
Milton and Mike Kipniss for the use of a Baseball Field at Bell Memorial Park.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1261)
(Cyndee Bonacci, Parks and Recreation Director)
5. Approval of a Parks and Recreation Event License Agreement between the City of
Milton and the Crabapple Community Association for the use of City Property for the
Crossroads at Crabapple Antique and Art Festival.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1262)
(Cyndee Bonacci, Parks and Recreation Director)
6. Approval of a Temporary Access Agreement between Birmingham United Methodist
Church and the City of Milton for the 2010 Milton Roundup.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1263)
(Cyndee Bonacci, Parks and Recreation Director)
7. Approval of a Temporary Access Agreement between Kohl's and the City of Milton for
the 2010 Mayor's Run.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1264)
(Cyndee Bonacci, Parks and Recreation Director)
8. Approval of a Contract between City of Milton and Appen Newspapers, Inc. for Milton ,NO%
Roundup Advertising for $1,130.90.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1265) VANO
(Jason Wright, Communications Manager)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 3 of 29
low" 9. Approval of a Contract Modification between the City of Milton and AT&T.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1266)
(David Frizzell, IT Manager)
10. Approval of a Resolution Adding Republic Services of Georgia to the List of Approved
Solid Waste Haulers for the City of Milton.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1267)
RESOLUTION NO. 10-10-158
(Matt Marietta, Fire Marshal)
11. Approval of a Resolution Adding GW Lovelace Hauling to the List of Approved Haulers
Pursuant to the Milton Solid Waste Management Ordinance.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1268)
RESOLUTION NO. 10-10-159
(Matt Marietta, Fire Marshal)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember
Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. (Councilmember Zahner Bailey
was absent for the vote.)
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS (None)
FIRST PRESENTATION(None)
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
ZONING AGENDA
(Zoning items typed verbatim.)
City Clerk Gordon read the zoning rules and agenda items.
Community Development Director, Lynn Tully:
Mrs. Gordon? It appears that the representation for this item has not been able to get through traffic
himself, if you would like we potentially could flip flop these two items since they are both zoning items
and under the same zoning agenda.
Mayor Lockwood:
If that is okay with Council, I am certainly willing to do that. Is that okay, Ken?
City Attorney, Ken Jarrard:
It is Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Lockwood:
What do we need to do procedure wise?
Ken Jarrard:
You can do without exception, but for the record you might want to make a motion to hear item 10-1269
first in place before the item that was just read.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pra
Page 4 of 29
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve the changes to the Zoning Agenda
Items to change the order of items No. 10-1253 and Agenda Item No. 10-1269 in which these items are
heard. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6-0.
(Councilmember Zahner Bailey was absent for the vote.)
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, if the Clerk would call the next item.
1. ZM10-03NC10-02 — Requested by Global Payments, Inc. located on Deerfield
Parkway along the west side for a distance of approximately 674.41 feet (11.62
acres). To Modify Condition 2.a (99Z-011, 99U-008, 99VC-007) to replace the
current conditional site plan, which was marked received by the Fulton County
Environment and Community Development Department on December 11, 1998 with
a new site plan received by the City of Milton Community Development Department
on September 7, 2010. To delete zoning condition 3.b., parking shall be shared with
adjacent property zoned C-1 (Community Business), pursuant to 99Z-012, currently
Zoned) O -I (Office -Institutional) Pursuant to 2007Z-019. To request a concurrent
variance to reduce the subject property's minimum on-site parking requirement
from 122 spaces to 100 spaces (Section 64-1410).
(Agenda Item No. 10-1253)
ORDINANCE NO. 10-10-78
(First Presentation on October 4, 2010 Council Meeting)
(Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Lynn Tully:
This is a site that I think that you are all familiar with. It lies just south of where we are sitting right
now. It does include 11.62 acres which was originally approved for 223,000 square feet of office use.
This development includes approximately 40,500 square feet of office use for a data center. The facility
is intended to operate over a 24 period and expects to employ up to 150 full time employees. This will
be in shifts and they will not be there are the same time and typically there may be up to 70 employees
in the facility during peak shift periods. We did an extensive analysis including all other affected
departments regarding this particular request. Staff has reviewed it and asked specifically to delete the
zoning condition 3b regarding the parking. This original condition spoke to sharing of parking with
property to the south and since they are asking for a variance to reduce the parking that is required, I
really don't think they will need to share any parking. Staff has recommended approval to delete that
zoning condition. The variance is to reduce the subject properties minimum onsite parking requirement
from 122 spaces to 100 spaces. The 122 space requirement is based on our typical office parking
requirement. This is not necessarily the typical office. In fact the ITE trip generation manual does
indicate that the trips for a data center or warehouse center of this type are reduced by approximately a
third from your typical office. We expect that parking would also be reduced by at least that amount.
This reduction of parking spaces does not appear to offend the spirit or intent of the zoning ordinance
and the request does not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties
based on the fact that additional undeveloped and open space will be allowed and assist in preserving the
additional specimen trees that are on the property. Staff does recommend approval conditional of
VC10-02. The final condition is to change the existing condition as it references the original 1998 plan
to the current site plan received on September 7, 2010. This revised site plan does meet our
development standards with the exception of the parking spaces that have been requested for variance.
Again, there are recommended conditions. I will read those very quickly. They are slight amended
from what has been included in your packet, specifically 4.e, and I will read them all.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paee 5 of 29
"P""
2.) To the owners agreement to abide by the following:
a.) To the revised site plan received by the City of Milton Community Development
Department on September 7, 2010. Said site plan is conceptional only and must meet
or exceed the requirements of the zoning ordinances and these conditions prior to the
approval of a land disturbance permit unless otherwise noted here and in compliance
with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy.
3.) To the owners agreement to the following site development consideration striking "b" and
including "c" provide a minimum of 100 parking spaces VC 10-02.
4.) To the owners agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedications, and
improvements.
e.) at the time of development of the property to the south, a 50ft access easement is
required to provide inter parcel access on the subject's south property line. Easement
area shall be cleared and grated prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
f.) The applicant is required to meet with and coordinate driveway location with Milton
Public Works prior to submission of a land disturbance plan.
g.) the driveway entrance shall provide for the 95% q without interrupted traffic flow into
the main with combined trips with parcel to the south RZ07-019 as approved by Milton
Public Works.
Those are the conditions as recommended. Are there any questions?
Mayor Lockwood:
Are there any questions for Mrs. Tully? Bill?
Councilmember Lusk:
I have a question about your statement about the international transportation engineers manual guide to
reduce the trips by 1/3. It also says that it is reasonable to conclude the parking for those trips would
follow a similar pattern. 122 parking spaces, is that correct?
Lynn Tully:
Yes sir.
Councilmember Lusk:
Okay, so if you reduced it by 1/3, I come up with a different number.
