HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 10/18/2007 - MINS 10 18 07 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 1 of 25
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 Council Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on October 18, 2007
at 7:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Mayor Lockwood introduced Charles Browning, a seminary student, who gave the invocation.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
City Clerk Marchiafava called the roll.
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey,
Councilmember Bill Lusk, Councilmember Tina D’Aversa, Councilmember Neal O’Brien, and Councilmember
Rick Mohrig.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-396.
Staff would like to request the following changes to the Meeting Agenda:
1. Add Emergency Watering Ban Ordinance to New Business;
2. Add Watering Ban Ordinance to First Reading; and
3. Remove Telecommunications Ordinance from Unfinished Business.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve the Meeting Agenda as amended.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Todd Anderson, 15390 Laurel Grove Drive, Milton, stated that his concern was about the curve on Dinsmore
Road where he was involved in a bad accident and asked that something be done about that intersection. Also, he
pointed out that people are still watering their lawns during the evening.
Leon Cole, Jr., 16700 Birmingham Hwy, Milton. His concern was the Public Comment cards and the new
regulations pertaining to zoning issues.
Jon Carroll, 2140 Country Ridge Rd., Milton. His concern was the water conditions and if the City was going to
become an information hub for ways to conserve and address these issues for the future.
Lisa Cauley, 14555 Freemanville Road, Milton. Her concern was the high school and middle school location on
Freemanville Road and the additional traffic problems these will cause.
City Clerk Marchiafava said that completes Public Comment.
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 2 of 25
Mayor Lockwood stated there are no reports and presentations.
CONSENT AGENDA
City Clerk Marchiafava read the Consent Agenda as follows:
1. Agenda Item No. 07-397, Approval of the Financial Statements for the period ending September 2007.
2. Agenda Item No. 07-398, Approval of the August 16, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes.
3. Agenda Item No. 07-399, Approval of the September 6, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes.
4. Agenda Item No. 07-400, Approval of the September 13, 2007 Special Called Meeting Minutes.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Lusk
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ZONING AGENDA
City Clerk Marchiafava read the Zoning Rules.
Mayor Lockwood asked City Attorney Mark Scott to address Mr. Cole’s concerns before the zoning items are
addressed.
City Attorney Scott:
When the City was started in November, the City adopted a comment card and this was just as the other new
cities had adopted. We realized in August of this year, after Mr. Cole and he had had an email exchange
regarding this subject that we were potentially operating (and no actual violations had occurred), but there was a
potential with the O.C.G.A. 36067A-3 and 4. This is a part of the zoning procedures law and part of the law that
governs you in other matters, such as recusing yourselves from zoning issues at times.
The State Statute requires that if anyone has made a contribution of $250 or more to any one of the
Councilmembers, then this has to be disclosed not just on the night of the meeting, but they have to disclose this
within 5 days of the first City Board or Agency considers the application. In our case this is the Planning
Commission. This does not apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals because those are not rezoning applications. It
only applies when someone wants to change the zoning category of a piece of property, such as AG-1 to R-4, etc.
If this were a City of Milton regulation, then he would recommend it be changed. However, this is a State Statute
and we have to live with it. The applicant has to disclose this in their initial application. All filings for the City
are to be filed with the City Clerk’s office. You can do this with one of our comment cards or through an email,
fax or letter to the City Clerk and this will satisfy the five day rule.
You will also have to fill out another comment card the night of the rezoning case if you wish you speak on that
item. This information needs to be put on the website and also through the media to notify the public of these
new requirements. These only apply to the Planning Commission and to the City Council because they are the
only two entities who consider rezoning applications.
(Note: Zoning Items are typed verbatim.)
City Clerk Marchiafava:
Read Agenda Item No. 07-388, RZ07-012 - 980 Birmingham Road - To rezone from C-1 to C-1 to allow the
existing wine store to sell liquor/spirits not to exceed 30% of its total floor area (Second Reading).
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 3 of 25
This is coming to you with a recommendation from the Community Development Department for denial based on
clear policy set by the previous 2004 rezoning on this property. Our Senior Planner, Robyn MacDonald, will give
you a rundown on the case report.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald:
As a side note to the item we just talked about our notice that we give to our adjoining neighbor for each rezoning,
it does have that caveat on the bottom of it for information. Regarding this petition, the 8.5 acre site is located at
the NE intersection of Birmingham Highway and Birmingham Road. It is zoned C-1 pursuant to Z0443 and the
site is currently developed as a retail office shopping center that includes a Publix grocery store and other smaller
retail and service uses within the C-1 district. Regarding the public participation on August 22, 2007, the
applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information Meeting held here at City Hall. There were two
members of the community in attendance. Those individuals did not express any specific concerns with the
proposed project. Regarding public comment, Staff has received several emails and letters in opposition to the
sale of liquor within the wine store which have been distributed to the Council.
Also before you that was distributed is the applicant's Public Participation Plan which includes a signed petition in
support of the request. Based on existing policy not to allow liquor package stores on the subject site pursuant to
Z04-043 and Z04-116 located on the SW corner of Birmingham Highway and Hickory Flat Road and east of
Birmingham Highway south of that corner, it is Staff's opinion that the proposed change in use is not suitable for
the subject site. Whether there is other existing or changed conditions affecting the use in development of the
property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the proposal. The Fulton County
Board of Commissions approved the existing C-1 zoning pursuant to Z04-043 which did not allow liquor package
stores on the subject site. In addition, the Board of Commissions approved the mixed use development pursuant
to Z04-116 located to the south and southwest of the subject site which also does not allow liquor package stores.
Staff notes that there during the public hearing for Z04-043 explanation for the subject site to the Board of
Commissioners on November 3, 2004, it was stated that within Condition 1(a) that liquor stores except for wine
stores were to be excluded. Although this exact condition to allow wine stores was not reflected in the approved
zoning conditions, it is Staff's opinion that a wine store is permitted for the site but without any liquor sales. The
applicable license to sell liquor must meet different standards than a license to sell beer and wine and, therefore,
liquor cannot be sold under the same type of license as beer and wine. In conclusion, Staff recommends that the
request for rezoning to allow the sale of liquor and spirits not to exceed 30% of the floor area within the Barn &
Bottle Shop is denied based on current policy on the subject site as well in the immediate area. The City of
Milton Planning Commission recommended denial of the request with a vote of 4-3 on September 25, 2007.
Applicant Tim Allen, 980 Birmingham Road, Milton, GA:
My wife and I are the owners of the Barn & Bottle Shop which is an upscale wine store. I would like to reserve 4
minutes for rebuttal at the end before I get started. My wife and I have lived right over the county line in
Cherokee County for 11 years where we chose to raise our family. We have worked in public service all of our
lives. I retired after 13 years with the Atlanta Police Department as a police sergeant to open the wine store. My
wife is current employed and has been for 17 years for the federal government. Our idea for this store is a
concept that we came up with after we researched a business opportunity that we felt we wanted to do because we
love wine and the wine business and the things that come with it. We researched some businesses in some areas
similar to Milton similar to the Birmingham development and found one in Sandestin which is in an upscale
public shopping center. The concept of the store is it is a wine store. Everything about it is wine, but when you
go to the back of the store there is an accessory inventory of liquor that is strictly top shelf stuff just for the
community to have somewhere to go, so we brought this proposal to A.G. Armstrong for our concept for the
business. At that point, they took that concept to the Birmingham Planning Committee, came back to us and said
that the Planning Committee would support that type of concept and that is when we signed our lease and started
getting our business together. It was not until we came to the application portion of the alcohol license that we
realized it was a zoning issue on the liquor side because it was zoned against a traditional liquor store.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 4 of 25
After we opened the store, we started getting bombarded by our customers and other patrons and development
coming back to us and asking us about where is the 30% accessory liquor you were talking about. We wanted to
get an idea of what the community felt before we even wasted anyone's time with a rezoning, so we put a petition
out. Within one week, we had over 100 signatures from customers and patrons in the development. That is pretty
good since we only average about 15 customers a day over a six day period. At that point it showed there
obviously was a demand and a strong request for us to do this so we started the rezoning process. Some things I
want to point out about this concept and this accessory liquor sale is that we are asking for 30% maximum floor
space at the back of the store, not maximum inventory. No floor stacks of liquor and do not want the liquor to
even be seen from the front of the store. This protects me, the community and everybody else involved from this
store or if I sold it or closed it and someone reopened it, it keeps them from turning it into a traditional liquor
store. Furthermore, there are some other concerns where people may think well if we give him this liquor license
to sell accessory, what about Publix, what amount restaurants and all of that. Restaurants have different
requirements and it is against state law to sell liquor in grocery stores. Once a liquor license is issued to the Barn
& Bottle Shop, there are state and local laws that will prohibit any liquor store or any other type business coming
in that area just because there is not enough distance requirements according to law so there is no way for this to
do anything but its original intent which was the original concept seven years ago when we started on this venture
to open this business. I think it is a win-win for the community to give something that right now they have to go
out of the City of Milton some 10-15 miles away to some stores to buy any type of top shelf liquors. It is great for
the development because it goes with the theme of the development, being a destination for the community not
only for the Milton side but on my side of Cherokee County. There are also a lot of Cherokee County residents
that come there. Also for the city and the increase in sales tax in revenues that is currently going outside of the
city right now. It also allows me as the business owner to give my customers something they have requested. I
do not want a traditional liquor store in the area.
