HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 11/15/2007 - MINS 11 15 07 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 1 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
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.
INVOCATION- Greg Foster, City of Milton Fire Department, led the invocation.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the regular meeting of the Milton City Council for Thursday, November 15,
2007 to order.
ROLL CALL
City Clerk Marchiafava called roll and reminded those in attendance to please silence all cell phones and
pagers at this time. Additionally, those attending the meeting who would like to provide public comment
either during the public hearings or during the call for public comment you are required to fill out a public
comment card and that need to be turned in to City Clerk staff. They are available at the front and back
tables.
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey,
Councilmember Bill Lusk, Councilmember Neal O’Brien, Councilmember Tina D’Aversa, and
Councilmember Rick Mohrig.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
City Clerk Jeanette Marchiafava:
Staff would like to recommend the following changes:
1. Add to new business the approval of the September 2007 invoice for legal fees.
2. Add an executive session to discuss pending litigation.
3. Move Agenda item no. 07-413, Zoning No. RZ07-007 VZ07-005 to the end of the zoning agenda.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the Meeting Agenda as amended.
Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF ELECTION RESULTS
City Clerk Jeanette Marchiafava gave the official results for the City of Milton Municipal Election on
November 6, 2007: For Milton City Council, District 2, Julie Zahner Bailey with 61.61 percent; Roger A.
Santee with 38.33 percent; Milton City Council District 4, Burt Hewitt with 60.26 percent, Neal O’Brien
with 39.37 percent; Milton City Council District 6, Alan Tart with 55.13 percent, Rick Mohrig with 44.84
percent. These are the results of the election.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any public comment.
Jon Carroll stated that he wanted to thank the Mayor and City Council for all that they have done and hopes
we can look forward to the challenges of the future.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 2 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Bob Moheb, 13085 Morris Road, Milton, GA 30004 stated that he wanted to thank Councilpersons Mohrig
and O’Brien for the great job they have done and hope they will stay involved with the City. He also
congratulated Councilmember Bailey.
City Clerk Jeanette Marchiafava stated that concludes the public comment portion of the meeting.
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
Councilmember Bill Lusk read a Proclamation declaring December 1, 2006 as Commission Day.
PUBLIC HEARING
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATIONS
Agenda Item 07-427
Casa De Tontos, LLC D/B/A/ Sip Wines, 12635 Crabapple Road, Suite 120, Milton, GA 30004. This is an
approval of an alcoholic beverage license application for Casa De Tontos, LLC dba as Sip Wines located at
12635 Crabapple Road, Suite 120, Milton, GA 30004. The applicant is John Foster Smith for package sales
for wine.
Program Director Tami Hanlin presented the application. She stated that the applicant has completed all
the necessary paperwork. He meets the distance requirement and has passed the background check. The staff
recommendation is to approve this application.
Mayor Lockwood asked for any public comment.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there were no public comment and Mayor Lockwood closed the public
hearing.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember D’Aversa moved to accept the application of an alcoholic beverage
license application for Casa De Tontos, LLC dba as Sip Wines located at 12635 Crabapple Road, Suite 120,
Milton, GA 30004. The applicant is John Foster Smith for package sales for wine. Councilmember Zahner
Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
Agenda Item 07-424
1. Approval of the October 18, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes.
2. Agenda Item 07-425
Approval of the November 1, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes.
3. Agenda Item 07-279
Approval of Land Development Final Plats:
a) Minor Plat revision Rivercliff change amenity lot
b) Final Plat Kingsley Estates 45 new lots
c) Final Plat revision Kingsley Estates change addresses
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 3 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
d) Final Plat revision The Manor 1-A move SSE
e) Final Plat revision Crabapple Station move lot lines
f) Final Plat revision The Manor 2-W change SSE
g) Minor Plat Westwood Estates 2 new lots
h) Minor Plat Chatham Providence 2 new lots
i) Final Plat Milton Place 27 new lots
j) Minor Plat Milton Manor 3 new lots
k) Final Plat Centennial Village 29 new lots
l) Final Plat revision Lake Deerfield II change building 19
m) Minor Plat Kingsridge Properties 2 new lots
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Mohrig
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ZONING AGENDA
City Clerk Jeanette Marchiafava read the zoning rules and stated that at the regularly scheduled meeting
of the month, the Mayor and City Council consider the zoning agenda. These items include rezoning
petitions, modifications of zoning, use permits and associated concurrent variances, in addition to
ordinances, resolutions and text amendments. The petitions will be heard in the sequence listed on the posted
agenda. Staff and all those speaking for of an application will be allowed a total of 10 minutes to present the
petition. The applicant may choose to save some of the time for rebuttal following the presentation by the
opposition. The opposition will be allowed a total of 10 minutes to present its position. If time remains the
opposition will be allowed to rebut. Since the burden of proof is upon the applicant, they will be allowed to
make closing remarks provided time remains in the allotted time. City clerk staff will be keeping track of
time and will inform one periodically of the remaining time. Those called to speak will be taken in the order
that the speaker cards were received prior to the beginning of tonight’s meeting. All speakers will identify
themselves by name and address and organization if applicable before beginning their presentation. The
Planning Commission reviews the zoning agenda items and recommendations have been forwarded to the
mayor and city Council for consideration of its position. In addition, the applicant shall not submit material
to the Council during the meeting unless requested to do so. All material that one wishes to have reviewed by
the Council in consideration of the application should be submitted to the staff of the department of
community development to be included in the normal distribution of packages to the Council. When an
opponent of a rezoning action has made within two years immediately preceding the filing of the rezoning
action being opposed campaign contributions actions totaling $250 or more to a local government official of
the local government, which will consider the application. It is the duty of the opponent to file a disclosure
with the governing authority of the respective local government at least five days prior to the Planning
Commission meeting. A violation of the relevant state statute constitutes a misdemeanor. Therefore, if one
has contributed $250 or more to a Councilmember and you have not filed a disclosure prior to the Planning
Commission’s meeting, the City Attorney strongly suggests that you have someone else speak on your point
of view.
Agenda Item 07-412
U07-003/VC07-007, 2540 Hopewell Road - The applicant is seeking to develop a 16,728 square-foot
church with 199 fixed seats. He is also requesting a three part concurrent variance to:
Reduce the 75 foot buffer and 10 foot improvement setback to a 25 foot buffer and a ten-foot improve
setback along the south and west property lines. (Article 12.H.3.1.C.2) To allow parking between the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 4 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
building and the right-of-way (Article 12.H.3.5.F.3) to increase the building setback along the right-of-way
(Article 12.H.3.5.C.1) This will be the second reading.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson addressed the Mayor and City Council and stated that the
applicant for this application is determined that his property is unsuitable for the church as they had it
planned. They are requesting that they be allowed to withdraw this application. It was reviewed by the
Planning Commission last week. They also recommend to the City Council that they allow this application to
be withdrawn. The staff’s recommendation to City Council is that they allow this application to be
withdrawn.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember D’Aversa moved to accept the applicant’s withdrawal of U07-
003/VC07-007. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The
motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 07-414
U07-005, 13660 New Providence Road, The Mill Spring Academy. The Grace Church is requesting to
use the existing gym and assembly room and the “T” buildings for up to 200 members and the River
Lutheran Church to use the great room for up to 175 members. This will be the second reading.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that the Community Development Department
recommends approval of this application. The Planning Commission reviewed this and also recommends to
the Council approval of this application. For more details about this Robyn MacDonald is going to speak to
the Council.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that this petition is a use permit for a church located within the
same time of Sunday Morning. Therefore, 167 spaces are required. The site plan indicates a total of 244
parking spaces on the site. Staff is of the opinion that there is enough off street parking spaces to facilitate
these to churches. The applicant has stated in a letter of intent that the Grace Church will meet on Sunday
mornings between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. and for evening service between 5:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. on
Sunday and will meet in both the gym and the assembly room and the “T” building. The River Lutheran
Church will meet between 10:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. in the great room of the upper school.
In conclusion the proposed church is consistent with board and plan policies and is compatible with the
surrounding area. This development is in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and staff
recommended conditions. Staff recommends approval conditional of this proposed use for the church.
At the Planning Commission meeting they included and voted unanimously to include condition 4e, which is
to provide traffic control when 50 cars depart at one time from the premises. Right now the applicant is not at
that point in time but the Commission was concerned about sight distance on the curve. So that was put into
the conditions that are before the City Council tonight.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there was no public comment on item.