Lynn Tully:
It would be more than what they requested. The simply requested to be reduced to 100 parking spaces.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Could you give us an update? It was my understanding that the design review board had reviewed this
and I didn't see any information about the design review board's input and specifically I was interested
Now in the conversations that were had between the applicant and the design review board as it relates to
parking because it was my understanding that at one point there was some consideration perhaps of
lessening that parking requirement.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paee 6 of 29
Lynn Tully:
There were discussions regarding the parking, I will address that specifically. The design review board ma
did hear this as a courtesy item, but it is not required for design review hearing prior to the use permit
but in order for them to get a better feel for what would be required when they get ready for permit, they
ask to go before the board. When the Design Review Board heard it, they had some architectural
requirements that they did ask for an addition as to what was being shown. Those requirements included
a greater height on the wall around the loading area, additional parapet around the roofline along the
northern facade and there was discussion regarding parking specifically, should they receive the
variance for parking if they would clear the area and reserve it for green space? In effect, I believe that is
what they are doing and they just haven't necessarily called it out on the site plan because everything
that is not parking or building at this point is green space.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I don't know what the appropriate time would be but I would like to get the input of the applicant,
perhaps after the staff's assessment because I guess my question with that is that if the applicant doesn't
require 100 spaces, if we don't condition for less than 100, then the applicant would have to ensure the
cost to build the full 100. I am interested to find out through the course of this discussion is whether or
not that applicant does indeed need and want 100 and/or if you would be more satisfied with fewer
parking spaces. I think the analysis says that the most employees that you would ever have on site
would be 70, so as you go through your dialog if you could speak to that, my perspective being that it
would save the applicant money and we could set that aside without that being a condition to build and
if we can save money I'd like to see us do that. The second is just through the course of this, it looks
like the arborist has been on site and there is a discussion that there is still a densely wooded area other
than what has already been cleared and I didn't see that as a condition to just ensure that the area
remained undisturbed. I realize that it is site specific but if we can confirm either from Lynn or from the
City Attorney, if to ensure that at no future time that it would become a disturbed site whether or not a
condition is speaking to that would be helpful or not. Those are the two things I would like to have
touched on.
Mayor Lockwood:
Does anyone else have any questions for staff? Bill?
Councilmember Lusk:
Lynn, in your analysis existing condition 2.a page 10 of 11, the second line shows December 11, 1998.
Is that Fulton County's receipt?
Lynn Tully:
Yes sir, that was the original receipted site plan.
Councilmember Lusk:
Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, I don't have any more questions for our staff so I would like to hear of those in support of this
application. Do we have a comment card?
City Clerk Gordon:
Yes, sir.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Pace 7 of 29
Harold Buckley, Jr., 1201 W. Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA:
As the record has explained, the staff is recommending approval of our application with conditions and
v.. with one exception, we accept the staff s recommended conditions and the one place we have a concern
we would like to request a slight modification. The condition that I am speaking of specifically is listed
in the staff report as Condition 4.e, It currently reads "at the time of development of the property to the
south, a 50ft access easement is required to provide inter parcel access to the subject's south property
line. Easement area shall be cleared and grated prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy."
Our concern, and it sounds as though our intent and staff s intent is the same. Our concern is that this
condition could be read to require us to provide our neighbor to the south with an easement and it takes
away our ability to full negotiate that easement, for example, we would want to negotiate an easement
where the property owner to the south is responsible for the cost of the driveway that is being provided
for their benefit. We would also negotiate an identification of us in case any claim came out of the
condition of that driveway and we would also negotiate the easement so that the property owner to the
south was responsible for maintaining the driveway. I understand that this is not inconsistent with the
staff s position, but I wanted to make sure that no one read that condition to say that you have to give
them an easement and that you don't have the opportunity to negotiate it. I would ask that the first
sentence be modified slightly to say that at the time of development of the property to the south, a 50ft
access easement as negotiated by the property owners is required. I think that with that additional
language we would get to the concerns that we have about that first sentence. Then the second sentence
says "easement area shall be cleared and grated prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy" and
I don't think it's clear which CO that is referring to, ours or the property to the south we would ask that
go" it be clarified to refer to the property to the south because if it is a requirement for us to do now, we may
clear it and find that the property to the south isn't developed for a number of years and then we have to
ir".. clear it again at a future date.
Mayor Lockwood:
At this point we should stop the clock and we can either hear the other person or we can ask questions
from the Council. Are there any questions from council?
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
As a matter of order, I don't know if we want to go ahead and hear that next speaker because they might
address assuming that that speaker has a presentation....
Mayor Lockwood:
We will listen to that next speaker and then have you come back and answer any questions.
Jim Croft, 2090 Coolidge Way, Acworth, GA:
Good evening Mayor and Council. I actually checked the box that I do not wish to speak. My
comments can be checked into the record, but I am the architect for the project and I would be happy to
answer any questions that Mayor and Council may have about the project. I do know the project
thoroughly.
mom Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, thank you. I will go back and see if there are any questions of Council for the applicant or the
applicant's representative.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 8 of 29
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
If it would be possible, if you could just speak to the parking discussion as to whether or not those 100 r„
parking spaces, do you and the applicant view that 100 as something that you indeed want to pursue or
were the discussions of the design review board of the courtesy review that ensued about perhaps
reducing that because you didn't need them thereby it would help save the applicant money, I don't
know how you want to address that but...
Harold Buckley:
The letter of intent is correct in that during the peak period on the property that are on the shift, the
number of people will not exceed 70. There may be some overlap during the shift change which would
be around 30 to an hour where there may be more than that. I would certainly would want to have
enough parking spaces to accommodate that. We will be concerned about going below the 100 space
number.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Okay, and again my purpose of bringing that up is because it was my understanding from the design
review board that the applicant at one point thought it would be a benefit and would actually help reduce
your cost. Short if it being a condition, just if it be the pleasure of this council as well as the applicant,
but I would ask because it is my understanding that site plan is still conceptional, that as you look at
those parking spaces and there is an opportunity to reduce the amount of asphalt and/or rather than have
30 of those spaces be traditional parking, perhaps you have some overflow that would help it be less cost
impactful to the applicant and also it would preserve some additional green space that, of course in some OR
future period, after this use is available, you could always go back and utilize it all. I would hate to see
us create additional asphalt which drives your cost higher if indeed the full complement of that 00
additional 30 would not be required. I don't know how we want to handle that with staff, but that would
just be a consideration rather than it have to meet the standards for all 100 parking spaces. The other
would be just as it relates to the tree coverage at the back which I believe, as I look at the site plan, is
still intended to be in remain and be an unimpacted buffer but because it is not a condition, if we could
just speak to that.
Harold Buckley:
Well, actually one of the things that we are asking for is to have our current site plan made a condition
of our zoning, so to the extent that we would deviate from that site plan in a significant manner, we
would certainly have to go back to the staff and most more likely than not come back before you.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Okay, with that in mind I would just like to ask staff if there would be anything that you would
recommend to help you confirm that the intent, just in case at some future time if you guys came back
for a zoning modification that we could at least reflect that the intent this evening, if we are to approve
this as reflected, would contemplate the opportunity for reduced parking or at least in a modified way,
depending on how staff would perceive that. Also that the actual buffer as shown would be intended to
remain just so that it becomes a matter of recommendation, I don't know that right now the analysis kind
of speaks to it, but there isn't a condition that makes clear that it's the intent of both the applicant and
the site plan.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Pace 9 of 29
Pp."