Greg Ness (for Applicant), 6400 Powers Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA:
I just want to just reemphasize what Tim has told you. It is a good solid concept that goes with the A.G.
Armstrong development. He is coming to you with further restrictions of no shelve spaces, a very limited amount
of space in the back of the store. (Showed photos of store from slide projection presentation).
City Clerk Marchiafava:
That concludes public support. Now moving to opposition. The first is:
Brenda and Dr. Rob Lafferty, 16025 Birmingham Highway, Milton, GA (Opposition). She would like her
comments read into the record:
“My wife and I own 9.5 acres on Birmingham Highway that is approximately 100 yards from the Barn Bottle
Shoppe. We are very opposed to any change in the zoning of the Barn Bottle Shoppe. When Mr. Allen opened
the store he knew the zoning would not let him sell liquor. He was very cognizant of the fact that the local
associations were very opposed to having a liquor/package store in this area. It seems now that his plan was to
open a wine store with the intention of trying to slip in the ability to sell liquor when no one was watching. Well,
we are watching and we do not want a liquor store in our area. It never ceases to amaze me that businesses open
in an area and then try to rezone their establishment so they can sell or perform some sort of service that they
implied they would not do when they were initially given their business permit. "Don't worry! It is not going to
be a liquor store. It is a high-end wine store." The clientele and traffic that is attracted to a liquor store is not
what we are trying to achieve in the Birmingham community.”
Russell Loggins, 15915 Birmingham Highway, Milton, GA (Opposition):
My name is Russell Loggins. I live next door to the Publix Shopping Center at 15915 Birmingham Highway. I
have lived in the Birmingham community for 74 years. We don't want a liquor store next to us. The owner of the
store lives in Cherokee County. I am a citizen of Milton and I am asking you to vote against putting a liquor store
in our neighborhood. Thank you.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 5 of 25
Paul Moore, 15290 White Columns Drive, Milton, GA (Opposition):
I am here tonight strictly as an individual and do not represent any other official capacity. I am here tonight to
represent myself as I was part of the citizen planning committee that worked with A. G. Armstrong in excess of
two and half years in working on the Birmingham Crossroads. I sat in those meetings week after week in excess I
would say of 50 meetings in the course of those two years to ensure that we pounded out an acceptable conclusion
at the four corners. It was a four corner solution. After working on this actually in excess of eight years starting
back in the days of Bob Fulton, we tried to envision was what was going to be an appropriate land use for this
area. One of the things we envisioned for this small community equestrian area that was it was going to be
friendly to the neighborhoods and the wants and desires of the citizens for this area and the vision is working. We
envisioned small antique shops, small locally owned businesses, small restaurants, white table cloth restaurant,
and those things are happening today. One of the concepts we discussed was a wine and cheese experience store
and that is what Mr. Allen has brought forward and we applaud him in complying so far with what was part of
that vision and that was an upper end wine store that perhaps could have wine tasting that could be beneficial and
educational as well as providing the opportunity for purchase. What absolutely was not a part of this plan was the
inclusion of liquor. That was a condition that at one point and one point only was discussed with A.G. Armstrong
that as a condition of zoning where there was an attempt to reach compromise, there were other conditions given
up by the citizens of this area that had to do with density, placement, size of other buildings on the property,
including Publix as an example, in compromise to ensure that no liquor was a part of this. Over 1,000 signatures
were taken to the Board of Commissions in those 8 1/2 years of trying to make sure this vision was going to be
withheld.
These 100 signatures tonight in Mr. Allen's hands are absolutely not representative of what the community has
said in over 8 1/2 years. The wine store is certainly welcome here, but there is an exception from the community
that you will uphold what is the condition of zoning that was approved by the Fulton County Board of
Commissions, the zonings were adopted by us as the City of Milton, and I would encourage you to uphold those
zonings especially in these times where it is so important that you send that message that you are going to uphold
those policies and procedures and vote no tonight. Thank you.
Kurt Nolte, 825 Dockbridge Way, Milton, GA (Opposition):
My biggest question is what has changed? We have had hundreds of citizens, residents and voters of this area that
have put hundreds of hours through public meetings, through various meetings over the last eight years to identify
and outline the Birmingham Master Plan. The end result from these meetings was "no" we do not want a liquor
store as part of that development, absolutely not. I think the community spoke very loudly and clearly and am
adamant still that we do not want a liquor store up there. One of the questions I have is how many people on the
petition are actually Milton residents? The people that were involved in the Birmingham Master Plan were
residents of Milton. During the negotiations of that, the developer was full aware and you can see it on that.
There were certain zoning conditions. To now come back less than two years afterwards and trying to change it is
not right.
One of things I want to say is as a city we are still defining our reputation, and the more of these exceptions we
approve, the more are going to come before you. I think if Milton City Council gets a reputation for listening to
the votes, following the policies that are in place and voting accordingly, you will get less and less exceptions
coming before you. Too many people worked two hard over the last several years to create what we currently
have as the Birmingham Master Plan which is working. Realtors are posing that as a unique advantage for people
to want to move into the area. Please do not let the efforts of those people down and please do not grant this
request.
Russell Loggins, 15915 Birmingham Highway, Milton, GA (Opposition). [Comments read into record by City
Clerk]
“My name is Russell Loggins. I live next door to the Publix Shopping Center at 15915 Birmingham Highway. I
have lived in the Birmingham Community for 74 years. We do not want a liquor store next to us. The owner of
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 6 of 25
the store lives in Cherokee County. I am a citizen of Milton and I am asking you to vote against a putting a liquor
store in our neighborhood. Thank you.”
Betty Loggins, 15915 Birmingham Highway, Milton, GA (Opposition). [Comments read into record by City
Clerk]
“My name is Betty Loggins and I have lived on my property that is next door to the Publix Shopping Center at
15915 Birmingham Highway. I have lived in the Birmingham Community for 51 years. We do not want a liquor
store next to us. The owner of the wine shop knew that a packaged liquor store was not allowed in the shopping
center. He leased the building for a wine shop. He knew about the legal contract with Fulton County that was
signed by the developer of the shopping center. That contract agreed to a certain condition that would not allow
packaged liquor to be sold in his shop. He is asking for 30% floor space to sell liquor and thinks that would not
make it a liquor store. It does not really matter what percent of floor space he wants, even 1% would make it a
liquor store. He must get a liquor license no matter what the percent. A city park is going to be developed right
across from our property. That park will be used day and night by a lot of children and adults. There could be an
entrance to the park right across the road from the wine shop. I do not think that having a liquor store that close to
a city park is a good idea. Please do not force this liquor store upon our rural community. Please vote to deny it.
Thank you.”
Kim Horne, 415 Wade Glen Court, Milton, GA (Opposition):
As you have heard, the conditions of zoning for the Birmingham Crossroads that were approved by Fulton County
in 2004 and then adopted by Milton were very important. One of the major conditions was the prohibitive uses.
The prohibitive uses were put in place as others have said to keep the Birmingham Crossroads as a quaint village
type community not as just an anywhere shopping center. I live in the area and truly have a vested interest in
what establishments are in the Birmingham Crossroads. I understand there is a petition before you with
signatures and I would venture to think that most of the people that signed the petition are not actually residents of
Milton. There do not have the same vested interest in the Birmingham Crossroads as those of us that actually live
in the area. The conditions that were approved were very clear. The details of what was not allowed were also
very clear.
City Clerk Marchiafava: Announced time was up for opposition. Called first person for rebuttal.