Motion and Second: Councilmember D’Aversa moved to approve U07-005, 13660 New Providence Road,
(The Mill Spring Academy). The Grace Church is requesting to use the existing gym and assembly room and
the “T” buildings for up to 200 members and the River Lutheran Church to use the Great Room for up to 175
members. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 5 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she could not hear Robyn MacDonald and asked that she
confirm the number of total users conditioned under the use permit.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that the condition would be 50 cars departing. The total number
of people is about 350.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that her question is that if at some point in the future the two
churches in combination should go beyond that, the applicant would need to come back before the Council to
ask for a variance to that use permit.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that was correct, the applicant would get a new use permit.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey only other question was for Dan Drake, Public Works Director. During all
of the reviews they talked about whether or not, because of the sight distance from that entrance, if at some
point whether it be the school or those churches…if there was a point in time when the Public Works
Department felt that perhaps a flashing light or something would be necessary? She asked Mr. Drake to
speak about how they would be pursuing that.
Public Works Director Dan Drake stated that they have a project out there right now to improve the
striping and the raised pavement markings and they believe that alone should address some of the conditions
out there right now. The flashing light is not necessary at this point.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Mr. Drake if at some point that became necessary that would still be
something that they would pursue for safety purposes?
Public Works Director Dan Drake stated that was correct.
Vote: After no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 07-415
RZ07-013, Zoning Ordinance Article 12H.2, Northwest Overlay District Demolition Permit for both
residential and non-residential buildings.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that this is an amendment to the zoning ordinance
regarding the Design Review Board’s review of demolition permits. Senior Robyn MacDonald will explain
in more detail.
Senior Planner MacDonald stated that they are just trying to clarify, ensuring that all demolition permits,
whether they are residential in nature or commercial buildings non-residential. That they are all included to
go to the Design Review Board before the demolition permit is approved by community development. On
Page 2, before the 12H.2, the staff did a clean up to make it very clear.
It states that at this point in time the City of Milton Design Review Board shall review all plans for
development in the City of Milton except for single-family residential land uses and/or dwelling units for
compliance with the standards herein and shall make recommendations to the Department of Community
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 6 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Development prior to the approval of a building permit, primary variance and land disturbance permit and
for both residential and non-residential structures for a demolition permit.
She noted that as this went before the Planning Commission one can see some other little edits like taking
out overlay district. The Commission felt that this was not appropriate to be called the City of Milton Design
Review Board so that edit has been made as well. That is pretty much all of the edits to this article at this
point in time.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that was no public comment.
Mayor Lockwood called for a motion and a second.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve RZ07-013, Zoning Ordinance Article
12H.2 northwest overlay District, Demolition permit for both residential and non-residential buildings.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 07-416
RZ07-014, Zoning Ordinance Article 12A.3.8, Overlay District Authority to amend deadline for
consideration of Certificate of Endorsement by the Design Review Board.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that this is an amendment to the zoning ordinance
regarding the Certificate of Endorsement that is issued by the Design Review Board. Community
Development recommends approval of this item. Robyn MacDonald will provide a little more detail on the
timing. This was all about the timing of when something is submitted and the time in which they had to act
to actually get this before the Design Review Board.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that basically at this point in time once a building permit or a
land disturbance permit or a demolition permit goes before…now it is required to go before the Design
Review Board before it has a final approval by the Community Development Department with the other
reviews.
On Page 12A.6.3.8 it states that The DRB shall consider completed application for COE within…it was
previously 15 days and now they are asking for 90 days. There was some discussion at the work session
where it was discussed that it was 45 days. But at the Planning Commission they recommended a 90 day
limit just in case the first month it was rezoned it missed the second month for some unheard of reason that it
would not be automatically approved. So the Commission felt comfortable with the 90 days. But that is not
at all the anticipation of staff that once a permit comes in it should be heard before the next Design Review
Board meeting. She added that there is some editing for cleaning up to make it consistent with the City of
Milton.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there was no public comment on this item.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember D’Aversa moved to approve RZ07-014 Zoning Ordinance Article
12A.3.8 Overlay District Authority to amend deadline for consideration of Certificate of Endorsement by the
Design Review Board. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 7 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Agenda Item 07-417
RZ07-015, Zoning Ordinance to delete the following Articles:
12B – Sandy Springs Overlay District
12B(1) Perimeter Community Improvement District
12C Cascade Corridor Overlay District
12D Old National Highway Overlay District
12E Northeast Fulton Overlay District
12F Sandtown Overlay District
12J Chattahoochee Hill Country Overlay District
12K South Fulton Parkway Overlay District
12L Cliftondale Overlay District
12M Cedar Grove Overlay District
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that this amendment would eliminate from the
zoning ordinance those portions that were adopted along with the Fulton County Zoning Ordinance. These
portions have absolutely no relevance to the City of Milton. There are not many things that Milton does that
are truly no-brainers but this is absolutely one of them The Community Development Department
recommends deletion of these parts of the zoning ordinance. It will reduce it by almost 100 pages in size and
probably a couple of pounds in weight. The department does recommend approval of this amendment.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there was no public comment on this item.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve RZ07-015 Zoning Ordinance to delete the
following articles: 12B-Sandy Springs Overlay District, 12B(1)-Perimeter Community Improvement District,
12C-Cascade Corridor Overlay District, 12D-Old National Highway Overlay District, 12E-Northeast Fulton
Overlay District, 12F-Sandtown Overlay District, 12J-Chattahoochee Hill Country Overlay District, 12K-
South Fulton Parkway Overlay District, 12L-Cliftondale Overlay District, 12M-Cedar Grove Overlay
District. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 07-418
ZM07-006, 2865 Webb Road - To modify Condition 3a of Z06-051 to reduce the required 25-foot buffer
and 10-foot improvement setback to a five-foot landscape strip along the east and west property line for a
distance of 150 feet north of the existing building.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that the department is recommending denial of this
request to reduce the buffer. Robyn MacDonald will provide a bit more detail.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that the subject site is to be developed as a Childcare/Montessori
School within an existing single-family residence. It was rezoned from AG-1 to O/I pursuant to Z06-051 for
a maximum density of 1470.59 square feet of gross floor area per acre zoned for a total of 2000 square feet.
The applicant requested a concurrent variance to reduce the required 25 foot buffer and 10 foot improvement
setback to a five foot landscape strip along the east and west property lines only in the area of the existing
driveway, structure and parking areas which was approved by the Board of Commissioners last year.
Because of the long and narrow shape of the lot approximately 117 feet wide, the required 70 feet, 25 foot
buffer and 10 foot improvement setback on either the east or west property lines leaves is approximately 47
feet for the play areas.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 8 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Staff is of the opinion that the reduction in the required buffer will have a negative impact on the adjacent
properties to the east and west as they are currently developed with single-family residences zoned AG-1.
Secondly, there is sufficient room to allow the play area to be located further to the south. Therefore, staff
recommends denial of the requested modification to condition 3A.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there was no public comment on this item.
Applicant, Kyota Ussery, stated that she was the owner of the property at 2865 Webb Road. As Robyn
MacDonald described, the property is narrow and long. The applicant believes that when the staff was going
through figuring out whether they were going to recommend this or not that Robyn MacDonald told her that
they overlooked the fact that she has a septic system back there. The septic tank is directly behind the
building and within a certain distance there are all of the drainage lines which there cannot be any structure
over the drainage fields. The applicant’s plans were for a small expansion and this leaves her with no room.
She only has 47 feet to work with and she needs five feet for one additional classroom in the back. She will
then have absolutely no area to put the playground because the area of the playground is going to fall into the
drainage field. This is why she is asking for a reduction in the buffer just so many feet beyond the building
so that it allows her to expand to one or two more classrooms and be able to also put enough play ground for
the children.
The applicant stated that she went through this when she did the rezoning with Fulton County but it was kind
of overlooked and she informed her neighbors. There was no opposition. There was no objection to that but
she understands because she got AG-1, which pretty soon is not going to be AG-1. She does not know if the
Council can consider that at this time or not but in her case it makes a big deal because she needs to be able
to expand a certain amount to be able to survive. If the Council could consider that that would be great, she
only needs about 150 feet beyond the building.
Mayor Joe Lockwood asked for any comments or questions from the Council. There were none. He asked
for a motion and a second.
Councilmember D’Aversa asked Director Tom Wilson to clarify what staff would have been looking for to
recommend approval of this?
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that he was unaware that there was a septic tank
back there. He did not believe that it was shown on the site plan and that is something to consider.
Councilmember D’Aversa asked if they could recommend deferral and ask to review this again.
Motion and Second: Councilmember D’Aversa moved to defer the modification of condition 3.a of Z06-
051 to reduce the required 25-foot buffer and 10-foot improvement setback to a five foot landscape strip
along the east and west property line for a distance of 150 feet north of the existing building for a period of
30 days. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion.
Councilmember Mohrig asked Director Tom Wilson if those 30 days would give them enough time to talk
to the applicant and consider the septic field.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it would.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 9 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Vote: After no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Jeanette Marchiafava stated as moved by motion and vote the Council will now hear RC07-
007/VC07-005.