Mayor Lockwood:
My only comment to that too is that, and I believe the applicant has stated, that there looking to rezone
this based on this plan here. If you could address that, and then we can certainly address the parking but
I wouldn't be in favor of asking the applicant to go less parking then what they feel comfortable with
because...
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Neither would I, Mayor, and that wasn't the intent. The Intent was simply to say that if you indeed want
to build out close to the 100, is that for those first 70, maybe you meet a particular standard and maybe
its 80 or 90 of the 100, but for at least a portion of those, if indeed you think it's only going to be a rarity
if at all, is that the conditions were the approached for parking in order to save the applicant money, that
we make sure that we identify that staff would have the ability to modify the development standard of
that parking space. So it's not that you wouldn't have the ability, but maybe you have 10 or 15 of those
that are built slightly differently with less curb and gutter and with less asphalt which I think would
actually be a benefit of the applicant and it still gives you maximum flexibility. That was my intent.
Mayor Lockwood:
Karen?
Councilmember Thurman:
A couple of questions. 1., On 4.e, I think our whole reason for this condition is initially to make sure that
"""' we had the interparcel access and didn't have duplicate curb cuts? Is that correct between the things?
Lynn Tully:
Yes ma'am.
Councilmember Thurman:
Okay, he is stating that he wants it based on negotiating with the neighbor to the south. Negotiations
require two people to work together to come up with something. I would be a little bit hesitant to put
that in there because then it gives them the complete upper hand with that piece of property when clearly
it is our intent for them to have access to the property through that. I don't know how it can be worded,
but stating that they have the right to so based on negotiations is a little bit too broad for me.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, and I might want to clarify that too with Ken. Basically the reason for that is to have interparcel
access with the neck property owner, but to your point, they may have a different plan. Sometimes it
doesn't make sense to put an access point somewhere and then when it comes time to develop then it
really should be in another place. Ken, are you familiar .... or what are your thoughts? I can see both
sides of this where I can see Councilmember Thurman's point where if you tell someone in the future
that you have to get along and come up with an agreement, but I can also see the applicant's point too
not wanting to be locked into something that you have no control of and it's their property. Ken, do you
have any thoughts?
City Attorney Jarrard:
Well, Mr. Buckley are old hands at interparcel access. He knows what I'm talking about in another
jurisdiction, not this one. It's funny that this has come up this evening, I wasn't thinking about this. I
think the key, and Councilmember Thurman going back to your point, you don't want to instill in
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 10 of 29
something where negotiations are all one sided and put that into effect, I understand that. Mr. Mayor,
may I ask Mr. Buckley a question? ,,Ali
Mayor Lockwood:
Sure.
City Attorney Jarrard:
Mr. Buckley, what is the concern with respect to the negotiation? What do you think the topic that can
be negotiated would be?
Harold Buckley:
The concern would be that at the time, the property owner to the south is prepared to go forward with
either a zoning modification to either change their site plan or permanence. They would turn to us and
say they are ready to go and they have filed our zoning application or permit application and per your
condition of zoning, you are required to give us an easement. We don't have to negotiate with you, the
city has said that you have to give it to us, so give it to us. Then we wouldn't have the opportunity to
negotiate the protections that I had talked about. The identification, the maintenance, the construction
costs, but having been on the other side of the table, I do appreciate the concern that Council has raised,
and what I will submit to you is that because this zoning modification is a legislative action, if global
payments were to be completely beyond unreasonable, it is within your authority to go back in to this
zoning modification and revise that condition at a future time.
P"
Mayor Lockwood:
I was going to suggest too that there has to be some kind of language where it would have to be within hud
reason and if you had to get appraisers involved or whatever to come to reasonable terms.
Ken Jarrard:
Mr. Buckley, the access easement is on the site plan. Would your client agree to at least let the site plan
control on location? Once you have location and you have width, then the rest of Mr. Buckley's issues
are the only thing left to negotiate and it does give everyone a bit more of an equal playing field.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Then it would still be a required easement, it's just a matter of who is paying for it?
Mayor Lockwood:
But you're not blocking someone out of the property.
Harold Buckley:
We are willing to make that commitment that it will the location of the easement and they will not come
back and try and change the location of the easement.
Councilmember Thurman:
Could you reword this for us Ken?
Ken Jarrard: Now
At the time of development of the property to the south, a 50 foot access easement per the zoning site
plan, is required to be provided for interparcel access on the subject property south property line.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paize 11 of 29
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
If they inserted per the received or the revised site plan dated as of tonight or something?
Ken Jarrard:
That's fine. Basically, I'm just talking about after the words access easement per the revised....
Councilmember Thurman:
Well he had added some additional language that he wanted in there.
Ken Jarrard:
Well we can just take all of that out.
Councilmember Tart:
What is the date of that site plan?
Lynn Tully:
September 71n
Councilmember Lusk:
Mr. Buckley, would you state your proposed revision to the second sentence as regards to clearing and
grading?
Harold Buckley:
The easement shall be cleared and grated prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy on the
property to the south. If I may, with regards to the first sentence, I am still concerned that even if we say
per the zoning site plan, that gets us with regards to the location, but I would still ask the council to
clarify that first sentence to say that although we are required to provide an easement, we do have the
ability to negotiate the three issues that we talked about. The construction costs, maintenance, and
identification.
Ken Jarrard:
I am comfortable with that. Just as long as we have the location in there.
Councilmember Thurman:
Okay, I'm not comfortable with the cleared and grated prior the issuance of the certificate of occupancy
for the second building because if you get a certificate of occupancy then you still have to go in and
construct the actual road.
Mayor Lockwood:
What it would say is that the property to the south would not be able to receive their CO until that
easement and roadway and all of the construction is done.
Councilmember Thurman:
somm Okay, then it needs to say more than just clearing and grating because clearing and grating is a long way
from being a finished product to drive on.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paae 12 of 29
Carter Lucas: MR
If I may add to that, the condition was originally written such that this property would go ahead and am
clear and grate the easement so that the location and the elevations were established over to the property
to the south. We didn't have them to the extent to be paved and have a gutter but the point of that
condition was that when this property was grated, it would go ahead and establish that location for the
access to the property to the south.
Mayor Lockwood:
Ken, does that tie in with the location and the site plan but also with the applicant's concerns?
Ken Jarrard:
Yes sir.
Councilmember Lusk:
I tend to agree with Mr. Buckley that I would rather defer that clearing and grating until the time that the
property to the south has developed. There is no assurance of when that property is going to be
developed and I hate to see land cleared and laid empty for a number of years.
Councilmember Thurman:
We have already said that the easement is going to be site plan specific, then there is no need to clear it
because we have already designated where it is at least on the site plan. I think the reason for clearing
and grating is so you know where it will definitely be. PMR
Carter Lucas:
To some extent. You go back and forth a lot of times with these things when the property to the south
comes in to develop. If the access is already there, the issues have already been worked through. They
tie in and they move on. We will fight this battle at one point. We will either fight it now getting it
established or we will fight it when the property to the south comes in to establish that easement, to gain
access, to gain construction easements, all of those things will happen at that time. Our intent with the
original condition was to just simplify that process in the future and go ahead and get the majority of
that construction completed.