Applicant Tim Allen:
I just want to say that I appreciate all the comments, but the one thing I keep hearing that is troublesome and I am
trying to get the point across, is that we are not a package store and not going to be a package store. We are a
wine store. If you have ever been in the store you can see we are all about the wine. You are not going to see
anything in the store that is going to resemble a liquor store or a traditional package store. The area we are talking
about is at the back of the store (referencing from diagram). I do not want a package store and am not trying to
slide in a package store. We are a wine store and it is a wine experience. On the wine and cheese side we cannot
yet have wine tasting because Milton does not yet have a wine tasting license developed yet, but I think they are
working on that. This has been a request from our customers in development in our store and the surrounding
businesses. We put our information out everywhere and everybody has come back and said that this is what they
were wanting. This 30% was brought back to me from the Birmingham Planning Committee from A. G.
Armstrong, so it was out there and that is why we signed our lease. Again, I really want to get away from the
traditional package store and we are nowhere close to that nor will we ever be with the 30% and the other
restrictions that we have requested.
City Clerk Marchiafava: If there are any last comments from opposition, they have a few seconds left.
Paul Moore, 15290 White Columns Drive, Milton, GA (Rebuttal):
I would like to address Mr. Allen's comments. I would agree that at one point coming out of the Planning
Committee and A. G. Armstrong, that at one time there was a discussion about wine and liquor. However, that
was taken off of the table and if A.G. Armstrong recommended that to Mr. Allen, it was unfortunate, but it
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 7 of 25
absolutely was not a condition of zoning as it went forward to the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. They
approved the zoning without that as a part of the final written policy. Thank you.
City Clerk Marchiafava: That completes public comment.
Mayor Lockwood: Called for Council discussion and state he would state with Councilmember Thurman and
move down.
Councilmember Thurman:
To be honest with you, I do not think this is a place where we need to make an exception to the rule. I feel like
the condition of zoning was put into place and if the condition was to be changed, it would need to go through the
whole comprehensive plan process and be changed rather than this being an exception to it.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I would concur with Councilmember Thurman's statement and I can reflect because I was involved in the
conditions of zoning and the Birmingham Master Plan and I do believe that staff has done a thorough job of
reviewing those historic policies and the policies, of course, were very clear. The record reflects what indeed was
a legal condition of zoning and I think it is important that we uphold those conditions of zoning. I know that staff
went back and re-reviewed the minutes from the Board of Commissioners and those conditions were quite clear
and I think we have also heard this evening that the Planning Commission also recommended denial. I would
concur that any changes or exceptions need to go back through a fully vetted process that would truly engage the
public. It was never the intent for liquor to be sold and I would like to restate that I believe from a leasing
perspective, the lease was signed I believe after the conditions of zoning were in place. Again, I think it is
important for the public and everybody to always be able to reflect on those conditions of zoning because
obviously those were adopted as a matter of policy. Thank you.
Councilmember Lusk:
I agree with Councilmember Thurman also. I think an issue like this needs to be brought up when we do review
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I would not be in favor of an ad hoc change to our current land use plan and
zoning we have in place at this time.
Councilmember O'Brien:
I would echo those comments and I think it helps everyone inside and outside of the city if we can consistency
and I would like to say that it is nice that people on both sides of this issue have very respectfully expressed their
concerns and it sounds like the gentlemen and his wife run a nice business and is welcome in the community as it
is, but I was particularly struck by one gentleman who spoke of fewer exceptions is going to yield fewer requests
and I believe that is true.
Councilmember D'Aversa:
I certainly agree with my colleagues here that we are not going to allow any exceptions and I hope that when we
do go back through our comprehensive land use planning review which we are embarked on currently, that we are
still very mindful of the issues that have been posed here tonight and through a number of emails that have been
received as a council during the last couple of weeks with regard to this rezoning. I understand the issue here
before us tonight is an issue of not allowing something that is disallowed by the zoning currently in place, but I
think we have to be mindful of when we do go back through that process of how we make changes and how we
implement our zoning requirements for this area, so that we preserve this area and all of the hard work this group
has done.
Councilmember Mohrig:
I also echo the comments I have heard. I think now is the time that we uphold the plan and is not the time to
make a spot change. I think that is what we would be doing if we make an exception here. We would be opening
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 8 of 25
up the doors as another gentleman has said, so I think we should go with the current plan and the chance that they
could look at a change would be when we do the comprehensive plan.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember D’Aversa moved to deny RZ07-012, 980 Birmingham Road to rezone from
C-1 to C-1 to allow the existing wine store to sell liquor/spirits not to exceed 30% of its total floor area.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion
passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-389.
RZ07-016 - Text Amendment to the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance, Article 12G, State Route 9 Overlay
District.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
Mayor and City Council, we are presenting this to you tonight with the recommendation for approval, but not to
approve the portion of this that restricts the height of the building to two stories. This went to the Planning
Commission and their recommendation to you is exactly the same, so please consider this without the restriction
to two stories along the Highway 9 Overlay District. Robyn is going to tell you more about this and take you
through the different changes that were made in that document.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald:
As set out in the memo that you have, earlier this year the Planning Commission initiated this text amendment and
over the summertime met a few times as well as having the Design Review Board review the various proposed
changes. The majority of them have to do with architectural treatments of the buildings. I will go through the
changes that were proposed: On page 1 they were just clarifying at 12G.2: The State Route 9 Overlay District
applies to all properties except single family detached dwelling units within the area delineated on the attached
map. It used to say that it applied to all properties zoned or developed for non-residential and residential uses, but
we felt that it would clarify who would qualify under these development regulations. We go on to page 2, 12G.4,
Undisturbed Buffers (b): For sites on 4 acres or less, a 50 foot wide undisturbed buffer with a 10 foot
improvement setback shall be located adjacent to all AG-1 zoning districts in all properties zoned, used or
developed for residential uses. (b) (2): For sites on more than 4 acres, a 75 foot wide undisturbed buffer with a
10 foot improvement setback shall be located adjacent to all AG-1 zoning districts and all properties zoned, used
or developed for residential uses. (b) (3): To make buffers seem natural, an equal mix of 3 species from
acceptable evergreen plant material for the City of Milton undisturbed buffer shall be used.
That was an item that was brought into the text amendment brand new. This also reflects what is consistent
throughout what is known as the NW Fulton Overlay District including Crabapple Crossroads and Birmingham
Crossroads. The next change occurs on page 8, 12G.4 starting with No. 7. This is kind of the main areas for the
architectural changes. No. 7: Building plans for townhouse and duplex developments shall exhibit differentiated
exterior wall materials on the vertical wall faces within each block of units and architectural features such as
porches, balconies, bay windows, stoops, which are consistent with one overall architectural theme. No. 8 is a
totally new portion and reads: Townhouse and Duplex development rooflines should exhibit differentiated
architectural features such as gables, pyramidal and hip. Rooflines should be varied. Mansard roofs are not
permitted. They also suggested deleting the example of the corner building because it appears that it is not
appropriate for the height example. No. 15. The exterior wall materials of all non-residential buildings, and also
townhouse, duplex and multifamily buildings consist of a minimum of 75% per vertical wall plane of the
following: brick or natural stone. Previously it was 70%. No. 16, Accent building materials for all non-
residential buildings, and also townhouse, duplex and multifamily units are limited to a maximum of 25% brick,
tile, non-reflective glass, natural stone with weathered polished or fluted face, textured traditional cement stucco,
architectural concrete masonry with fluted, split-face, or broken-face finish, Portland cement plaster and lath
systems, architectural (either precast or tilt-up) concrete (fluted or with exposed aggregate finish), or Hardy
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 9 of 25
plank. Again, the major change is that it went to 30% accent building materials to 25%, as well as deleting "or
manmade tile."
Under Table 12G-1 on page 10, we have deleted the 675C which was basically a color of pink. That concludes all
of the proposed text amendments.
Mayor Lockwood: Is there any public comment at this time?
City Clerk Marchiafava: Called Alan Tart.
Alan Tart, 125 Aven Court, Milton, GA:
I live in Avensong which as many of you know, it is located at the corner of Highway 9 and Deerfield. It consists
of 564 homes and is the second largest neighborhood in Milton. I am asked that Council accept all of the text
amendments to the Highway 9 Overlay including the 30 feet maximum height requirement. I believe the current
maximum is 60 feet. Highway 9 is a heavy residential area. The last thing that the residents along Highway 9
want or need is to look out of their kitchen windows and see high-rise buildings. As our elected officials, you
have been given a mandate to uphold the citizens' visions for Milton and in doing so, you should vote in the
manner that retains or actually in the case of Highway 9, enhances our rural equestrian character. Quite frankly,
we have been waiting for these changes to occur for over a year now. We need you to protect Highway 9.