Agenda Item 07-413
RC07-007/VC07-005, southeast corner of SR 9 and Deerfield Pkwy - To rezone from A (Medium
Density Apartments) and C-1 (Community Business) to C-1 (Community Business) to develop 141,511
square feet of retail, commercial, service, office and accessory uses including fast food restaurant limited to
bagel, bakery, coffee houses and ice cream parlors, which shall not be freestanding, and a gas station. The
applicant is also requesting a three-part concurrent variance;
To reduce the required buffer along the east property line from 100 feet to 25 feet and the 10-foot
improvement setback; To delete the 10-foot landscape strip along the south property line; and To allow a
loading area within the front yard.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that the Community Development Department is
recommending approval of the rezoning, denial of part one of the concurrent variance, and approval of parts
two and three of the concurrent variance. The Planning Commission reviewed this at their last meeting.
Likewise they recommended approval of the rezoning, denial of parts one and three of the concurrent
variance and approval of part two of the concurrent variance. Robyn MacDonald will provide the details of
this rezoning.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that the Planning Commission also recommended that the
request for the gas station be withdrawn and that was withdrawn in their motion as well. What comes before
the Council is basically the site plan but without the gasoline station on the northeast corner.
This is a 16.3 acre site currently zoned A (Medium Density Apartments) pursuant to Z84-224 approved for
12 units per acre and C-1 (Community Business) pursuant to Z84-223 approved for 8,000 square feet per
acre within a single structure, which was the 116,720 square feet. The site is currently vacant and the existing
trees of non-specimen size are harvested and the property graded under an approved land disturbance permit
issued by Fulton County for Deerfield Place, Phase 1. Along the southern portion a temporary earth and
detention pond is being constructed to manage Phase 1 of Deerfield Place immediately to the south. This
rezoning request along with the applicant’s site plan, Phase 1 located to the south exceeded the Atlanta
Regional Commission’s threshold of 300,000 square feet for retail use. As a development of regional impact
a DRI review was submitted to the Georgia Regional Area Transportation Authority. The result of this
review has been attached to the staff report. The findings by the ARC were that the project is in the best
interest for the region and therefore the state.
The proposed retail development is suitable based on the existing C-1 Community Business to the south
pursuant to ZR3-185 approved at 9552 square feet per acre as well as Board policy on the underlying zoning
for the subject site.
Regarding different issues of the variances MacDonald stated that Article 4.43e.1b requires a 100 foot
undisturbed buffer and a 10-foot improvement setback under the large scale retail service commercial
structures and development of 75,000 square feet or greater ordinance adopted by Fulton County on May 4,
2006 adjacent to residential uses.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 10 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
The applicant is requesting a concurrent variance to reduce the buffer to 25 feet and a 10-foot improvement
setback along the east property line. Staff is of the opinion that the required buffer should remain at least at
100 feet and a 10-foot improvement setback to separate the existing residential development to the east.
Based on the fact that the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that is not self imposed. Staff
recommends denial of part 1 of VC07-005.
The applicant is also requesting the deletion of a required 10-foot landscape strip along the south property
line in order for the development to the south and the subject site to be developed as one. This would provide
for both vehicular and pedestrian inter-parcel access. It is the staff’s opinion that by granting this variance
the overall development would be more cohesive and meet the intent of the comprehensive plan for
encouraging inter-parcel access within and between land uses to improve transportation, circulation and to
increase pedestrian safety. Therefore, staff recommends approval conditional of part 2 of VC07-005.
The applicant has requested a concurrent variance to allow a loading area within the front yard, Article 12G-
4f6. The site plan indicates that the largest building located on the northern portion of the site has a loading
area facing Deerfield Parkway. Deerfield Parkway is technically considered the front yard. Based on the
development’s linear shape and other buildings fronting the loading area adjacent to Deerfield and the
applicant providing a wall to screen the loading area, staff recommends approval conditional of part 3 VC07-
005.
In conclusion, the proposed C-1 development is consistent with the policies and intent of the Focus Fulton
2025 comprehensive land use plan and consistent with recent board policy. Therefore staff recommends that
this request to rezone to C-1 be approved conditional. Further, staff recommends denial of part 1 of VC07-
005 and approval conditional of parts 2 and 3 of VC-7-005. A set of recommended conditions are included if
the Mayor and City Council choose to approve the proposed development as submitted.
Mayor Lockwood stated that the Council would now hear from the applicant. Congratulations were in order
as the applicant is the father of a new baby girl.
Attorney Pete Hendrix presented the application. He stated that he practices law at 6085 Lake Forest Drive.
The property is a 16.3 acre tract located at the southeast corner of Deerfield Pkwy and SR 9. The front corner
of the property is presently zoned to the A apartment classification and the 14.59 acre portion of it is
presently zoned C-1 at appreciably the same level of density as was requested under this application. A total
of 116,722 square feet with one little catch and that is the reason that Hendrix is in front of the Council this
evening. It has to be built in one building. They could not break that out or they would not be going through
a rezoning if they did not have to labor under all of that development as being under one building. Because it
is being connected to phase II it triggered a DRI. The applicant filed their rezoning application on June 5,
2007. The DRI process started on June 11, 2007. They finally came out from under that on the 30th of
August, 2007 with a letter recommending approval that has been sent to the state and is very important in the
Council’s consideration of the application. GRETA and ARC conditioned the applicant to the curb cut on
Deerfield being 400 feet from that intersection. That is coming into play with the current variance that the
applicant has requested and that is that they be reduced to a 25-foot natural undisturbed buffer and a 10-foot
improvement setback. In addition to that, Phase I is at that same level of treatment along that easterly
property line.
The folks who were present at the Planning Commission meeting stood up in favor of the immediately
impacted folks to the east, Villages of Devonshire as well as Camden Deerfield. So the two immediately
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 11 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
adjoining neighborhoods have spoken affirmatively in favor of that request. Not only do the fit, he thinks,
overcoming the burden of the shape and size along the configuration of the property that they labor under,
but also under Section 22.3.1 as long as what they are asking for is in basic harmony and the policy and
intent of the zoning ordinance then it is an either/or. They don’t necessarily have to carry the burden on
shape and size although Hendrix feels that they do carry that burden. But in addition to that and given the
fact that phase I is at the 25 foot natural undisturbed plus 10, they feel like they are basic harmony with that
by asking for it on the phase II.
The applicant is also asking for the ability to have the loading dock area in the front yard. The prevailing
amount of comment at Planning Commission in concern or opposition to this was over the filling station.
They have removed the filling station and in fact, they now have a site plan that shows not only the filling
station and gas pumps removed but they have also given an architectural treated wall that will have the same
treatment as the architecture of the building. They have a planted landscape strip that will give further
screening from Deerfield Pkwy and now they have placed a building intended to be either a financial
institution or a restaurant so there will be totally and complete visual blockage of that loading dock area.
The other application that Hendrix has concerns a concurrent variance. It is to be able to do away with what
by development standards are the required landscape strips, C-1. Obviously they want to be able to develop
this out with complete continuity with pedestrian engagement, cross parking between phase I and phase II
and therefore he is asking for removal of the old development standard and it would have to be a 10-foot
landscape strip. When they came through with phase I they anticipated that there might be a phase II and so
they have that same relief that has been granted under phase I where there is no landscape strip that is
required on that side.
Attorney Pete Hendrix stated that at this point in time he thinks that he would like to reserve the rest of his
time for rebuttal.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak in support of the application.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that she thinks they want to reserve that time. She stated that they will move
to opposition. First, she will call on Alan Tart, on behalf of the Avensong Community Association, and he
has filed the affidavit with the clerk. They are distributing a handout as well.
OPPOSITION
Alan Tart stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Avensong Community Association. Avensong is a
neighborhood of about 564 homes located at Deerfield Pkwy and SR 9. First and foremost Mr. Tart stated
that he appreciates the City and the Planning Commission’s careful analysis of this. They offer the following
recommendations with regard to this rezoning. First of all, the use of the facility for gas stations has been
withdrawn. However, the neighbors would like as a condition that it include no filling stations or pumps of
any kind. That is to make sure that in the future this is not used for any other sort of filling station. The
neighbors also recommend denial of all three variances requested and they base this recommendation on the
fact that they feel that the developer has not demonstrated hardship to justify variances.
With regards to part I of the variance to reduce the required buffer along the east property line from 100 feet
to 25 feet and a 10-foot improvement setback, the required 100 foot buffer along that east line is to shield
that residential property immediately adjacent to the development. As was mentioned earlier, the apartment
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 12 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
community apparently has written a letter but that was written by the management of that property
development and all of the residents were not represented in that letter. Also, with regard to part II of the
variance to delete the 10 foot landscape strip along the south property line, the neighbors feel that that should
be denied due to the substantial clear cutting that was done on the land. They feel that the landscape strip
could be creatively distributed so that there are still breaks in the asphalt but still allow for inter-parcel
access, which is needed to create the harmony in the development.