Ken Jarrard:
I was wondering, and Robyn actually had this idea, and it makes a lot of sense to me; to go head and get
the easement recorded. Once you get the easement recorded it will even the playing field as well. Once
you know your easement, you know the location, width, and they can discuss amongst themselves who
is going to do all of the various aspects of it and that will take away or minimize the concern about
going ahead and having to clear and grate it. We want to try and establish it now that it's a done deal
except for the issues of more of the practical things like who is actually going to do the build out or
things of that nature.
Councilmember Hewitt:
To me, and I know I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't it seem like that goes against exactly what the applicant
is concerned about.
Ken Jarrard:
Well they have a zoning condition that is going to require this. That is the end of the day and it seems to
me that the quicker it is recorded, the quicker it's done.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 13 of 29
Mayor Lockwood:
If it's recorded then the easement is recorded, but the cleared and grated is not done and the physical
drive is not in there, would that allow the applicant then, let's say someone purchased the property or the
owner of the property wanted to take advantage of that easement, would that put this property owner in a
position where they couldn't negotiate with them because they have to give them an easement?
Ken Jarrard:
It would depend on the language that we put in this condition.
Mayor Lockwood:
I think that's what the applicant's concern is. Correct? You don't want to come back later and have to
spend money on someone else's whim.
Harold Buckley:
Right, if we record the easement now, certainly. But even if we have a condition in place that says that
you have to provide the neighbor with an easement and they come to us and say that its time and we
need to do it, and we ask about the cost, maintenance, and the identification? Then they can say it was in
our zoning and its recorded and done. You can't sell the same easement twice. Once it's done, it's done.
Councilmember Thurman:
The easement is for the piece of property, it's not for the accruements on the property, correct?
Harold Buckley:
bw.- The easement is for that stuck piece that was dashed out at the end.
Councilmember Thurman:
Right, but it's not for the improvements on that, so they would still have to put in the curb, gutter, and
paving.
Mayor Lockwood:
I believe that's what's up in the air.
Ken Jarrard:
If the only requirement is convey the easement, then once they convey the easement their obligation is
done and if the southern property owner comes to them and says they want them to grate and pave it
then they can say no.
Mayor Lockwood:
What you're saying is that the southern property owner has the right to use this easement access, but
they would have to negotiate the price.
Ken Jarrard:
,�... I'm not sure that there would be much of a negotiation. They will have satisfied their obligation upon
the recording of the easement, that's the way I see it.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paee 14 of 29
Councilmember Lusk:
This curb cut that is shown here serves both properties. It serves this property and the south side. So the
south property owner is really getting the benefit of the curb cut. I think I would rather put in a little
access road there rather than deal with some governmental jurisdiction and put a curb cut in.
Harold Buckley:
You can say that when the property to the south comes to you for approval, you can put a condition on
them saying they have to get the easement from us and that way the timing lines up more cleanly than
now when we don't know when that property is going to come in.
Mayor Lockwood:
Is there a way to, and the only obstacle that I can see when playing devil's advocate, is there a way to
define a number that they will mutually have to come to an agreement on what a reasonable cause is and
if they have to use appraisers or estimators so that if it ever does come back in front of us or if it goes to
a court ... I'm going to assume that whoever will buy that south piece of property would have a
negotiation worked out before they actually bought it.
Ken Jarrard:
You would think that would be part of the diligence on the sale.
U
Mayor Lockwood:
How can we make something that the city feels comfortable and also what the applicant feels am
comfortable with?
Ken Jarrard:
It is always difficult to say something like this and you do the best you can and all we have to work with
is words as lawyers. You do the best you can. It seems to me that if we are going to go that route then
the zoning condition we were working on is maybe where we keep going and just say that the location
of the easement is going to be subject to the submitted site plan but the parties have to work out tall of
the topics that Mr. Buckley was talking about when it comes to the identity, payment, and who is going
to do the work.
Mayor Lockwood:
Would you be comfortable with that way?
Ken Jarrard:
Yes sir.
Mayor Lockwood:
Mr. Buckley?
Harold Buckley:
With that addition, I think that would get us where we need to be because it would help us level the
playing field between the two parties.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
At the risk that one party and the other don't in the future come to a conclusion, what would then dictate
a conclusion being arrived at?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 15 of 29
Harold Buckley:
I will give an example. Let's say the property owner to the south comes in and says they want an
easement from Global Payments and Global Payments says if you give us 20M you can have your 50ft
stub. Well, we still have this zoning modification in place where you as the City Council and Mayor
have the authority on your own volition to go in and modify this condition. You could put it the way
you want it now, but at least you wouldn't have disadvantaged us from the outside.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I'm just wondering if we don't need something in addition to the language that has already been
modified as something that captures that end potential just short of having to go back through this entire
process?
Mayor Lockwood:
It sounds like we can do this in good faith but there is always a chance... all we can do now is try and
plan for it to be handled appropriately. I guess the question would really be what happens if Global
Payments and the property owner of the south didn't see eye to eye on it, where would that go?
Ken Jarrard:
Eventually, you guys, Carter, and Lynn would begin to get phone calls and there will be a request that
someone probably from the City intervene to make both sides reasonable for fear of the sort of things
that Mr. Buckley is talking about right now, which is that you all have to open this matter back up again.
vw ' That's the way it would work in my experience.
"".' Councilmember Lusk:
By Granting this one curb cut, are we denying the property owner to the south any additional curb cut in
the future?
Carter Lucas:
On Deerfield. Both parcels have a condition for interparcel access. There is actually an existing curb
cut. This is the only median break there.
Councilmember Lusk:
So the city has some responsibility then in insuring that there is interparcel connectivity?
Carter Lucas:
The interparcel easement is not just that stuff. The interparcel easement will have to make that
connection down to Deerfield Parkway. It would have to cover not only the stub but the portion to try
and get them across the property into their access point.
Mayor Lockwood:
It's a plus for the south property owner too. Which hopefully will be able to negotiate and realize that it
may be cheaper than them running their own road and a curb cut if it could be had ... I guess I'm going
back to both sides of our legal and agree somewhere in the middle that we are protected as well as we
can be expected to and the applicant is protected as well, would you say that Ken?
Ken Jarrard:
I would. I think again I'll go back and say that 4.e needs to have a reference to the location of the
easement that appears to be agreed upon and to the extent that the concern is that there are going to be
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 16 of 29
04
other issues that arise between the southern property owner and this applicant that need to be negotiated,
we can just reach out and put that in the condition so when the southern property owner comes to the
applicant and asks for the easement, it at least will give the applicant the ability to rip out these
conditions and say no, that even the City Council anticipated that there will be other items that we
needed to negotiate and these are what they are.
Councilmember Hewitt:
Would you care to perhaps language that for us?
Councilmember Tart:
I have something drafted. Do you have something already drafted?
Ken Jarrard:
No, I don't.