Highway 9 is the gateway for Milton and I respectfully ask that you limit the height of the buildings along
Highway 9 to 30 feet. Thank you.
Paul Moore, 15290 White Columns Drive, Milton, GA:
Mr. Wilson we could not hear y0ur comments very clearly as your mic did not allow us to understand clearly if
you were asking City Council to hear this without the consideration of the height restriction this evening - is that
what your request was?
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
I do not remember exactly what I said, but what I meant to say was this is being presented to you for a
recommendation for approval, but not approval of the two story height limit.
Paul Moore:
So at this point your suggestion is that Council considers that without a cap on the height this even - there is no
cap stated - is that what you are asking them to consider?
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
There is a cap on the height. It would be 60 feet or 4 stories. I am asking City Council to approve the text
amendment as it is written, but not to approve the height limit to two stories or 30 feet.
Paul Moore:
That justifies the remarks that I am interested in making this evening. I would ask that the City Council please
consider a cap of two stories or 30 feet at this point. Recognizing that historically we can look at this area and we
can say how many instances have we got where we are looking at a height that would be affecting our citizens.
Highway 9 being a gateway to our city, it is going to be very important that we have a look and feel consistent to
what we are in Milton and that is a rural community. If we look from Roswell to Cumming, I think there may
only be one good example of a building today that is over 4 stories or at 4 stories and that is the hospital. Prior to
this, there is really not a good market demand to suggest that there is going to be the kind of demand for a
building height that would be in excess of 30 feet that would be ample for 2 stories. However, the rumor mill is
hard at work out in Milton and it is my understanding that not much more time will pass before there will be a
couple of applications before you that will request to exceed that 2 story height restriction that we are asking for.
I recognize that as we look at ARC funds that may be available to us this being considered a mega corridor that
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 10 of 25
there are some potential risks. I do not know if this has been measured that to get a better understanding of the
magnitude of what those funds are or are not at this point. At this point I respectfully request that you consider a
more restrictive cap until we have a measure of what funds are or are not going to be available to us and until we
get a better grip on what the look and feel of this area should be without currently making a larger step into larger
buildings. Thank you.
Vic Jones, 1125 S. Bethany Creek Drive, Milton, GA:
Good evening Mr. Mayor and City Council. I emailed this to you earlier and would like to read some excerpts to
you from this. I am the president of the HOA in Bethany Creek. I cannot say that I am speaking for all of our
residents, but I speak for the majority that I have spoken to. I am asking for your support of all of the proposed
amendments to this State Route 9 Overlay with the exception of the deletion of the building height restrictions. I
believe in the margin of the marked up version, the verbiage that was deleted was a maximum of 2 stories with a
maximum height of 30 feet from the average finished grade from the bottom of the roof eave excluding Morris
and Deerfield Parkway. I think that is an important item to leave in there because the Highway 9 Overlay abuts
so much residential and I know our neighborhood abuts commercial. As you know, we are right next to
Montana's Bar & Grill that is infamous. That could easily become a 4 story building according to the overlay
being proposed. It is too close to our neighborhood and others. Just in conclusion, we and by we, I mean the City
of Milton elected officials as well as those of us who are active in the community, have a chance to do something
that can either continue to set Milton apart from the surrounding municipalities and their overwhelming ratio and
feel of commercial, or begin to erode the very character that we all speak very highly of. I ask you to please
maintain the vision that I thought we all upheld in bring this city into being and I ask for your support in this.
Thanks.
Joy Ferguson, 1211 Whitshire Way, Milton, GA:
I lived in the Villages of Devonshire which is a condominium development. I just want to make a couple of fast
comments. I am an interior designer and when I saw a limit on the building materials, I just wanted to suggest
that you revisit the verbiage and perhaps opening the door a little bit more to the quality of materials you would
like to see versus telling builders and/or designers what materials they can use. There are constant changes in the
industry and finally we are getting more and more green materials such as cement that is very earth conscience
and can be stamped and upgraded to look very nice in our community. So just a slight change in the verbiage is
requested. Thank you.
Robert Kirkland, 1216 Whitshire Way, Milton, GA:
I live in the Villages of Devonshire. Our property currently interfaces with the Deerfield project and although I
was quite shocked when I first saw the property being developed, we have had great success working with the
developer and I feel that they can be a strong contributor and a good neighbor. I think that if we are going to
allow growth, we should focus on an area such as Route 9 and be more conducive in working with developers in
that area. Thank you.
Heidi Sowder, 525 Sunflower Court, Milton, GA:
I live in the Highway 9 area and have been a resident of the State Route 9 Overlay area for 8 years. For 5 of those
years, I was active in the Bethany Area Residents Association prior to incorporation as well. I was very grateful
that these recommended improvements to the overlay were finally coming forward. It will serve all of the citizens
of the City of Milton well not just the people in the State Route 9 overlay area. The buffers, the building material
percentages and the height restrictions are all vital additions to the overlay. That is why I am asking you to
support all 3 of these items. As I stated in my email that I sent out on October 17th, there are many residences
that are along State Route 9 and it may be deemed a commercial corridor, but it does not have to have building
allowances over 30 feet. Many of the available parcels that are left along State Route 9 that are not developed yet
are pretty narrow and if you use the proposed buffer standards that are also being proposed this evening, I believe
it will be problematic for the developers along the way as well. I do not see how a 4 story building can support
the parking on these parcels that are left. Last week I researched what is available along Deerfield Parkway and
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 11 of 25
Morris Road in the Deerfield Office Park in which we are currently located. I do not know if you are all aware,
but there is still over one million square feet of office and commercial space that is not yet developed. Some of it
is not occupied and some of it is still to be built. To date, half of the available acreage has been developed, so we
think it is pretty dense over here and that is only half of what is available. There is still plenty of space to put 4
story office buildings and commercial. There is also MARTA service in this area as well so this can carry
workers to and from their jobs and that would cut down on traffic, so it is kind of a win-win situation if you
maximize the capabilities that you have here within Deerfield. When we became a city I was hopeful that I would
no longer see the piecemeal zoning that we have experienced along Highway 9 and everyone complains about. I
really do hope that you support the height limitations. Thank you.
Joelle Corcoran, 14470 Morning Mountain Way, Milton, GA:
I live in the Crooked Creek Subdivision which is within the Highway 9 Overlay. I thank you for bringing forward
these changes. In 2003 when we first reviewed these changes many of the items that are on the list today we had
hoped would have gone forward, but we were met with opposition, so I appreciate the opportunity to bring them
forward again. I concur with everything that the previous speakers discussed with regards to encouraging you all
to support all of the recommended changes including the height restrictions. One thing that was not mentioned
that I think is important is that in the many years that I have been involved with the development and the planning
processes, there has always been discussion about transition of development and I do not think that was raised
here this evening. I am well aware that the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) is looking at Highway 9 as
being the mega growth corridor for this area; however, Highway 9 abuts within a half of a mile AG-1 land in the
City of Milton. In my eyes you have a commercial area at Deerfield that can support much taller buildings and
much denser development and there is plenty left to develop has Ms. Sowder explained. Then you can have your
Highway 9 with the 2 story buildings surrounded by residential areas all up and down that corridor transitioning a
half of mile to your left into AG-1 land. To me it makes no sense to allow building heights greater than 30 feet to
abut that AG-1 land. That is no transitional development and in my eyes that is not good planning. Thank you.
Adam Orkin, 12600 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, GA:
Per my letters of October 16 and October 18, I respectfully ask that you defer a vote on the Highway 9 Overlay
District Ordinance until the property owners have an opportunity to meet with the city to further discuss the
economic viability of this proposal. Thank you.
Jahnee Prince, 6500 Sugarloaf Parkway, Duluth, GA:
I am the Vice President of Policy with the Council for Quality Growth. I have been following your
comprehensive plan process. Some of you I believe have met me before through the North Fulton Chamber Real
Estate Trade Group. Through that comp plan process I know you will be looking at the services the city plans to
deliver in the future and capital improvements as well. I think that the city needs to very carefully consider
changes to the Highway 9 Overlay District that may negatively impact the city's tax base in the future. You want
to make sure that you are able to make all those capital improvements such as the intersection improvements that
you want. The height restriction and some of the proposed buffers on some of the properties given their shape and
size could really decrease what could be built there. I know that a lot of the people would like that for aesthetic
reasons and for character reasons and that is certainly understandable, but I think that can be accomplished though
without negatively impacting what your financial needs would be in the future and your ability to provide services
and capital improvements. I think that this may merit just a little more study. I know that the staff, who does a
great job by the way, has looked at this and I think that maybe they should look parcel-by-parcel at each property
and see what the buffers might do in terms of developable area, and also with the height restrictions and what that
may do to the values of the property and think about that in your financial planning for the future. We
respectfully request that this matter be tabled so that there can be more study.