With regards to part III, which is to have the loading dock in the front yard which will be Deerfield Parkway,
the neighbors are asking that to be denied.
The neighbors would like some conditions added to prohibit drive-thru’s for dry cleaners and fast food
establishments whether free-standing or not as well as no more than two drive-thru’s for any bank that would
be installed. They learned from a meeting with Sumner that the gas station would be replaced by either a
bank or a restaurant. They would like that to be limited to two drive-thru’s only. Also to be consistent with
recent citizen recommendations from improving the SR 9 overlay the neighbors recommend that the building
height be limited to 30 feet or less. As the Council may recall a couple of weeks ago when this came up for a
vote to improve the SR 9 overlay that particular section of the improvement was not adopted but a comment
was made by the city that there could be limitations to the building height in rezoning.
Mr. Tart stated that the neighbors would also like for the lighting standards to be at least as stringent as the
northwest overlay. They would like the number of parking spaces to be reduced from five per thousand to
four per thousand feet of building space and break up parking with increasing the number of landscape
islands. The land immediately adjacent to the apartment community, there are 50 and 60 parking spaces with
no break. Increase the distance between the street and sidewalks to provide greater safety and usability. Also
erect a black equestrian fence on the other side of the sidewalk next to the street. This will be facing SR 9
and will enhance the rural equestrian character of the city’s gateway. Add a requirement that the detention
facility should be natural in design with no chain link fence. Also given the substantial clear cutting, the
neighbors ask that the trees on the property…increase the number of four-inch trees by at least 25 percent.
Add a requirement for the traffic signal to be added at SR 9 and Deerfield Pkwy to provide safe traffic
passage for the residents in the area. The neighbors would also like for the development…as they all know,
the development will bring more litter into the area especially given that there will be an entrance and an exit
on Deerfield Pkwy. They would like for the developer to maintain the landscaping between SR 9 to the
entrance of Avensong and further cooperate with the neighborhood from Avensong down to Webb Road to
make sure that the litter is collected. The neighbors would also like for the City of Milton to establish an
approved truck route that would take trucks up Windward Pkwy and down SR 9 so that Deerfield Pkwy is
not used for truck deliveries.
It is the neighbors’ opinion that the variances that are being asked for by this developer are being asked for
because they want increased density on this parcel. The neighbors would like for the city Council to provide
an equal playing field for developers by only approving variances for which hardships exist. The neighbors
would appreciate the Council’s cooperation in making SR 9 an area that is truly befitting the gateway of
Milton.
Isaiah Yancey, 13274 Merrywood Drive, Milton stated that he was president of the Regency at Windward
Square Town Home Association. The Regency at Windward Square is a subdivision of 144 homes, which is
directly across the street from the Sumner development. The Board of the homeowners' association reviewed
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 13 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
the variances and they are opposed to all three variances for the very same reasons that Mr. Tart has just
reviewed. Yancey would also like to go on record…
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that Mr. Yancey had 45 seconds left for his opposition.
Mr. Yancey stated that they also oppose the gas station and they are totally in favor in concert with the
additional recommendations.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that the speaker had more than 45 seconds left. She apologized that she had
her numbers wrong and if Mr. Yancey wanted to continue talking, he had a total of 10 minutes.
Mr. Yancey stated that those were his comments. He wanted to stress that they are totally in favor of the
additional recommendations as proposed by the homeowners' association from Avensong.
Sara Allen, 13430 Avensong Ives Way, stated that she was speaking in regards to a petition that she started
against this rezoning. The Council should have a list and the supporting documents. Not all copies will
include all of the supporting documents. The list is of 137 people not only in Avensong but also in the other
adjoining neighborhoods that oppose this rezoning. Of the 137, Ms. Allen stated that she spoke directly to 28
of those people and that was directly against the loading dock and the gas station. The gas station has been
removed but she also wants to reiterate to Alan Tart’s comment about putting the exception in there that
there will be no filling stations so that that use does not get added in the future. This petition shows that the
people in the surrounding area are opposed to this. This is not just the homeowners' association board but
also the opinion of the people that actually live in the area who are opposed to these variances. In conclusion,
Ms. Allen wanted to support the recommendations that Alan Tart has suggested which will support the
petition that 137 people signed.
Ed Parsons, 2950 Serenade Court, stated that his residence is catty-cornered to where this development is
taking place. He is here to oppose the proposed variances. He had a couple of things he wanted to bring to
light here. One was that he reviewed the information on the Milton web site last night. One thing that is a
little bit inaccurate is on the photos that he has, there is a piece of property that is straight west of this
development area has already been developed as Habitat Homes. There is another piece of property that is
being developed as a town home community. It is almost entirely surrounded by high density homes already.
One has to take into consideration the amount of noise that is going to be generated. He knows the Council
has talked about the variances with the setbacks and the things like that but one of the things he wanted to
bring up is the noise consideration. Previously he lived in a location that was adjacent to a grocery store and
retail location. Starting at 6 a.m. they had loading trucks coming in and out and garbage trucks so one of the
considerations that should be approved in some fashion would be a loading dock that they would consider
putting some kind of time restriction on when they can deliver things to the stores.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that Mr. Parsons had one minute left.
Mr. Parson stated that concluded his comments.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that completes the opposition’s comments at this time.
Attorney for the applicant, Pete Hendrix, stated that if the Council would go to page 7 of the staff’s
review, where the proposal of the use that is suitable for the adjacent properties in the affirmative and the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 14 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
adverse affect in the negative. It has a reasonable economic life as currently zoned. They all know that
14.589 acres of it does and it is just that one huge building aspect that has him in front of the Council.
Excessive burden of the use of the infrastructure and if the conditions of zoning are complied with
considered that it won’t, conformity with land use plan as a live-work neighborhood would suggest office,
service, commercial retail densities up to 10,000 square feet to the acre. This application is 8,808 square feet
to the acre.
On the next page, existing of changed conditions effecting the development and of course the development
throughout that corridor and environmentally adverse effects in the negative it is to be noted that phase I
contiguous and to the south is actually relevant showing 9,052 square feet to the acre.
One gets over to the other issues of consideration on pages 12 and 13 with paragraphs H through P. All of
those found by the staff to be in the affirmative. Staff concluded at the end that it is consistent with the plan
and if approved according to the staff’s recommended conditions they feel that it would be an inappropriate
development.
Attorney Pete Hendrix stated that he would like to go back once again to the variances that they are asking
for. The staff has seen fit to recommend they approve the variance for the loading dock in the front yard.
And now with the deletion of the gas pumps on the revised and amended site plan that they have been able to
put together, there is a wall that comes along there between that loading dock and Deerfield Parkway that is
going to have the same architectural and building material treatment as the actual building. In addition to that
there is a beefed up landscape strip going up towards Deerfield Pkwy and now one has the intervention of the
building that has been placed up there where the gas pumps had been located as the anticipated use either as
a restaurant or as a bank. But once again, coming to the landscape strip that is along the easterly property
line, the applicant feels that they are burdened by the configuration of that piece of property that is
legitimate. One can see how the road narrows on that property as one goes from phase I up through the phase
II that is in front of the Council.
In addition to that, Mr. Hendrix stated that he would go back to that section of Article 3.2.1 that says we do
not necessarily have to carry that burden if they can show that it is in basic harmony. Mr. Hendrix
maintained that it is in basic harmony because phase I has in place along that easterly line the same 25-foot
natural undisturbed and 10-foot improvement setback that they are asking for under this application.
He stated that he would ask Brian Snelling to walk the Council through as to the basic integrity of the
development, the building materials, the architectural design and what they have done to try to respond to
some of the community comments but particularly with a view towards the location of the Kohl’s.
Brian Snelling, 1450 S. Johnson Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30319, stated that he had a couple of items to
go over, one regarding the picture. The gentleman is correct; some of these other areas are being developed.
Unfortunately with the aerial software that he has in his office, a 2005 aerial was the latest he could get. He
does have some more recent aerials but he is correct that there are other developments in approximate
location of the building. Obviously that building is there. Some of the other comments regarding the property
to the east of them, it is true that they have met with Camden Deerfield. They are not just a property
management company that does higher end developments randomly. They are actually the owners of the
property and he has met with them and they are not just a property management company that has no interest
in the property. They are actually the owners of the property reviewing an agreement about the reduction of
the buffer because they know the measures that the applicant is putting in place. Obviously, the 25 feet exists
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 15 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
now, the 25-foot buffer, they no they are planning an additional 25 feet. There is also some topography that
allows a berm. Because of the topography change there is also a berm, in a sense, that will be planted with
their landscape strip that further shields their property from the adjacent property.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that Mr. Snelling had one minute remaining.