Councilmember Tart:
I have a question before I read it and see if everyone agrees to it, the applicant had suggested that we
insert the phrase "on the property to the south" after that second sentence so that it reads "easement area
shall be cleared and crated prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy on the property to the
south." Is staff okay with that or not?
Carter Lucas:
Well, it was originally written to relate to the certificate of occupancy of this property. If we are talking
about the property to the south, I would just delete that sentence. Nod
Harold Buckley:
We would not be opposed that action of deleting the sentence.
Councilmember Tart:
Okay, so if staff is not opposed to that, it would now read, and you all tell me if you are both agreeable
to "at the time of development of the property to the south, a 50ft access easement as depicted on the
revised site plan dated September 7, 2010 is required to provide interparcel access on the subject
property's south property line. Relative to this easement, the applicant reserves the right to negotiate the
following three issues with the property owner to the south. Construction, maintenance cost, and
identification." That would be the end of the condition.
Harold Buckley:
That sounds acceptable to us and that works.
Ken Jarrard:
It does make sense, but as it got read I have a few more questions and again I don't want to muck it up
or over lawyer, but I guess the easement itself, and you don't think you have to say this, but the fact that
easement is supposed to adhere to the benefit of the southern property owner, it needs to be recordable
to things of that nature. Again, we can either go into that or just leave it and understand that everyone
gets what we are talking about, but there is supposed to be a beneficiary of the easement, that would be
the southern property...
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 17 of 29
Mayor Lockwood:
But isn't that understood?
Ken Jarrard:
Well, you would think so, but if you have done this long enough you will know that a lot of people can
think that everyone understands what that is supposed to mean, and then lawyers get a hold of it and
then no one knows what it means. The answer is yes, Mr. Mayor. I think, councilmember Tart, yours
was just fine with respect to what you added on there. I guess we would just have to act on good will of
the parties to get what the council has in mind. Quite frankly, we have created a record of it right now
by way of this dialogue.
Councilmember Lusk:
One last point, does recording of this easement assume that access to the south property cannot be
denied? And to Karen's point, prior to certificate of occupancy, the south property owner really needs
access as soon as the land disturbance permit is issued.
Ken Jarrard:
That of course gets to the issue of what is at the time of development?
Carter Lucas:
We took that piece of the certificate of occupancy out.
Ken Jarrard:
Ub-- Right, but the original language now says that at the time of development of the southern piece, does
that mean when the land development permit has been issued? Or does that mean when sticks and bricks
begin to go up? When is that exactly?
Mayor Lockwood:
Is it safe to say that the property owner from the south can't begin doing anything on their property until
that access is there?
Ken Jarrard:
Absolutely.
Councilmember Thurman:
I don't know how they would get to the property.
Harold Buckley:
Well they do have a right in, right out access.
Mayor Lockwood:
Again, I just don't want to over lawyer this and have no one satisfied. If there are other questions or
�.... concerns, but then we can go back and maybe the motion maker we can clarify Mr. Tart's statement and
confirm that the applicant and our City Attorney is okay with that. Do we have any other questions?
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I just wanted to come back to the point about flexibility within parking, and not to diminish the 100, and
what I'm wondering, between the applicant and the staff, Mrs. Tully, within the condition that exists that
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 18 of 29
ow
talks about the 100, could we insert something that would say something similar to "provide a minimum
of 100 parking spaces with the flexibility of staff working with the applicant to modify the standards to beg
allow for more pervious surfaces for a portion of the parking." Again, my intent is simply to say if you
guys find as you continue through this process, that between the 80th and 100th, if you would envision
that it would benefit you that you working with staff would then have that flexibility where as if we
don't modify it to that extent, you are forced under a certain development standard which is going to
raise your cost.
Mayor Lockwood:
I guess to clarify that, we need to make sure that Councilmember Bailey's, the city, and the applicant for
clarification, what I am hearing is that it kind of leaves it in the applicant's corner to build up to 100
parking spots, which I think is the maximum you want, but its under your view, is the applicant working
with the city? If you say we only need to do 80 right now, that allows the cities flexibility to grant them
to do less if they choose to, and then we can always look at other options. I know a lot of time it's more
expensive to do the more impervious so I don't want to add any additional costs to the applicant. If they
choose to do that, maybe industry standards maybe do less curb and cutter to offset the cost so that it's
not an additional cost but allows the applicant to do less if it works for them and they can always add up
to 100 after that.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Mr. Mayor, that is the intent and it, is also the intent to do it in such a way so that it preclude the
applicant from having to go through with your attorneys for a variance process. I am trying to give the 104
maximum flexibility with the potential for cost savings and a benefit to both the applicant and the city
with maximum flexibility. Wa
Harold Buckley:
I am okay with that.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
My question to staff do you agree with the way it was language or do you or Ken have a more appealing
way that you would want to phrase it?
Lynn Tully:
I would suggest that you ask the applicant then to provide a minimum of 80 parking spaces with up to
100 available with the difference to be either pervious or other optional types of paving systems as per
the director of development.
Mayor Lockwood:
The only problem I have with that is that is throwing additional cost burden on the applicant.
Lynn Tully:
But they would just have the option.
Mayor Lockwood:
Maybe if the staff can find that working with the staff and the applicant, maybe they can find a way to a.,,
save money on curb and gutter and maybe the pervious comes out to be a wash.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 19 of 29
M.4."
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
It may be that the applicant finds that as they continue through this process that you really don't want to
``"� build out to the full 100, you want that flexibility but it would be to your benefit not to build all 100.
You would still have the space available to allocate for that. I think we are all saying the same thing, but
the question is how to language it in a way that captures that.
Councilmember Hewitt:
Can we not just give the authority to the development director to instead of having to come back through
here so the director can say to nix the spaces....
Mayor Lockwood:
How about we state it to where the applicant has the ability to install up to 100 parking spots but they
also have the ability to work with the community development director to install less or alternative
parking on some of those spaces if mutually agreed upon.
Councilmember Thurman:
Do we have to put a minimum in there? Is that one of our zoning requirements?
Lynn Tully:
I would recommend we put a minimum or give a percentage of that 100.
so"" Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
So if we go back to the minimum of 80 with the flexibility up to 100 to either be the current standards
.�0 and/or alternative standards that would be mutually agreeable to both the staff and the applicant for
pervious approaches and/or other alternatives to be determined by those same parties. I think that's
what it is.
Mayor Lockwood:
I think that allows the applicant to work with staff if it benefits the applicant but it doesn't hamstring
them to only 80 spaces, but they have a maximum of 100. We can word that when we get to a motion.
Do we have any more questions? If not, we can open this up to a motion of some sort.