City Clerk Marchiafava: Stated that completed public comment.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 12 of 25
I just wanted to make a couple of points about the reasons that I suggested that we not cap this at 2 stories. For
one, certainly on its surface it seems to be contrary to regional policies and may, in fact, put us in jeopardy for
getting some regional funds that we may seek in the future. Number 2, there are other ways to do this without
doing it by amendment to the Highway 9 Overlay District. I would like to point out to you that anything that is
already zoned out there in the Highway 9 Overlay District is tied to the site plan and number of stories. Changing
this in the overlay district will not affect those properties that are already zoned. Any property out there that is
not already zoned will come before you as a rezoning request and you would have the opportunity at that time to
restrict it to whatever you felt the height restriction should be based on its location along Highway 9. I would also
like to mention to you that we are just now embarking on the comprehensive plan that is a very extensive study
that we are doing. Part of what we will do in that plan is we will do some modeling, part of which will be
modeling what 2 stories does to our tax base which are traffic flows versus what 4 stories would be or maybe even
higher and that is something that will be happening in the next 12 months and would be providing us additional
information that we will have whenever we make this decision. I also would like to point out to you that
everything north of Webb Road along Highway 9 is restricted to 2 stories already as a policy in our comp plan, so
really we are only talking about restricting to 2 stories that property that is south of Webb Road, so considering all
of that, I think there are other ways and means by which you can accomplish the same thing without so blatantly
saying that you do not value the regional policies. At the end of the day we may decide we do not want to
observe the regional policies and if that is what is decided, then that is what we will do. I am just saying that at
this point we do not have all the information we need to make that decision, at least this is the way I feel. I just
wanted to add this to the discussion.
Mayor Lockwood:
I would like to say that after numerous decisions with staff, legal counsel, communications with both citizens and
our business community, I really think I feel I need more information and time to explore these items before we
make these changes. It also could involve funding, legal issues and, therefore, I feel that as we work on our land
use plan, we can tighten a few things up. At this point I would like to make a motion to defer this decision.
Motion and Second: Mayor Lockwood moved to defer RZ07-016 – Text Amendment to the City of Milton
Zoning Ordinance, Article 12G, State route 9 Overlay District to such time that we have more information.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion for discussion purposes.
Councilmember Thurman:
I would have to agree. Our mission statement states that we will be a community interactive environment. I think
the one thing we have really tried to do in the City of Milton is try to involve the entire community in all of the
decisions that have been made. This has been very important in all of the decisions that have been made from day
one. Some of these I know they have been trying to get done for a couple of years and I think Fulton County
should have passed those years ago - some of these design standards. I am looking forward to a complete design
standard for the Highway 9 area. Other parts of this I do not feel have gone through the proper community
involvement that they need to go. They came before the Planning Commission and they came before us and it is
my understanding there were 5 or 6 people at the Planning Commission meeting and I really feel like if that is our
mission statement, a community interactive environment, we need to stick by that and we do not need to start
doing things that are contradictory to that in setting a precedent that we will bring them forward without that kind
of community interaction.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I have been thinking about a deferral and do not know if there has been any discussion about a timeframe so one
question as we consider that motion is Mayor, what would that timeframe be and another question I had is about
some re-zonings that may be coming forward. I know that during our review sessions with staff it was mentioned
that there were some re-zonings coming forward. I do not know if you, Mr. Wilson, could address some of those
and specifically if you could state if we were to defer, does that preclude us from putting conditions or evaluating
height restrictions or other things. Could you maybe comment on that?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 13 of 25
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
Certainly deferring this item would not preclude you from installing conditions of zoning that would restrict
height of buildings in any future re-zonings that come to. Robyn will give you an idea of the three re-zonings that
I know of that might exceed 2 stories and Robyn can give you some details about those.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald:
The first item is a re-zoning from C-1 to C-1 that is on Highway 9 just below Webb Road - John McMillan's
application. The building is actually towards the rear toward Webb Road, but the access is off of Highway 9. His
proposal is for a 4 story office building with surface parking, so it would be full 4 stories. The second re-zoning
petition is Ken Morton's and is towards the SW corner of Webb and Highway 9. He is requesting a 4 story self-
storage facility which would be facing Webb Road. The third item is on Deerfield Parkway just down the street
with a smaller parcel of 3 acres and is an applicant who plans to build his own office building, 3 stories with
basement parking underneath. There is a creek that requires some buffering so it is a very tight spot. Those are
the 3 items that will be going before the Planning Commission at the November 27th meeting and should be
before you I believe the 20th of December.
Councilmember Mohrig:
Excuse me, the location on Deerfield, where is that, south of Webb or north of Webb?
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald:
Just down the street south of here on the right side - west side of Deerfield Parkway.
Councilmember Mohrig:
So it is an area today that is permitted?
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald:
All of these areas are already permitted for 4 stories because there was no C-1 or O &I, but in the proposed
amendment they were excluding Deerfield Parkway and Morris Road.
Councilmember Lusk:
I would agree with deferral also. As has been the custom of this council in the past 10 or 11 months, we engaged
in public input on all of the issues that have come before us and I think we have set that precedence where we
have engaged the entire community. That is what we are all about and I think that is what we were elected for,
and I think we need to take some more time to get some more information in here and engage all of the
stakeholders that are involved in this issue and then move forward.
Councilmember O'Brien:
I was scrambling around asking questions of staff, had several conversations, and as much as I support this, I have
trouble and I had a conversation today with Vic Jones about this. I would like to have a full understanding of the
impact of a decision on the community. I think that is our obligation and if we can be reassured and further
informed and a brief deferral accomplishes that, I think that would be suitable and I would support the Mayor's
request. I do certainly support anything that is positive for the quality of life in the Highway 9 area and I
appreciate the work in the planning process.
Councilmember D'Aversa:
I am sorry if I missed it, but what was the time period for the deferral.
Mayor Lockwood:
No timeframe set yet. It is open for discussion.
Councilmember D'Aversa:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 14 of 25
That would be a big concern of mine. One question would be if we were to have approved this tonight and
approve these changes, still through our comprehensive land planning process that we are going through right
now, we can make these changes. We are under no obligation to continue this way, right? So we are going
through comprehensive land planning and we can look at it from a perspective of okay, let us not make the
changes now and go through the comprehensive land planning and make the changes then, or we can look at it
from the perspective of protecting the community and doing what the citizens have brought forward to us that
have been working on it for about a year at least from a perspective of the Highway 9 Overlay. Working on this
for a year, I am surprised that more people have not been involved honestly with this process. If we made those
changes now kind of in an effort to protect and to stop some of the challenges that we have had on Highway 9,
could we not then make some of these changes with the comprehensive land planning process?
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
Certainly, anything you do tonight you can undue with more information.
Councilmember Mohrig:
I am all for taking a broader view and getting more people involved, but a concern I have is timing like Ms.
D'Aversa said. We cannot afford to wait too long. I was one of the people that pushed to bring this forward to
say we need to get it voted on - we have been waiting and waiting, so the concern I have is if we are going to wait
for the additional information and step back a bit, it cannot be for a long extended period of time, especially if we
are going to have new zonings that are coming before us. Living in this area for 11 years and working on zonings
along Highway 9, we tried to work with the developer community trying to have a balance of business and at the
same time, we have had a number of things happen to us in the commercial area where things were stuffed on us
because we did not have the restrictions and that is why these came forward saying let us get a little more balance
that is more in favor of aesthetics from a long term standpoint. So again, I think we need to think about and
consider a time period and how long we are going to defer this, especially with the zonings coming before us.
Mayor Lockwood:
Can I get Mr. Wilson's opinion on what a timeframe would be to allow us to get more information and make an
informed decision on this within reason? Do you have a suggestion on a timeframe?