Brian Snelling stated that once he gets into any questions that the Council may have, he did bring his
architect. They have designed the entire center and their 3-D model, all of the phase I architecture is
accurate. They have tried to expand that into phase II. He has not invested a lot of time developing all the
architecture of phase II without knowing if they can get approved. Obviously they have not spent an
inordinate about of money putting that in but they can speak about the architecture and speak about the need
of a landscape strip. To delete that landscape strip that is there and obviously get their continuity they can
still plant those islands through there so essentially one would still have some landscaping at the property
lines and the landscaping at the property line’s out lots. Most of the need for the variance, especially the
loading in the front yard, is one that because they decided to roll in that extra acre and a half, which is
currently zoned apartments, into their commercial. They could have left that alone and not bothered with that
and that variance would have gone away.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he would like to first off say to Mr. Snelling and his company that this is a
very nice looking project. It is a quality looking development. As everyone knows, in the City of Milton they
need…they are going to have some development and they would certainly like to have some quality
development and he thinks the applicant has put forth the effort and time to present the Council with that. On
these three variances he thinks the point was made about the loading dock and it being on the front yard on
Deerfield Pkwy. But as long as they…he knows it is not a separate property now but he knows there is
another building there and if the applicants put the wall in there he thinks that will pretty much do away with
the issue of the loading dock being even seen by the public or on Deerfield Pkwy.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that those measures certainly do mitigate the view
of that loading dock and minimize it.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he thinks the biggest hurdle here is probably the 100 foot buffer going through
the 25 foot to the 100 foot buffer. He has been looking at it a little bit and he wants to get staff’s
recommendation on if they would be able to shift the building over a little bit to maybe with some parking
and whatnot if there is a way to come to some middle ground on going from a 25-foot buffer to a 100-foot
buffer.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that it would obviously be different. He does not
know what kind of hardship or what kind of condition that would place upon the applicant, but maybe they
could just ask them what that would mean.
Councilmember Thurman asked if they allowed them to go to four parking spaces per thousand rather than
five, could they get rid of that whole row of parking that is currently…
Community Development Director Wilson stated that moving the five spaces per thousand to four spaces
per thousand would reduce the parking count by 20 percent. Certainly that would be more of a reduction in
those 70 spaces as the applicant had indicted. They could be eliminated as well as a few other spaces could
be eliminated where they could go from five to four spaces per thousand.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 16 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Councilmember Thurman stated that would give them an extra 10 to 20 feet of buffer. If they went to a
74,999 square foot store rather the 87,000 square feet they could put it at 25 feet without having to come
before the Council.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that is correct. The requirement for the 100-foot buffer
is restricted by the big box ordinance which is anything greater than 75,000 square feet.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey was asked if he could confirm that the building that is being proposed is
87,000 square feet.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that was correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated the big box ordinance that is in place was adopted legally not only by
Fulton County but by this City Council is indeed in place and is what requires that 100 feet.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that was correct.
City Attorney Scott stated that Pete Hendrix just pointed out something to him and he wanted to confirm it
with Tom Wilson as well. He is concerned the fact that he does not know that the reduction in the parking
can be done by this Council. He believes it needs to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that he does not agree with that. He thinks the
Council can over ride anything in the zoning ordinance.
Councilmember Thurman stated long as it is a condition of the current zoning application. They can not
hear it by itself as long as it is conditioned of one they can hear it.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that was correct.
The applicant stated that he was not standing up there taking issue with the substance that is being discussed
here. He thinks one has to be careful not to apply an unenforceable condition. That was his only issue.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked of Tom Wilson to speak as to how they would if they wanted to have
some additional conditions beyond those that are currently part of staff’s recommendation but could include
four per thousand versus five per thousand. What would be his recommendation if they were to incorporate
that as a condition of zoning too this evening?
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that first of all, five per thousand that is in the
zoning ordinance…the Council adopted that and that is their action. They can certainly over rule that action
as a condition of zoning and they would still be writing a condition of zoning to be specific to either a
specific number of parking spaces that they wish them not to exceed or it could be a percentage, like four per
thousand. It really doesn’t have to be that exact number; it might be four something per thousand. They were
just talking about the length of the building plus a little bit more to be given another 20 feet with a 20 foot
additional buffer if they could possibly shift the building over a little bit more. Let’s say hypothetically that
they are and it is within the Council’s purview to reduce that four per thousand. What specifications would
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 17 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
that give for the 87,000 square foot building today that is being proposed? Would that give them and afford
them a 100-foot buffer? Tom Wilson stated that he thought they would have to ask the applicant that.
Attorney for the applicant, Pete Hendrix, stated that he would have to look at a couple of things. The
overall 16½ acres and he does not know that he has recalculated based on these spaces. There are probably
the same numbers and that they are showing roughly. On the gas station before they were showing roughly
18 space. It was parking at less than five per thousand per their application. One thing they kind of looked at
was that Kohl’s looked at their own tract and their parking requirements. Eliminating the full 72 spaces along
this end would drop them down to about 3.75 per thousand, which is pretty low for anybody. But overall,
bringing these back into play and as far as one looks at the full 16 ½ acres, he believes that number would
still be over four per thousand but it will be reduced. One of the points they have actually talked about
internally, and if one notices from this plan, which is probably different from the plan that was submitted
with the application and even different from their phase I plan. On one side they had gone back in and on
those 73 spaces they have added the landscape islands back in and the row in front of Kohl’s, even though
his engineer did not put it there, he told him to add it there. This building, if it gets approved, he wants to be
a little closer to the street so half of this parking is gone anyway. They have gone back and added the islands
in two different spots. Where that came from, leaving those islands out is part of their agreement with Fulton
County on phase I and Gene Calloway. They actually worked with Mark Law but they went with the one that
they directly had this conversation with but it kind of carried over.
The whole purpose of the trees is to shade from the heat gained from the parking. The theory is that
obviously in the summer, later in the day is where one gets most of that heat gain. If it is shaded from the
west, which is why a lot of things are left out because they didn’t cut any trees. They still have their
landscape strip. They took the trees that would have been in those islands and popped them behind the curb
and they provided the same shading. That has also allowed them to meet their parking count on phase I or get
close to it. With all of the landscape islands that were shown on phase I…they still had the requirement of
meeting 1,441 spaces. He thinks phase parks at about a 4.81 per thousand ratio as what was approved in
zoning. So it makes it very difficult to meet one zoning condition but not the other. So they did work with
Gene Calloway and even though some of these spaces in the back along this property and everywhere they
had an ability to shade from the west, they moved the tree actually into a thicker island and then gained a few
more parking spaces here and there to also get close to their traffic count without having to come and ask for
another variance to reduce the parking count. So they carried that same theory over into phase II but since
they have been talking this week they are willing as the applicants to add these islands in as shown. They can
add the islands into this to reduce the spacing and they would also be happy to entertain a reduction of some
of these maybe from the front wall back and still allow these parking spaces with the islands to be treated as
parking for the front of the store then maybe loose about 30 plus spaces. What one would have coming off
Deerfield…there is roughly 50 feet to the back of the curb. The spaces are 19-20 feet deep so one would
have a 70 foot buffer along the majority of the property. They would like to keep some of the parking
because that would get their ratio closer to four for Kohl’s and in a sense once one gets back to where the
detention facility is he will naturally have to 20 foot landscape strip along the back side of the pond and he
would also have the 25 foot buffer. So one is getting roughly 50-60 feet and for the most part he is going to
have 50 feet with some trees in the parking and from that point to the back he would have 70 feet of
buffer/landscape strip. It is nothing that they have actually talked around this week as something to do with
Kohl’s. It is something that they would add on to conditions themselves. So the answer to the question is that
they can’t meet the 100 foot buffer with the 87,000 square foot building. The 100 feet is roughly right to the
edge of the wall. That is where to 100-foot comes into play. If one puts the 100-foot buffer in then he loses
the entire driveway,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 18 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Mayor Joe Lockwood inquired if there was a possibility to shift the building towards SR 9? He thought that
there was about 20 feet there.
Brian Snelling stated that he thought there was about 10-15 feet. They could get closer to the building
setback.
Attorney for the applicant, Pete Hendrix, stated that it also would require, because of the topography of
SR 9, the existing topography and the fact that it has to be here. It would require them to build a retaining
wall in that location, which through other measures of time he has come to learn that retaining walls are not
desired in the City of Milton in certain places. They would require a retaining wall there if the applicant
moves the building closer to SR 9. The way they have it designed right now, because of the topography they
would work that slope back naturally with landscaping and other measures. So there is a little flexibility
there but it is very close to that building setback line.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that there were three possible prototypes or footprints for Kohl’s.