Motion: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Zoning Agenda Item ZM10-03/VC10-02, Requested
by Global Payments, Inc. located on Deerfield Parkway along the west side for a distance of
approximately 674.41 feet (11.62 acres). To Modify Condition 2.a (99Z-011, 99U-008, 99VC-007) to
replace the current conditional site plan, which was marked received by the Fulton County Environment
and Community Development Department on December 11, 1998 with a new site plan received by the
City of Milton Community Development Department on September 7, 2010. To delete zoning condition
3.b., parking shall be shared with adjacent property zoned C-1 (Community Business), pursuant to 99Z-
012, currently Zoned) O -I (Office -Institutional) Pursuant to 2007Z-019. To request a concurrent
variance to reduce the subject property's minimum on-site parking requirement from 122 spaces to 100
spaces (Section 64-1410). With the following additions:
1. To provide a minimum of 80 parking spaces at a paved standard with
*&Mm additional parking spaces to be constructed with options for design
standards as per the Community Development Director up to 100
parking spaces.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 20 of 29
2. Also to recommended condition number 4, to the owners agreement to
abide by the following requirements, dedications, and improvements.
Condition 4.e of staff's recommended conditions shall read: "At the time
of the development, of the property to the South, a 50 -foot access
easement as depicted on the revised site plan dated September 7, 2010 is
required to provide interparcel access on the subject's property south
property line. Relative to this easement, the applicant reserves the right to
negotiate the following three issues with the property owner to the South:
Construction, maintenance cost, and indemnification."
Second and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded this motion. The motion passed
unanimously 7-0.
2. Public Hearing for Possible Rescission and Reconsideration of Previous Council
Denial of Zoning Case RZ10-01 pursuant to Order of Remand.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1269)
(Lynn Tully,. Community Development Director)
Lynn Tully:
We are really looking for two motions here right at the beginning. If you would like to hear this item,
we need a motion for rescission for this item. I will leave that to the Mayor.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do I have a motion for rescission on this item?
Ken Jarrard:
Mr. Mayor, I would like to offer up this. Before we get into the rescission, I believe the rescission is a
zoning action. What I would request is two things from you. If I could go ahead and explain where I
think we are procedurally. As you know, this matter comes before the Council based upon an earlier
zoning action of denial that has then been challenged to the courts and pursuant to an order of the court,
entered on September 1St of this year. We are basically on what I would call a remand back to the City
Council for additional action. That remand runs for 60 days. The court did not give direction upon what
we do except to say that after 60 days, it's going back to the court to see where we are. That 60 days
will expire at the end of this month. Based upon some recent activity of which I am aware and basically
some additional options that potentially have come up, there may be an interest by the applicant and
perhaps even the council to have a little bit of additional time. In other words, to run this out further
than just the end of October. If this is the case, then what needs to happen tonight is that it needs to be
deferred. We will have to go ahead and get an order done, which we can do in the next couple of days. I
have received assurances from the applicant that if we defer this evening, that they would be happy to
agree to a consent order to extend it. So what we might want to do this evening, Mr. Mayor, is in light
of this and the representations that I am making to the Council, you might want to go ahead and hold the
public hearing this evening. We will hold another one if we do defer it, but hold it this evening and
allow the citizens that are here to speak and allow the applicant to speak and then at the end of it I would
request that you defer even the rescission until the next time it comes before this council which would
probably, and my request would be if you are comfortable with this, to defer it to November 15th, which
is the next council meeting where we can do this. Go ahead and have the public hearing, allow everyone
to speak, and then defer until November 15th. I think that would be consistent with at least the things
and the options that I am hearing.
ii
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 21 of 29
Mayor Lockwood:
With the process, should we open up the hearings as far as public comment and then if we have a motion
then a second to defer will go after public comment?
Ken Jarrard:
Yes sir, open the public comments first.
Councilmember Tart:
I just have one question, Mr. Jarrard. The motion to defer to November 15th, would that include a public
hearing as well? So it would be a motion to defer with a hearing for a possible rescission?
Ken Jarrard:
That would be fine and I think just to perfect the record yes, I would want that in there because there
will be another one.
Councilmember Lusk:
I want to be clear in this. If we go for a deferral, are we deferring the decision to rescind?
Ken Jarrard:
Yes, we would defer the whole thing. That is a great clarification, Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
Y.�.. Before I open up to public comment, I would just like to make a statement and say that as a lot of people
in here have a lot of concern about this case, and just so you know that for the council and myself, we
would like to let the citizens know that we are exploring every option. I think the applicant is exploring
every option. There are some options out there and I appreciate the fact that if we are able to explore
those further. Again, I am sorry if you have to come to this meeting and we have to defer it to another
time, but I think it is a healthy exercise. At this point, I would like to open it up to public comment.
Sudie?
City Clerk Gordon:
Our first public comment comes from Mr. Pete Hendricks.
Pete Hendricks, 6085 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 200, Sandy Springs, GA:
As we have gone through this, we have felt that we have explored and worked at every option that is out
there. With willingness towards being exhaustive and taking a look at anything and everything that
might get served up in conversation with staff, It would appear that there needs to be additional
consideration. We are happy to do that. I think you have seen in the applicant of total willingness to try
and work through all issues that have been performed. With that, we adhere to acknowledge as Ken has
indicated that we will lend ourselves to deferral to the November 15th date is what was mentioned and
we are in perfect agreement with that. The applicant is here, all of our professionals are here if you have
0." any questions of us we would be delighted to be responsive if you would like for us to come back and do
another show or presentation, we are happy to do that. Thank you.
City Clerk Gordon:
We have no more comment cards in support.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 22 of 29
Mayor Lockwood:
Let us go ahead and move on to opposition.
Phil Joseph, 13800 Oakmeade Trace, Milton, GA:
It may be that my comments are moot at this point. I am eager to see what the applicant comes back
with and I would love to stand in support of another alternative. I sent a note to the council and I can
read that into the record:
Dear Mayor and City Council,
As representatives of the Bethany Bend Community, we support responsible
development in the City of Milton with regards to RZ 10-01 we offer the following
recommendations. Rezone the parcel to C1 with identical restrictions as the CVS parcel across
the street to the north per case 2006Z-0096. These restrictions are also substantially the same as
those for the adjacent parcel which borders the applicant's parcel on the south and the east for
petition 85Z-0194. The excluded uses of the CVS property are as follows: Free standing food
restaurants with drive-thru, service stations, commercial uses, billboards, adult bookstores, adult
entertainment theaters, automotive repair shops, billiard/pool halls, cell towers, check cashing
business, free standing liquor stores, gun clubs, lingerie entertainment shops, massage parlors,
night clubs, nude dance clubs, and pawn shops. According to the zoning code, Chapter 64 article
1, service station means a use that provides for the sale of motor vehicle fuels or automotive
accessories and may provide minor repair and maintenance services. A service station shall be
limited to four or fewer bays excluding no more than one attached or detached bay for washing
cars. This would exclude the sale of motor vehicle fuels, which is a primary concern for the
community. With this exclusion, it satisfies the community and allows them many
opportunities for a viable business development. These would include services such as appliance
repair shops and would include computers or vacuum cleaners, catering limited to 1000 square
feet with no seating, financial institutions with no drive-thru, a hand man or maid service,
medical clinics, laundry mat or dry cleaners, personal services such as a hair or nail salon, pet
grooming with no overnight stay, school of business, or dance, music, personal trainer, or spa. It
would also include retail businesses such as a restaurant limited to 1000 square feet with no
seating such as Papa John's or Dominos, a florist, an art gallery, an antique shop, a bakery, a
boutique, cell phone store, consignment shop, new or used book store, photography studio,
printing shop of convenience like a Kinko's. We believe that our recommendation would allow
the applicant to develop this land in ways that it would be profitable to his business, interests,
and benefit the community. I have here a map which shows the locations of the property as well
as the property that CVS has right here across the street as well as the property right behind him
adjacent back here, and the restrictions that are currently in affect with these properties
surrounding them are the ones that are agreeable with the community and I think that it would be
very logical for the City of to have the same zoning and same restrictions for this parcel right in
the middle as it has for the ones around it. If the city were to do that, I think it would be very
acceptable to the community as well. I have some additional documentation I would like to
submit to the record if I can. a"
Heidi Sowder, 525 Sunflower Court, Milton, GA: "go
Good evening Mayor and Council. I would just like to say that I am very encouraged to hear that the
applicant is willing to work with the city to try and bring something to our community that is hopefully
acceptable to us residents. I think that the big underlying concern for me, because I'm not right at the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of 29
corner of Bethany but I navigate that intersection often, was the statistic that it's the number two
intersection for accident in the city of Milton. From the same time period from 2006 to 2008, it had 73
accidents with a traffic signal. If you compare that to Birmingham Highway and New Providence that
had 75 accidents without a signal is pretty significant. That was my big concern is that it's an odd
shaped intersection, it's a difficult parcel to navigate with big trucks, and I was very worried about the
safety especially given the fact that we have a new high school coming on and all of the kids that will be
walking or driving to school and we have two senior communities that are going to be built on Bethany.