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
Well, there are a number of things that we can do. We can certainly involve the community and have some
community meetings and get community discussion and can do that in a very short period of time. As you recall,
we have identified money for the Highway 9 aesthetic quality of life overlay and those design guidelines. I am
working on an RFP for that now. Presumably we could have design guidelines and that would be some additional
information that we could use to make this decision. We could have that in probably three months. The modeling
that I spoke of which I think is very important information in this decision probably will take longer than that. It
will probably take 6 months before we get through that part of the comp plan. So depending on what you would
prefer, we can do this a number of ways and have different amounts of information to go on. My
recommendation would certainly be to wait until we go through the comp plan and incorporate these design
guidelines and then have this discussion along with the modeling that we will do during the comp plan process.
Remembering, of course, that anything that is already zoned out there this will not affect and everything that is
not already zoned out there you still have other opportunities to install limits on the heights of these buildings.
Mayor Lockwood:
I think that is very important for everybody to understand. We do have the opportunity to really guide what the
wishes of our citizens are through the individual zoning process.
Councilmember D'Aversa:
Am I correct that the Planning Commission did approve this?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 15 of 25
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
They recommended to you that you approve this but without the 2 story height limit. That was their discussion at
their meeting sometime ago last month.
Councilmember D'Aversa:
Would it not behoove us to maybe follow the guidance of our Planning Commission that we put in place, to go
forward with this with that caveat obviously that we do have the opportunity through our comprehensive land
planning process? I would fear and I am very concerned that we would wait 6 months to put any greater
guidelines or restrictions in place for Highway 9 since we have waited so long. We talked about there being
limited land available for development; we talked about there being more amounts of land developed. I think we
do need a lot of study and I also believe there is a concern that there are some things that could slip between the
cracks even though we do have other opportunities to make recommendations or to restrict, but I still would like
to see some greater restrictions sooner.
Mayor Lockwood:
With the information that I have and feel comfortable with and again dealing with staff and legal, I would like to
maybe adjust my motion to defer this item say for a 6 month period.
Motion to Rescind: Mayor Lockwood moved to rescind his motion with unanimous approval.
Motion and Second: Mayor Lockwood moved to defer RZ07-016 – Text Amendment to the City of Milton
Zoning Ordinance, Article 12G, State route 9 Overlay District for a six month period. Councilmember Lusk
seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Thurman:
What about things that are already zoned that has not gone before the Design Review Board as far as these other
more aesthetic type things. They cannot be restricted by us unless we have that in there. There is a part of me
that very much wants to go ahead and approve it because that part has been before the community for years.
Fulton County should have taken care of that 2 or 3 years ago and they just never got around to doing that.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson
That is correct. I think what you are saying is those portions of this amendment other than the height restriction
and the increased buffers.
Councilmember Thurman:
That is correct. They went to the community I do not know how many times and they really should have taken
care of this before. I am not sure if any financial modeling is going to change those things.
Mayor Lockwood:
I would like to ask the City Attorney, is there anything that would preclude us from doing that?
City Attorney Scott:
Not at all.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Thinking about deferral versus approval of a portion and then deferring a portion, what I hear that the Planning
Commission has talked about was really on the height. I had not heard until just now concern about the buffers
and, of course, public participation is always important. We do need to always engage folks. I think people have
been engaged in this area for a long time so I would at least like to acknowledge that a lot of people have been
engaged and, of course, we always want to engage more, so with that said, would there be a way to approve the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 16 of 25
overlay changes that went through the Planning Commission with the exception of just the height. We would not
be restricted from reviewing height as it relates to recommended conditions on the 3 re-zonings that are coming
forward. I have not really heard that the height was in a quandary, but more from the perspective of the ARC and
whether or not that it could - not that it would - impact the funding. Another way to think about it is we could go
forward with approval knowing that we could also make an exception on a case-by-case basis either for an
exception to a buffer or the height, so again I just want to make sure that we are exploring all of those options as
we think about what portions may be necessary for deferral. My other question when we consider the timing, I
wonder if there is not a balance in deferring for a full 6 months knowing that we will continue to have discussion
with the funds that have been set aside for design guidelines. Would there be an option for a 30-day deferral that
allows more public comment in terms of the business community being engaged in that discussion really
understanding what the height concerns are, knowing that we have a much longer time table that is going to be a 6
month, 12 month process to add additional guidelines, etc. I see this as two initiatives. One that is the immediate
overlay enhancements with some question about height, but separate from that there is a longer term process
which involves the design guidelines, engaging the budgetary dollars that we have allocated, and I do see that as a
longer term project. I am just not sure if we are maybe tying up both when they could be viewed as two separate
vehicles. I hope that makes sense and I am just asking for consideration during this discussion portion.
Councilmember O'Brien:
Sure, and I would just like to support the Mayor on his request and I think it is a valid consideration, but I think
clearly the body wants to make improvements to the Highway 9 corridor. I am uncomfortable with a long
deferral and my question is, if we had a window of deferral that was short enough that it was satisfactory to
everyone here, especially those of us who live in the Highway 9 area, can we go right back to this item to an
agenda and act on it, or do we start over with a first reading and so forth?
City Attorney Scott:
I think the only restriction we would have is the requirement that we advertise.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
If we defer something, we will defer it for 30 days, 60 days, 90 days or 180 days and it can come right back to
you at that time without advertisement.
City Attorney Scott:
Also, if we do something within 45 days from the time we actually advertise, I believe the ad ran 2 or 3 weeks
ago, we might be able to still do it without having to advertise again, so I do not think this is a big issue.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
You can really do anything that you want to do. We can advertise it. I really do not see that as a big issue on this.
It is more just want you want to do and when you want to do it.
Councilmember Mohrig:
I have some concerns about the issue of setbacks and building materials. This is something that has been bedded.
We have talked about it, tried to work with Fulton County and it has been out there for a while. I do not see a
reason at this point unless there is a legal reason that we have to hold back on this. I think the community has
express that this is what they want to do. It has come before the Planning Commission and there has been ample
time for people to be involved. I understand the concerns about the building height. I am leaning towards
separating the items instead of having one motion, because if we can approve so we have standards and these are
the standards we stated and any new building or new applications that come before us this will apply, we need to
move forward on that. If there is something we need to consider from a legal standpoint and need to look at the
deferral, I would ask that we do not make this a long drawn out process even on the building height and let us take
a look at what we need to do to review.
City Attorney Scott:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 17 of 25
Robyn has just pointed out to me that the ordinance states that re-notification is not required when it is a referral.
You still have to make the ultimate decision on when you want to do it and it is still a policy matter as to how
soon you want to get this done, but we would not have any logistical issues with putting it back on the agenda is
what it says.
Mayor Lockwood:
I was just trying to come up with a timeframe that gave us ample time to get the results that both we and the
business community and citizens need to come to an agreement that everyone can live with. That is why I come
up with the 6 months.
Councilmember Thurman:
Mayor, I would like to ask the City Attorney because I know we have received some correspondence and there
may be some legal issues with us approving all of this. Are you comfortable if we approved everything other than
the height? Is the height the only issue or are there legal issues with any of the rest of it? I guess I want your
opinion on trying to keep us out of jail.
City Attorney Scott:
I think the height and the buffer issues are the things that would most likely give you a problem. What I am
referring to is the one letter that I think you all received. The way I read that as an attorney, it sounds like
someone maybe challenging us with a facial challenge to the ordinance. If they are challenging the ordinance
facially, I want you to understand that there is a difference between a facial challenge and an as apply challenge.
An as apply challenge is when somebody makes a zoning application, is denied and they appeal it because they
were turned down. A facial challenge challenges the constitutional validity of the ordinance as it is on your books.
When that happens, I would be a lot more comfortable with having a little bit more rational basis on the books.
Some additional studies, some more true rationale on why you made the decision. Certainly the fact that it was
sent through the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission made those recommendations to you
gives you something of that, but if we could point to some actual studies or there are some planning documents, I
believe you would have a sounder and more solid ordinance that is defensible in the case of a facial challenge. I
do not see any problem with all the other portions. The thing that you are most likely to get a challenge on is
buffers and the height because it restricts what people can build.
Mayor Lockwood:
At this time, I will consider changing my motion if I can get unanimous consent from the council to rescind and
restate my motion.
Councilmember D'Aversa:
I think you see that we are quite challenged here with making these types of decisions because they are so
important to our community and I do think that we need more time and that whole comprehensive land planning
process is what is going to give us that time. I want everyone to understand that it is not a matter of trying to
make a hasty decision, it is not a matter of trying to preclude or prevent a good effort from coming forward, but I
think everyone here is just challenged in making the best decision with all of the parties that are interested here,
especially abutting Highway 9. My opinion is just that it is always safer in my opinion to be more protected than
less and then to move to maybe become a little less lenient than strict as opposed to the opposite and that is what
it seems like we are doing here. I would absolutely support you, Mayor, in restating your motion.