Maybe there are more, but that is what she was told. Is there a slightly smaller store footprint that the
applicant can put there that would allow for that 100-foot buffer and that same positioning of the store that
they have there?
Brian Snelling stated that they do have a smaller footprint that is 65,000 square feet that is small. Their
standard prototype for a large store is 87,000 square feet. It is not an option for Kohl’s to put that 65,000
square foot building here because the store would not do too well. The shelves would be empty because their
demographics, their numbers on the demographics in the area, their projected sales would actually cause the
store…they couldn’t keep it stocked. Eventually the shelves would be empty, they can’t keep a full line of
product and that becomes an issue for them and they would not do the store. A 65,000 square foot store here
would not function properly and it wouldn’t produce the revenue and the sales that they need to keep the
store stocked and eventually customers will quit coming because they would walk into a store and there is
nothing on the shelf or the product one wants to find is not on the shelf and he is going to find somewhere
else to shop.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that if they did put a 65,000 square foot store there, they won’t have
to worry about the 100-foot buffer anyway.
Brian Snelling stated that a part of the DRI and all the GRETA approval is to try to have access from this
parcel out to Deerfield Pkwy. They drew a site plan with this store moved closer to SR 9, right up against
that 40-foot buffer, put a retaining wall in and actually drew the 100-foot buffer and the 60-foot setback right
up against the wall and then it eliminates the connectivity from this driveway right up to the rest of the
center. This driveway would then have to be moved down closer to Deerfield Pkwy than the GRETA
requirements require and the driveway would simply just be this parcel and a truck turn around to try and get
back out. They could build it. But it is not practical because the whole point is to have interconnectivity and
an alternate access route and not have one access point on SR 9 to this parcel.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey clarified that their choices are they can go with a bigger store and Snelling
can try to work with the Council on trying to get greater than the 25-feet but not the 100-feet. Or it may not
be a Kohl’s. A different store could be 75 and they would get the 25-feet and the City would not get the 50-
feet or whatever they could get with the situation with the 87,000 square foot store.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 19 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Brian Snelling stated that that was correct. He does not know the wording of the big box ordinance, it says
an individual retailer. He proposed that maybe Kohl’s walked away from the deal and stated that at this time
they could not come to City of Milton. As he said earlier, he could go build an 116,000 square foot building
25 feet or roughly 30 feet off that property line and just break it up into multiple tenants and not have to ask
for a variance. He could come in and take this same, exact building, but a dividing wall in it and put two
40,000 square foot tenants in it and he won’t have to ask for the variance. It is one of those things where
Kohl’s wants to be here, the applicant wants them to be here, he thinks this is a great development. The
applicant is willing to make some changes along the east property line. He has 25 feet there now and they are
planning an additional 25-feet behind the curb so one would have 50 feet and they would be happy to lose
the back 30 plus spaces. From the front wall back to the drive would be 70 feet minus the little driveway
area. Then one would have the natural detention area with the 25-foot landscape strip in the back and a 25-
foot buffer. He stated that for the majority of the property one would have 60 to 70 and then there would be
one side where he would have 50 feet.
Mayor Lockwood asked Mr. Snelling if there is any flexibility on the actual footprint, not the square footage
but to deepen the building 20 feet and have 20-foot less width so that it would fit better and give him the
buffer.
Brian Snelling stated that actually he would have to defer to Kohl’s on that. They have fixture plans that
they will allow and for them to go and design a custom store…they actually do have some people from
Kohl’s here tonight. He does not know if they are prepared to speak to that point but in his conversations
with them and he will be happy to bring them up if the Council would like to hear directly from them. But
from his conversations with Kohl’s for them to do business it is hard for them to go into every community
and do a custom store. In order for them to lay out their fixture lights and their store the prototypical way,
this empty box that they have now…anything they can change is obviously the loading dock location. So the
basic square is what it is and the loading dock could be moved from the back to either side. If he is not
mistaken, he inquired if it does not allow loading in the side yard? So, in a sense the way that…because they
decide to bring that acre and a half in created their own front yard, SR 9 is now the side yard. They obviously
don’t want their loading dock on the side yard. And if they tried to move it to this side, they are in the same
boat. They would cut off any access from this parcel to Deerfield Pkwy, which is a requirement that they are
going to have alternate means of egress from the property.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that it would be great to hear from Kohl’s with regard to these
suggestions.
Mayor Lockwood stated that there might be a question that they could address first. What are the
dimensions of their 87,000 square foot building?
Brian Snelling stated that he believes it is roughly 248 feet square on the box and the loading dock area and
storage area he thinks is 290 roughly. The main box is square, not rectangular.
Councilmember Lusk clarified that there was no benefit to rotate it 90 degrees. In fact, it wouldn’t be
acceptable he is sure. Turn the front of the building around to SR 9 away from the parking area if they were
to rotate it.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 20 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Adam, 12224 West Cherry Street, North Hills, WI (Representative from Kohl’s), stated that he was
the senior site development manager for Kohl’s. Brian Snelling talked to him and spoke exactly correctly on
the footprint. They have an 87,000 square foot footprint and a 67,000 or 66,500 square foot footprint that
they do use in smaller communities that wouldn’t support the large store. This one is going to be for the large
store. Their prototypes are basically the box and if the integrity of the box is to be maintained the loading
dock would be shifted from the back over to the side. Another thing is they are really trying to maintain this
for the type of product that they can get into the store. They have recently submitted their prototype to the
USGBC, which is the United States Green Building Commission to be LEED certified for all of the
prototypes. So, for next year there is a potential that if it is the prototype it would be a LEED certified
building. This is an acute program for Kohl’s and they are just trying to maintain that to fall into all the steps
of green building around the country.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked with regards to the two prototypes versus the three… when she went
through the annual report of Kohl’s it does refer to three different scenarios and this is their 2006. It listed
that all three formats will be part of their expansion and it refers to a suburban and urban and a small. Is the
annual report incorrect?
Jeff Adam stated that was correct; there is an urban in addition to a downtown setting. Like through down
town New York there would be multi-level developments. Two of the three would be the 87,000 for one; the
second would be the 68,000 that they could move in stand alone situations.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Mr. Adam to speak to particular markets. She knows their growth
strategy talks about having 1200 stores nationally. Could Mr. Adam speak as to where some of that second
prototype is utilized within the United States? Could he give the Council some market examples?
Jeff Adam stated that it was tough to say. A lot of the stuff is in the mid-west where they already have their
large stores situated where they need them. They take a smaller one to where a smaller community can
support it.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that it would be helpful to her to have specific examples of where
certain prototypes are used in specific markets based on demographics.
Jeff Adam mentioned Oxford, AL and Opelika, AL are a couple of them. Burlington, WI; there are a couple
in Wisconsin. He would have to bring up the entire list of small markets.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that that was her point. There are a lot of markets where they do
utilize the prototype other than the 87,000. She is assuming that some of those stores are actually, are
successful or perhaps they wouldn’t still build them.
Jeff Adam stated that was correct. They are just for smaller communities. The marketing firm puts together
a strategy that says for Milton with the demographics that they have here the sales are going to be such that it
is going to need to be a large store. They cannot do a small store when final sales would outperform.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he assumed that Kohl’s has certainly done their homework on that and
invested the money to be sure they wouldn’t go forward with that prototype. He would like to say that the
Council is there to serve the citizens. By doing that sometimes they have to look at the whole picture and
certainly agrees that this is a nice development and he is certainly in favor of it. He knows that the one big
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 21 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
stickler on it is the buffer and that is why he thinks they ought to address the loading dock and the buffer.
They have gotten some ideas where they could at least come to a happy medium but he would be interested
to hear if anyone else would support that on the Council.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the Design Review Board, and she knows the Planning
Commission, talked about rotation of the building. She asked Mr. Adam to speak to what Kohl’s perceived
requirement is about having parking in the front versus being able to shift building to some degree. If
hypothetically Kohl’s is willing not to have all of the parking in the front? She asked Mr. Adam to speak to
that as an option.
Jeff Adam stated that he and Snelling had looked at that from the scenario of them turning the building with
the depth that they have. Many things they pride themselves on as well as targeting other big box retailers is
having the parking lot in front being convenient for the customer to come and shop and get back out to the
parking lot conveniently. They are not coming out and then having to walk a great deal with a lot of
merchandise and go to their cars. If the building is square and they are going to rotate it, it really isn’t going
to matter. Adam stated that if they are turning it they are basically going to have some parking in front with
the doors in the front.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that part of the thought is if they have that parking that perhaps if
they didn’t have to have the mass of parking required where it is, there could be some shifting and some
rotation without that footprint being exactly where it is currently if they are shifting part of that parking. Her
understanding is that some of that parking requirement to the front is in part what dictates that particular
footprint being in that particular location.