There is a large one that is on the Forsyth side on Bethany and then we just rezoned a couple of years
ago a senior development right along Bethany across the street from that. We will have seniors and
students and there will be a lot more traffic on Bethany and that is one of my big concerns about traffic
and safety issues. Again, the proximity to residential. We were hoping in a neighborhood live/work
area, that the transitional use would be a lot less dense or intense than a gas station. We really do
appreciate the efforts being made by the City and the applicant.
Craig Kaufman, 555 Parkbrook Trace, Milton, GA:
This is becoming a process of government by attrition. We have good and valid reasons for not wanting
a gas station on an already bad corner. Why are our needs and wishes not being respected?
Linda Davis, 3325 Cedar Farms Court, Milton, GA:
While I realize that your email is probably flooded, after much brainstorming and thinking about how
this property can best meet parking space requirements for alternative businesses, I would like to
propose the following.
In many places where parking is an issue for business, the business is on the second floor and a parking
area is built under the main business floor. Because Milton has two story rule (which is great), a
building with a footprint of 3000 sq. feet would be able to provide enough parking under the business as
well as in the areas where parking was originally going to be provided. Thus, there is ample space for a
different kind of business to be put on this corner instead of a gas dispensing business.
Also, in all the reports on the CVS property, the county noted that high traffic for any "drive through"
type business was not good at this corner because the corner was problematic. A gas dispensing
business draws no less traffic than a drive through dry cleaner, etc.
City clerk Gordon:
That is all of the public comment in opposition that we have. We do have a late public comment card
from Lance C. Large if the Mayor and Council will entertain this.
Mayor Lockwood:
I'm fine with that.
Lance C. Large, 13770 Belleterre Dr. Milton, GA:
Good evening. Originally, I had spoken before in opposition of this application. Recently I looked at
this and I am doing this totally on my own, rarely does anyone ever show up in support of an applicant
but I have done lots of land use matters in my past. I am an engineer by trade. I thought I would at least
come out here and state that as far as the use of the site and I believe a lot of the opposition to this as far
as being a gas station, I have no objection to the use. As a matter of fact, I believe that a lot of folks that
are opposing this use are the same folks that would show up and use the facility if it were approved and
built. It has been my experience many times that facilities that have had a lot of opposition to see the
same folks that live in the area patronize the facility after it is constructed. I have met with the
developer and asked to see his plan and I think they have done a lot to try and improve and lessen the
intensity of the development. I realize with the development that traffic is a concern. I think that
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 29
especially if you are deferring this, I believe that there are items that could be done perhaps to try and one
extend the right turn lane at Bethany Bend road which would prevent people from wanting to cut
through the site on the Bethany Bend which has been expressed in the past. I think a way to get there,
and I am a tax paying citizen for the City of Milton, and I am here on my own volition and I have not
been asked to come here by the planner or any of his consultants to speak. I'm doing this on my own
volition but I am a tax paying citizen and I would like to see more commercial built in the City of Milton
to support a tax base to perhaps maybe the homeowners and landowners that live in the City of Milton
are not continued to have to bear the burden of the tax load, not only for Fulton County but also for the
City of Milton so I do ask that you take this into consideration. Maybe continue to work with staff and
look at other items that could mitigate some of the concerns and come to a reasonable conclusion that
maybe would grant this individual, the right to build a business that he feels is suitable for the location.
I don't believe he is trying to build something that is destined to fail. I definitely don't want that and I
have expressed that opinion before. If they can build a successful business that is a contributor to the
community, especially from a tax base standpoint, I am in support of that. I appreciate the chance to talk
tonight. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
Alright, I will now close the public hearing. The discussion before we opened public comment was the
interest in about the city staff and I believe council as well as the applicant in a 30 day deferral until
November 15th? Is that correct? Just to clarify, we would go through the entire process that we would
have tonight with the rescission if we voted on a rescission and then a reconsideration. With that, I will
open it up to Council. Alan?
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to Defer Agenda Item No. 10-1269 Zoning Agenda
Item R710-01 until November 15, 2010 Regular Council Meeting. Councilmember Zahner Bailey ""'"
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Mayor Lockwood:
I would just like to thank the Citizens for their input and the hard work of our staff and the willingness
of the applicant for going out of their way to work something out. Thank everyone for that.
Approval of An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 58, Utilities, of the City of Milton
Code of Ordinances to Establish Commercial Car Wash Water Recycling
Requirements; to Repeal Conflicting Provisions; To Provide for Severability; to
Provide for an Effective Date; and for Other Purposes.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1254)
(Discussed at September 13, 2010 Work Session)
(First Presentation on October 4, 2010 Council Meeting)
(Ken Jarrard, City Attorney)
Ken Jarrard:
• You have the proposed ordinance in front of you.
• This is something we have been directed to adopt by the metro district with respect to water
conservation measures.
• It has been the subject of a work session.
• This is key provision for all NEW bays must install operational recycled water systems.
• That phrase is defined on page 1.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 25 of 29
Councilmember Tart:
• I have a board appointee that is the owner of a car wash in Milton and she recycles water.
• Instead of redefining everything using different words, could we just include that we are in
agreement with the requirements of S13466.
• The city would not run into any language conflicts that could invalidate the city's ordinance in
the future.
Councilmember Thurman:
• I would like our definitions to mirror those that are in the senate bills.
Ken Jarrard:
• We can defer it to the first meeting in November.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to Defer Agenda Item No. 10-1254 to the November
1, 2010 Regular Council Meeting. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously 7-0.