Mayor Lockwood:
I would just like to state too, I tell a lot of people that you stand in somebody else's shoes you can sit there and
have your mind made up, but I tell people that I would hope if you are sitting on the other side of the table and
you had all the same information that we have, hopefully we would make the same decisions that you would.
Sometimes we have information from all sides and we just want to make the best decisions for everybody
involved. With that being said, I would like to make a motion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 18 of 25
Motion to Rescind: Mayor Lockwood moved to rescind his motion in order to restate the motion with
unanimous approval.
Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood moved to Approve RZ07-016 – Text Amendment to the City of Milton
Zoning Ordinance, Article 12G, State route 9 Overlay District with exception to the height restrictions and buffer
changes and defer those items for six (6) months. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I just what to make sure that with this that on those three both on height and buffer that there is nothing in terms
of the parcels that will be coming forward - and I do not know if this is a question for our city attorney or for
community development - but nothing that would give a vested right to any of those landowners with a deferral
that would preclude us from having a recommended condition and evaluating those as it relates to the three that
were mentioned earlier.
City Attorney Scott:
You can always add conditions of zoning.
Councilmember Mohrig:
So you are saying that that is still an option and if needed we can still restrict this? That would be my concern.
City Attorney Scott:
Absolutely.
Councilmember O'Brien:
If we are going to defer a portion of this that we attempt - hopefully at the next work session we could consistent
with the Mayor's wishes have a town hall meeting where we discuss this. Truly the Highway 9 corridor is the
heart of Milton in many ways and it has clearly been under-served and under-respected. I think for those in the
area it has almost become a running joke that it does not receive the respect it deserves and I think if we move
immediately, that would be the appropriate course if the city manager could consider that.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Five Minute Break
Mayor Lockwood:
Called for a 5 minute break at 8:57 p.m.
Reconvene:
The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m.
FIRST PRESENTATION
City Clerk Marchiafava read the First Presentation Agenda Items:
1. Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11, Article 2, Business and
Occupational Licenses, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Milton, Georgia.
2. Approval of a Water use Restriction Ordinance, Article 9 within Chapter 14 of the City Code.
(added by motion and vote)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 19 of 25
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the First Presentation as amended.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. Councilmember
Mohrig was not present for the vote.
City Clerk Marchiafava called the next agenda item.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-390
Approval of an Ordinance to Adopt Revisions to the City of Milton Personnel Policy Handbook. (Second
Reading)
Ordinance No. 2007-10-49
Carol Wolfe (CH2MHILL/OMI):
Tonight is the second reading of an ordinance to adopted revisions to the Personnel Policy Manual. As you will
remember, the original Personnel Policy Manual was adopted November 30, 2006. Since then we have added a
significant number of city employees, we have realized some areas of the Personnel Policy Manual that needed
clarification, expansion, etc. Just to quickly summarized, there has been additional language regarding vacation
and sick leave donations and catastrophic sick bank added to the Employee Benefits Leave Policy. There has
been expansion of language in our Workers Compensation Policy, the addition of a random substance abuse
testing language to our already existing alcohol and drug testing policy. Throughout the document just various
clerical corrections and clarifications that do not have any significant impact on the intent of the policies. The
only change from the first reading is the addition in the vacation and catastrophic sick leave bank to include two
levels of approval in both of those areas. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Councilmember Thurman:
You said two levels of approval?
Carol Wolfe (CH2MHILL/OMI):
That is correct. The Human Resources Manager and the City Manager must approve what is defined as an
emergency situation for sick leave and a catastrophic situation to use the catastrophic bank.
Councilmember Thurman:
Is there somebody also set up if one of the two of them had to use it?
Carol Wolfe (CH2MHILL/OMI):
That is not in the policy, but that would divert to either the supervisor of the Human Resources Manager being the
Operations Director or the Deputy City Manager in the case of the City Manager needing to use the policy. We
can certainly add that language if you approve the ordinance tonight stipulating that that language be added. We
can put some alternate language in it. I think we could add a third person. We could add the Operations Director.
Just adding one third person would then give you three, so two of the three could approve and that would really
alleviate any situation of only having one approval.
Councilmember Thurman:
That would be fine with me.
Carol Wolfe (CH2MHILL/OMI):
We can do that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 20 of 25
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve an Ordinance to Adopt Revisions to the City of
Milton Personnel Policy Handbook, with the addition of adding the Operations Director as a third person in the
approval process. Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The
motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-391.
Approval of a Telecommunications Ordinance. This item was removed by motion and vote.
NEW BUSINESS
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-402.
Approval of the August 2007 invoice for legal fees.
Carol Wolfe (CH2MHILL/OM):
You have before you the approval of the payment of legal fees for August 2007 legal services in the amount of
$23,087.54. The revised budget is $230,000.00. Upon approval and payment of the invoice in front of you, the
total payments for the year will be $200,693, leaving a balance of $29,306 with one payment outstanding.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
With one payment left, in terms of our budget - and maybe Mr. Scott could address where we anticipate we would
be between now and the end of fiscal year.
City Attorney Scott:
That bill has been transmitted to the city. The bill is from Jarrard & Davis for approximately $11,000.00 and for
Carothers & Mitchell for the ethics issues for approximately another $11,000.00, so it is $22,000.00 which brings
us in under budget. I believe that means there is about another $7,000 left.
Carol Wolfe (CH2MHILL/OMI):
Your balance after this payment would be $29,300, leaving about a $7,000 balance.
Mayor Joe Lockwood:
How much was paid to Carothers previously?
City Attorney Scott:
I believe it is included in this particular bill. I think it is another $4,000-$5,000.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the August 2007 invoice for legal fees.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed
unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read the next item.
Approval an Emergency ordinance of the City of Milton to adopt Article 9 of Chapter 14 of Chapter 14 of
the City Code of Ordinances, providing restrictions on outdoor watering consistent with restrictions
established by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division as
modified by the Fulton County Water system; to provide procedures for implementation and enforcement;
to declare a water shortage emergency and for other purposes. (Added by motion and vote)
Ordinance No. 2007-10-50
Motion and Second: Councilmember O’Brien moved to approve an Emergency ordinance of the City of Milton
to adopt Article 9 of Chapter 14 of Chapter 14 of the City Code of Ordinances, providing restrictions on outdoor
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 21 of 25
watering consistent with restrictions established by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental
Protection Division as modified by the Fulton County Water system; to provide procedures for implementation
and enforcement; to declare a water shortage emergency and for other purposes. Councilmember Lusk seconded
the motion. There was no Council discussion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Mohrig:
I have a question about enforcement. It is nice to have an ordinance in place and say we are going to do it and I
do not want to be the water police, but what are we doing as a city to actually enforce this if we are going to pass
this ordinance? What is the intent and how will it be enforced?
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
We may have to do some night patrols. We will try to cover this every hour of the day. We obviously cannot be
out there every hour of the day, but we will do some random passes with our code enforcement people and police
would be authorized to enforce this and they are out there all of the time, so between the police and code
enforcement officers, we can cover this most any time.
Mayor Joe Lockwood:
I think if we stress this to our police officers and public safety and fire department, and also maybe if we
communicate this to our citizens the importance of this - not that we want them to rat out on each other, but for
people to let us know.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
We are preparing some door hangers so that we can at least give them a warning before we do anything more than
that and hopefully that will help. We can also put things on the website. There is certainly a lot of consciousness
raised about this issue right now and all the newspaper articles. My hope is that Fulton County is already putting
something along with their water bills. We do not do billing at this time.
Councilmember Mohrig:
We can maybe have the newspapers help get the word out like the Mayor said. We are not out to be a police state,
but at the same time this is impacting everybody because we need to conserve water. If we do not get some rain,
we could lose all of our water in 3 months.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I know we have had some discussions, but could we perhaps explore maybe including something in water bills
where people are already getting communicated with. Maybe do something in conjunction with Fulton County
just to make sure that we are getting into every household. We talked about maybe emailing the homeowners
associations that we have connections with. Again, just a continuation of that whole message of communication.
The electric companies might let us put something in their bills too.
Councilmember Lusk:
Last week we briefly discussed fines as associated with illegal water use. Had there been any more discussion on
it? I heard on the news that in the City of Dallas, GA is disconnecting water meters and restoring them only after
$1,000 fine is paid. Is it our intent to leave it up to the courts to decide?