Brian Snelling stated that he wanted to answer some of the questions or perhaps clarify where the parking
can go or can’t go.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that not even a full rotation, but if there is a way to shift some of that
parking so that they don’t have so much of the mass. That is something the Design Review Board had talked
about in addition to perhaps a smaller footprint. She is just trying to understand what the sole complexion of
things is of the things that have been looked at in the hopes of still meeting some of those buffer
requirements that are in place obviously to protect the citizens.
Brian Snelling stated that in speaking to some of the parking; obviously they can’t get any parking on this
side of the building because this driveway has to be here. It has to be a 200 foot throat length, which is
currently what is shown due to the topography and the slopes. This area drops down literally and there is no
physical way to get there. He can’t create an intersection and there is just not enough room to put in regional
parking in this area. Obviously pulling the store further back goes against the buffer issues. They did look at
scenarios and even before they submitted the zoning package, they do this all of the time on all of their
projects. He thinks he is almost on site plan 68 or 69 and that is just with the current engineer he is using.
They had previous site plans as well. If they move the Kohl’s they looked at several site plans in trying to
move the Kohl’s south and turning it to face SR 9. One still has the same issue; he ends up with very little
parking that is able to be put in front of the store. The detention facility is currently in place. It needs to be
there because it partially serves phase I because of the topography of the entire site. Roughly 4+ acres of
storm drainage flows into this pond in phase I and they have another small pond. If he moves it any further
north, then he just can’t get there because of the slopes. Then also, if he leaves the…the current ordinance
states that one has to have a 100 foot buffer. He is not actually allowed to have a detention facility in there so
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 22 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
he would have to move that detention facility forward and then Kohl’s pushes even further forward and he
loses the driveway and the connectivity in between the two. He can’t go behind it because it can’t go through
the buffer and he ends up with one little driveway. He pointed out a driveway that starts and curves down
and comes basically into the same spot. Then he ends up with very little parking in that location. The other
snowball effect of that is anybody that he wants to put into this shopping center, that wants to feel like they
are a part of the shopping center, if he moves the anchor down to this end of phase II and try to move these
north, that is un-leasable space because no tenant wants to sit that far north and not feel like they are drawing
from the same demographics that everyone else is. So in talking with all of their small shop retailers, their
national majors and their anchors they obviously feel like this is the best site plan to draw someone into the
center and allow them to flow between the two anchors and shop at all of their retailers and make everyone
successful out there. If he starts putting people out where they feel like they are not part of the shopping
center, first of all they can’t lease the space and if one does find to take it then it is just going to be a constant
turn and constant vacant space.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked about parking and Kohl’s. She stated that the applicant mentioned
that when they discussed shifting it, that there wasn’t enough parking at the front. That is based on the
prototypical sort of approach that Kohl’s said they have an ideal of having so much parking at the front.
What if the applicant creatively talked with Kohl’s about maybe looking at that prototypical parking a little
bit differently? Would that have allowed them to shift that and perhaps not impede on that 100-foot buffer?
Brian Snelling stated that they looked at that and again it comes down to if one has a parking space on this
side of the store and someone has to park there and walk and carry merchandise around, that’s…
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if they ever had two entrances on Kohl’s. Has there ever been
consideration for 360 degree architecture where one would have two entrances? Snelling stated that he
believes they have that, they have some older prototypes they have done that have side entrances; Jeff Adam
could definitely speak later to that. The Council member stated that she was just curious if maybe that was
not maybe an option to divide up some of the parking and give folks that opportunity to approach the
building from two different sides. Snelling stated that he would let Jeff Adam speak on that. He knows that
from those they had early on probably the part to be LEED certified and the prototype that they want to bring
to this facility.
Jeff Adam stated that they do have prototypes where they have a front and a side entrance. Their typical list
that they acquire from just knowing how they operate is about is they need to require five feet per thousand
when they go into a deal with a developer. Obviously here they are going to be taking less and they
understand that even if they take less because of site that Snelling is talking about that it is going to work and
they could possibly accept that. If one takes that he would have to have about 225 stalls on either entrance
because they don’t do department style check out, they have all of their check out at the front of the store.
That is the way Target and other retailers have it. If they only have a couple of spaces it’s not going to be
able to stack adequately. Coming out of the one entrance would provide community parking and the short
parking field is not going to be used.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she was thinking about that as an option they need to discuss,
pushing that building a little bit further. What strikes her is it is a very large, obviously large mass of density
in a narrower portion of a site plan. She inquired what the total number of square feet was both in phase I and
in phase II.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 23 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Brian Snelling stated that phase I was approved at roughly 299,000 square feet. He thinks they are right
around 295,000 square feet or something like that. Phase II will be 131,500 gross square footage and that is
where issues are. They have a mezzanine in there that adds 5,000 square feet. He stated that it was about
128,000 square feet when one actually looks at sales floor area. This actually got a little bit smaller in
looking at the retailers. In fact, the point of moving to the south, they actually approached the retailers and
are currently trying to negotiate leases for these spaces and asked them if they could sit over there and they
said no. These are the exercises that he goes through daily and so that is one of the reasons.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she was just trying to get a sense of the total impact of this
parcel as opposed to 450,000 or between 430,000 square feet and 450,000. Her point is in trying to bring that
into perspective is the Council has heard from a lot of citizens that are concerned about the impact. Not just
in the apartments behind, but also they have heard from at least four or five different subdivisions and
homeowners' associations. At least from her perspective, especially thinking about Milton as a green
community and she applauds Kohl’s for wanting to develop something that meets those green standards and
would hope to continue to encourage that on this site. Hopefully the Council will and collectively find a way
for them to be here that meets all of the needs. She is concerned about the impact to the citizens and
obviously striking that balance is important. She just does not want to lose sight of the fact that they have
buffer standards in place for big boxes. That is why it is called the Big Box Ordinance. The Big Box
Ordinance particularly is in place because one has a big box. There are a couple of big boxes and that is not a
bad thing. It is just the reality of this site plan, 430,000 to 450,000 square feet. She does not want to lose
sight of the impact of that 450,000 square feet on the residents that will live with this across the street, to the
side of it, to the back of it. She is concerned about losing that buffer and when she looks at the annual report
and when she hears them discuss prototypes that are successful in other parts of the United States, she wants
to urge the applicant to maybe do a little bit more soul searching about a prototype that could indeed still
meet the standards of the City of Milton. The standards that the citizens are expecting the Council to uphold
when they can, and she is just not sure that there has been enough explorations into these other prototypes.
She does respect the fact that the applicant believes right now, this evening, that this largest footprint is the
only thing that they can embrace. She is curious as to what discussions they might have second to this
meeting tonight. She would embrace discussions with the head of Kohl’s real estate department, maybe that
is who some of these applicants are. She would love to better understand in what market the small prototype
has worked and still been able to meet those buffer requirements. She believes their policies require that
when the Council makes a decision first and foremost they have to protect the integrity of the neighbors. In
fact one of the earlier site plans that was shown for the 2005 aerial, it didn’t show those additional residents
that indeed are now surrounding this 430,000-450,000 square feet. It is a lot of density. And of course they
want to embrace their businesses. They do need those businesses but when one looks at this 430,000-450,000
square feet, they are not looking at the impact to those surrounding community and she does not want to lose
sight of that. It is a density that without these variances based on the current sight plan can’t be configured.
The purpose of the variance is because this big box can’t be positioned on this site without the variance. And
that is the purpose of why they have development standards so that they get upheld and protect those
adjacent land owners. She would be remiss if she didn’t say that as they have this discussion tonight. She is
concerned that they are losing site of the impact to the residents that live here that will live with this day in
and day out. She lives right there so there is a lot of folks that they have heard from in letters, that came to
microphone to speak. She would encourage all of the Council members to give careful consideration before
they start to erode the very development standards that they have spent a lot of weeks saying that they are
going to uphold for the SR 9 area. She personally can’t support eroding a development standard that is one of
the four development standards that protects SR 9. She does not know if they have looked hard enough and
deep enough at a different site configuration that could still meet those standards to allow these businesses to
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 24 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
develop and yet still protect the very standards that they all profess to want to protect. She is concerned about
giving up on the standards that are in place for a reason.
Brian Snelling responded that to build the 100 foot buffer that box, whether it is Kohl’s, ABC Hardware,
whoever, being a single tenant that box can still be built there and with the 100 foot buffer. It just comes
right up against the building wall. He will have to move the building actually closer to SR 9, which he would
think would not be wanted by anyone. The 100 foot buffer sits 100 yards off SR 9 on the back property and
they could pull that box right up to the building setback so that the back left corner sits right on that 45 foot
setback. This building is built; there is a 100 foot buffer there. The driveway would have to be outside of the
GRETA recommendations and outside of what he believes the transportation department for the city of
Milton wants. It would have to be closer to Deerfield Pkwy than it is if one adheres to the full 100 foot buffer
requirement. He would allow no access from this parcel to Deerfield Pkwy so that all of the traffic is now
coming out through an unsignalized intersection on SR 9 trying to make a left turn onto SR 9.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that was assuming the 87,000 square feet without giving
consideration to the other prototypes that Kohl’s developed.