2. Approval of An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 62, Vehicles for Hire, Article II,
Taxicabs, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1255)
ORDINANCE NO. 10-10-79
"y"" (First Presentation on October 4, 2010 Council Meeting)
(Ken Jarrard, CityAttorney)
ftwo
Ken Jarrard:
• We have language in our current ordinance that addresses these issues.
• The city manager and I thought bringing back a new ordinance would make sense.
• Our previous code was not obvious enough to make the distinctions that we needed.
• The application will be made with the city police department.
• This is not a driver certification or the vehicle.
• They have to have an office in a commercially zoned area.
• Have to have a public phone number.
• The insurance requirement is critical.
• Taxi cab has to be permitted for the vehicle.
• The police department will permit the vehicle.
• No taxi cab permit shall be issued for a vehicle with a model year more than 6 years old.
• It has to have more than 3 days not including the driver's door.
• There must be a meter.
• There must be a dry place for luggage.
• Various information must be posted.
• The driver's permit will also be issued by the police department.
• They must have a current class C license.
• Be competent.
,,ib" • Must be familiar with the traffic laws.
• Provide authorization to enable to city police department to background investigation.
• There has to be information located within the cabin of the cab.
0 One has to have a map or street guide.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 26 of 29
• Name and a photograph of the driver.
• Once you grant the license, it's not permanent if the driver does anything to violate the laws.
Councilmember Thurman:
• If we get a taxi cab at the airport and doesn't have an office in Milton, he has to drop off at the
city limit.
• It reads that if you operate the vehicle within the city.
Ken Jarrard:
• We might want to clean that language up so that it is more clear about being able to drive in the
city.
Councilmember Lusk:
• What about animal drawn cabs.
Ken Jarrard:
• It is not addressed.
• It is limited to motor vehicles.
• We should get this on the books and then we can amend it if needed.
• One recommendation, prior to operating any taxi cab, that phrase can be taken out.
• OCGA 36-60-25"All operators" take out the next line "shall apply for and obtain...."
Councilmember Lusk:
• In regards to insurance, does this comply with other jurisdictions out there that provide this tow
service?
• It seems like low limits.
• What issues would we have for requirements of speaking English?
Ken Jarrard:
• These will be the minimum limits.
• We tried to capture the minimum required by law.
• I want to make sure that a language requirement would rationally be linked back to the
competent section to perform this function.
Motion: Councilmember Tart moved to Approve Agenda Item No. 10-1255 with the following deletion
of the phrase:
1. Prior to operating any taxi cab within the city or allowing any driver to
operate a taxi cab within the city under section 62-20 Paragraph a.
Vote: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0.
3. Approval for the Removal of Billy Lovelace Hauling from the List of Approved Solid
Waste Haulers for the City of Milton Due to Non -Compliance with the Ordinance.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1140)
(Public Hearing Deferred on May 17, 2010)
(Public Hearing Deferred on June 21, 2010)
(Public Hearing Held on August 16, 2010)
(Matt Marietta, Fire Marshal)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 27 of 29
Matt Marietta:
M N • After our meeting on August 16, we were provided with a check to meet the first quarterly
payment.
• That check bounced and came back with insufficient funds.
• She identified that there would be insufficient funds and requested that we not deposit the check.
• She stated she would provide a cashier's check.
• The check never arrived.
• She called approximately three weeks after the hearing she stated that she was no longer
associated with Billy Lovelace Hauling.
• We have yet to receive any of the monthly payments.
• I have not spoken with Mr. Lovelace and he has not responded to any contact.
• I am comfortable to say that we did try and work with Mr. Lovelace and he was non-compliant.
Councilmember Thurman:
• Will we still try and collect for the taxes for the last few years?
Matt Marietta:
• Yes ma'am.
• I believe I would have to refer to our attorney for that information.
• GW Lovelace is a separate hauling company and they have stated they are not affiliated with
Billy Lovelace Hauling.
• They are a separate entity.
• I get calls from other companies that want to take over Mr. Lovelace's previous territory.
• We will take the contact information down from the website.
• I will work with Jason to help notify the public of the other providers.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to Approve Agenda Item No. 10-1140 for the
Removal of Billy Lovelace Hauling from the List of Approved Solid Waste Haulers for the City of
Milton Due to Non -Compliance with the Ordinance. Councilmember Tart seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously 7-0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. A Resolution to Adopt the North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1270)
RESOLUTION NO. 10-10-160
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
Carter Lucas:
We are here to bring forward the final North Fulton Transportation Plan.
We have had lots of meetings and public input over the last year.
We have come to the conclusion that the transportation is not for each jurisdiction to try and solve.
MOM This is more of a regional issue.
We all need to work together.
This plan has been reviewed by staff and we have found it to be in compliance with our own
transportation plan that was passed last year.
We are recommending tonight that we approve the plan.
If you have any questions, I can take them.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pra
Page 28 of 29
Councilmember Thurman:
Has this changed since our last presentation?
Carter Lucas:
This plan is consistent with what you have seen previously.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
What will we do for funding?
When do we anticipate the evaluation will come to a conclusion to know what gets funded?
I want to thank all staff and citizens that has been involved.
Carter Lucas:
We will have a draft regional transportation list.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to Approve Agenda Item No. 10-1270.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0.
2. Approval of Agreement for Sale of Real Property between the City of Milton,
Georgia and Wooden Cross Investments, LLC, for property located at 13690
Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1271)
(Ken Jarrard, City Attorney)
Ken Jarrard:
• This is an agreement for a sale of reality.
• This total purchase price is $1,396,000 for the property.
• We have a 90 day due diligence period to get out of this contract.
• This is a standard contract for acquisition.
• We can hold a public hearing about this acquisition if wanted.
• We anticipate a closing of 120 days from now.
Councilmember Lusk:
• Do we have a plan for checking the land?
Ken Jarrard:
• Yes, we are planning to do another survey.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to Approve Agenda Item No. 10-1271.
Councilmember Tart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS (None)
STAFF REPORTS
Lynn Tully:
0 Cyndee Bonacci asked to present an unpublished staff report.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 29 of 29
Cyndee Bonacci:
• We had our Mayor's run and we had a total of 14 sponsors this year and 110 registered runners.
• We had nice weather but the run went really well.
• We have some leftover shirts that we will be selling along with Milton Roundup shirts at the
roundup.
• The committee for the Mayor's run will present the check at the city for all of the donations that
were collected.
• We do have the Milton Roundup this weekend at Birmingham United Methodist Church.
• We have 65 vendors and 21 sponsors.
• We have two kids areas, two entertainment areas, pony, hay, and helicopter rides.
• We have a Milton public safety softball game.
• We will have a silent auction.
• We encourage people to come out if they want a t -shirt from the roundup if they bring two
canned goods.
• Our intergovernmental agreement with Fulton County Schools is coming along.
• We will have draft in two weeks of that agreement.
• There has been two more schools showing interest in exploring our options.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (None)
op'" ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 10-1272)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved Adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 8:18pm.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Date Approved: November 15, 2010
Sudie AM Gordon, City Cler L Joe Lockw Mayor