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
I think the way it is written right now it is up to the courts to impose the fine up to $1,000 a day. It is also my
understanding that we actually do not have the authority to cut off anyone's water. We do have the authority to
fine them up to $1,000 a day for everyday it persists and everyday would be a different offense. We did not put
specific fines in there. Some cities did from $200, $300, $500. Ours simply says that it is up to a $1,000 a day
that you have that offense.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 22 of 25
Councilmember Thurman:
I know you have to be consistent. I am assuming that the fines would be consistent and people quickly figure out
how much it is costing them.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson:
My experience so far in the code enforcement area here is that they have been applying these things consistently
and at least in his mind or their minds there is some sort of schedule of what the fines would be.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Joe Lockwood:
I would just like to share with Council that I had the pleasure of going down to Pryor Street yesterday with the
Fulton County Board of Commissioners meeting with a few of our North Fulton Mayors and one issue that we are
working on that is coming up and it is very enlightening sitting on the other side watching the Fulton County
Commissioners, is about our animal control contract and also with our rural metro EMS. So far, the way it looks
Fulton County is leaning towards turning those services over to us and getting out of that business. That would be
sometime later next year. They have not made a decision and had a split vote because Tom Lowe was not there
so it was a 3-3 vote so it did not pass, but we are going to have a meeting the 5th with the North Fulton Mayors
and I can probably let you know more, but this is just to give you a heads up that we may be looking at animal
control and doing a separate contract on EMS. Also in our North Fulton Mayor's Meeting today I was not able to
attend so Councilperson Thurman attended so if she wants to report anything on that.
Councilmember Thurman:
Councilmember Lusk also attended with me. There were a couple of things that were discussed there. The first
thing discussed there is the HR900 which is "The Great Plan" which is the speaker plan to get rid of all the
property taxes and just have a great big or ad valorem or value added tax. We actually voted to oppose HR900
and any form of legislation that transfer local control to the state because that is really the key. We felt that they
would be controlling the amount of funds we get and we would not be controlling it going forward, so that was
actually a motion that passed unanimously, to oppose HR900 and we are going to work with the GMA to try to
come up with a formal resolution to oppose it. Going on with what the Mayor said about the service delivery,
there were several things that were discussed. Animal control - it looks like they are trying to get Fulton County
to continue with animal control and they think they have the four votes if they can get Tom Lowe to show up for a
meeting to keep animal control down in Fulton County for another year. As far as the EMS, they are looking at
creating a sub-district for North Fulton. The City Manager said they have 180 days to get the conditions and all
that done for that. The primary reason for this is to guarantee with a contract what kind of deliverance we want.
Right now Fulton County it is 12 minute response time. We require an 8 minute response time in most of the
North Fulton cities and we want to make sure we keep the 8 minute response time. I will not use the language that
the Mayor would use on several occasions in making his motions, because it would end up in the press. These
things were voted on and we also discussed other services that we would like to eventually take over as the North
Fulton cities and the things that were discussed were elections, 911 Service, EMS Ambulance, water systems,
which I did not even realize that Sandy Springs actually gets their water from the City of Atlanta, ARC grants,
and then pursue an agreement for the service delivery discussions for 2010 rather than 2013. Those are the other
things that were discussed regarding service delivery at the meeting. It was quite interesting and listening and
learning from the other Mayors.
Mayor Joe Lockwood:
People will say, oh you are not going to have property taxes, and it sounds great to them, but what they do not
realize is ultimately they will wind up paying the same. But then as Karen said, we do not have any local control
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 23 of 25
so what happens is we are powerless to make certain decisions and basically everywhere including Milton
because average and the money is just spread out evenly among the states.
STAFF REPORTS
Interim City Manager Lagerbloom:
It is good to be back in Milton. I can tell you that I have spent the past couple of weeks traveling to a couple of
different conferences and at some point I would like to certainly share with some of the concepts and ideas that
were learned at those conferences. I can tell you that they were some good classes and some good networking
opportunities and good opportunity to look at some new cutting edge technology and products that exist in both
the City Management world as well as the Public Safety World. I know it was time well spent and I am glad to be
back. I had the opportunity last week to visit New Orleans and it is still an area that is in much need of repair.
The amount of devastation that still remained near there downtown area was actually quite said some two years
later. Hopefully, as they start to rebuild that city more and more conferences will go and spend money there to
add to their tax base and infrastructure. I would be happy to share with any of you what I learned in some of the
classes that I took at those two conferences. Carol has a state of the finances for Milton as we ended fiscal year
2007. I am encouraged that that report is going to be strong and I would like for her to take a couple of minutes if
that is okay so that you have an idea as to where we ended fiscal year 2007 and then Mark Scott has a quick report
to make.
Carol Wolfe CH2MHILL/OMI:
As fiscal year 2008 is underway, I wanted to come back and give you a report on where at this point in time when
we ended for fiscal year 2007. I am pleased to report that in my opinion we are in excellent financial condition at
the year of fiscal year 2007. A 10 year budget that was the best budget we could put together not knowing much
history about revenues and expenditures in Milton, so we have ended 2007 - and again this is as of September
30th. Please understand that there is a 60-day accrual period which means we will continue to collect some
revenues during those 60 days that will be posted back to 2007. Because they are 2007 revenues, local option
sales tax for example is two months in arrears, so in October we will receive August local option sales tax and the
same with September. Our revenue collection is at 90% and that is without consideration of property taxes.
Property tax collection is in full swing. If you do consider property tax collection, we are at 78% of our revenue
collection. Property tax collection alone is at 68% of collection and that is outstanding usually two weeks before
the due date you are about 50% collection. That is really due to mortgage companies hold on to that money until
the very last day that it is due. We will get large mortgage companies the last 2 or 3 days of collection, so I feel
like property collection is strong.
Our expenditures as of September 30th are at 90% of budget. Again, the same accrual period applies. There will
be some invoices that come in during those 60 days and it will post back to 2007. I do believe, however, we will
end the fiscal year under budget and expenditures and over budget in revenue which is always the goal.
Just some items that are going to be coming up. We have the 60 day accrual period and we are already preparing
for the audit. The auditors have been on site doing some prep work. The audit will take place probably early
January and before the end of February. Our auditors are Mauldin & Jenkins, and will be before you with the
formal report of the conclusion of the audit and we will issue financial statements. We are closely monitoring our
cash flow because we will have to repay our first tax anticipation note before December 31st and will be back
before you in January with the issuance of our second tax anticipation note, so we will be watching cash flow
again. We are collecting those tax revenues, will invest them for two months, and garner all the interest that we
can before we repay that tax anticipation note and issue our second tax anticipation note, but that is just a general
overview of how we have ended our first fiscal year.
Councilmember Thurman:
When will you have a preliminary year-end financial statement actually for us?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 24 of 25
Carol Wolfe (CH2MHILL/OMI):
Before audited I would say early to mid December. The accrual period ends November 30th and that will give us
a couple of weeks to put those numbers together.
Councilmember Thurman:
And our property tax revenue is looking like what we had originally thought?
Carol Wolfe (CH2MHILL/OMI):
Yes, I think we will collect a little over 7.5 million.
City Attorney Scott:
I am pleased to announce that we have won our first lawsuit. It is the Firearms & Parks lawsuit that we were
named in because you folks went ahead and took some good advice, I hope, and changed the Firearms Ordinance
or Parks & Rec Ordinance and they dropped us from the lawsuit. I got the Order from the court this week
formally dropping us from the case.
Interim City Manager Lagerbloom:
I just have one thing that came to my mind as we talked about that emergency water ordinance that we just
passed. This afternoon for inclusion on the City's website on our home page you will see that we have proactively
started communicating with our citizens even before tonight's emergency water ordinance passed not only on
what our ordinance is but on ways to conserve water. I think it is important to have a multi-faceted approach to
conserving water at this point. Know that we are open to actively engaging our citizens at this point in many
different means, but that has begun now and you can see this if you check on the site later tonight.
Mayor Lockwood:
At this point we have no Executive Session and that concludes our regular meeting. Is there a motion that we
adjourn?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 25 of 25
ADJOURNMENT
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to adjourn the regular meeting of October 18, 2007.
Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed
unanimously.
After no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm.
Date Approved: November 15, 2007
__________________________________ __________________ _____________ __
Jeanette R. Marchiafava, City Clerk Joe Lockwood, Mayor