Brian Snelling stated that to get back to the point he is saying that that building can be built there with a 100
foot buffer. It is not a very attractive site plan and he is not saying that it is something that they would
probably do if someone could come and do it. One can also build that same exact box there with two 40,000
square foot prototypes and it is still a big box. He can build it and connect on the end of it and build 116,000
square feet in a big block.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that they may be getting beyond the purview of her question. Her
concern is, and she actually does not think that GRETA…she thinks that she heard that the DRI review
required those. When one takes all of those into consideration, she does not know that he can erode those
requirements from the DRI review from the Milton DOT standpoint. Her point still stands that she does not
know that they have explored it thoroughly enough through collaborative conversations with Kohl’s either
other site plan configurations or that other prototype. She shops at Kohl’s, she loves Kohl’s, it is a great
organization. She would still shop there if it were a smaller footprint. In fact, she would probably go there
more often because it would be a little more unique. That is really not the point. The point is that the variance
being requested does not meet the standard that citizens expect the Council to uphold.
Brian Snelling stated that in speaking to that, the issue of size of the store, he thinks that it is sort of multi-
faceted. He has another development down off of Edgewood and they have a Target store down there. The
Target store came in with one of their components that has proven to be undersized for that location and they
are not able to keep that with sufficient inventory. They have made a determination that with the market that
the City of Milton brings to the table that the 87,000 square foot store is a store that from a market-business
standpoint is successful. If they went to the smaller store he thinks they have put the viability of store at risk
and they have then increased by some level of volume the truck traffic in and out trying to keep that
undersized store with inventory. Whereas if one has a store that has a decent size to it that they think is going
to fit the market and is going to be successful, he will not have as much coming and going from a truck
perspective.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she did understand that. She also wanted to state as a matter of
order that she does not know that they are allowing the opposition equal time. She is concerned that they
have…she just wanted to say that they are not diverting from their…
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 25 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Attorney Pete Hendrix stated that in sitting just listening to this; he thinks that what he has heard is a 25-
foot natural undisturbed buffer along the area of the detention pond. A 25-foot natural undisturbed buffer
and 25-foot landscape strip going from the detention pond to the southeast corner of the building and then a
25-foot natural undisturbed buffer and 45-foot landscape strip going from the southeast corner of the
building to Deerfield Pkwy with the deletion of the parking along the easterly wall of the building. Hendrix
thinks that the Council asked of the applicant what could be the hybrid. Where could they sort of try and
come to the middle? And that is what he thinks he heard out of it.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she had one other issue. The fixtures the applicant is showing lighting
the parking lot, is that the kind of lighting that he intends to use? She does not like shoe box lighting.
Brian Snelling stated one of the casualties of today was the cut sheets for the light fixtures. The lighting that
they are proposing, the actual fixture itself is the same one seen at the Publix in Birmingham at Birmingham.
It is a very architectural feature. It is dark sky compliant with full cut off fixtures and they are very
architectural in nature. No shoe box light fixtures will be used on this property.
Councilmember Thurman inquired if he had no problem with making that a condition of the…
Brian Snelling stated no, because he has already bought 79 light poles for phase I.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she had a question about the site plan. Her understanding is that
the site plan they have had presented to them, she knows they have talked about this being revised and she
has heard some math going around. But she thinks admittedly that Mr. Snelling had mentioned that he was
doing some of the math on the fly. So, with all due respect for Pete Hendrix, when they talked about that 25
and that 45 foot buffer she is a little concerned that they are working from the site plan and modifying
numbers kind of on the fly without really knowing what that revised site plan would truly demonstrate in
terms of real math. It concerns her tonight that they have a site plan that was presented to the community
through this process but it is being modified and the Council is still being asked to modify buffers without a
revised site plan for them to really look at. She would ask that this Board and the Mayor and City Council
that if they are going to start going down a path of considering anything other than that 100 feet…she surely
wouldn’t want to do anything on the fly since this is a forever sort of impact. She could not possibly support
on the fly. She said there is talk about mitigating and approving a variance without knowing what it really
means in terms of really on the ground. She asked Tom Wilson to comment about whether or not they have a
site plan that they could really look at right now and say, yes this is the exact amount of dimension they
would have if they …
Brian Snelling stated that he measured out on paper and came up with about eight feet of the 70 that Mr.
Hendrix was…his math on the fly that Councilmember was referring to, the only thing it had to do with was
the parking count. He is talking about math being applied as 3.76 versus 2.95.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she was not being critical.
Brian Snelling stated that his math on the fly had nothing to do with the buffer variance. He can tell the
Council exactly, within a few feet of what that buffer is. It is not a difference of 80 to 20 feet; it is a
difference of 79 to 81 feet or something like that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 26 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that from a site plan perspective she would like to keep some
semblance of process especially when they start to talk about reducing parking and they start to talk about
removing the gas station and they talk about other potential shifts and maybe even some conditions of zoning
that they haven’t even talked about yet like the distance from a sidewalk to the edge of a road. At what point
would it make sense to have a revised site plan that they could look at before they make a formal motion or
before they have a decision that they have a site plan that is actually reminiscent of something that they are
actually discussing, just from a process standpoint.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the Council has to decide for themselves where their
comfort level is. His comfort level is that one could make all of the changes that they spoke about tonight,
make them conditions of zoning, looked at a modified site plan, and he could still assure the Council that at
the end of the day when he issues a land disturbance permit, it would be consistent with everything they have
said in the past and everything that they made a condition of zoning on. They may not have that same
comfort level that Wilson does but he does not have to have a site plan completely detailed consistent with
conditions of zoning in order to assure one that any condition of zoning that the Council makes tonight
would be installed before they issue a land disturbance permit.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked about the distance when they are talking about that 100 feet plus the
additional 10 feet?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that if they say it is going to be 77 feet, it is going to be
77 feet or it is not going to be. It is not going to be about 77 feet or 80 feet or whatever it is they say that is
going to be what it is going to be and the site plan would have to be modified to meet that or they will have
to come back to the Council again for a modified site plan.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated with removing the parking, what is that distance? What are they
going to have for a buffer if they take the parking on the east side?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that his best guess at this moment is about 80 feet. If the
Council says 80 feet then that is what it is going to be. When they reconfigure, if they need to move it a foot
or two closer to SR 9 he would be able to do that to make the 80 feet. The actual number is 70 feet from
where they are currently. It is 50 feet from the parking lot to the back of curb. The parking spaces are
roughly 19 feet deep so one would be looking at 69 feet so there might be a little room on the SR 9 side.
Brian Snelling stated that there are a few feet they can shift around. There is a drive aisle that needs to be
maintained at 25 feet per the fire marshal and other requirements. They have a few feet down there to shift
but where the Council is looking is 50 feet to back of curb and then 19 feet per parking space so 69-70 feet.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he is hearing from the applicant that they would certainly meet the Council
well more than half way by let’s say an arbitrary number of 80 feet, not a buffer along the side of the
building. He asked to hear from the rest of the Council with comments if they were to entertain something
like that.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that he thinks he would be open to…How much does he have to shift
towards SR 9 without having to build the retaining wall that they talked about?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 27 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Brian Snelling stated that they were almost there. He would have to get with his civil engineer and his
traffic engineer because they handle the evaluation of the topography. There is a…in order to get the front
corner in, if he moved it all the way to the building setback line he would have to put a retaining wall in
along the building setback line to hold this slope of the highway. In part of their discussions with the city
traffic engineers and GDOT they made this highway wider by 16 feet. So that highway got closer to them by
16 feet, which means where he had slope before to work it out, now he has got to build that slope up to hold
the highway. And that is what makes it tighter.
Councilmember Mohrig asked Tom Wilson to comment about the property line. What is the buffer? What
is the distance back to the apartments that exists today in that undisturbed area? He is trying to determine
how close they are to that residential area today.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he did not have the distance but suggested they take
a look at the aerial photograph.
Brian Snelling stated that the aerial was actually pretty accurate. Most of phase I is roughly where the
buildings are shown. So, really there is a building there and some buildings to the north that one can see on
their property because they have a stream on their property. There is already a natural area there that will
remain. The majority of the applicant’s property, when they add the extra buffer to it, will continue. He
stated that he has an aerial in his hand that shows where the trees are currently cleared now and what is there
now. As one can see they did a very good job of cutting off where their plan is with respect to that property
to the east of them. In the detention facility they would have the 20 foot landscape strip on the back side of
their detention facility, which would add to the 25 feet that is currently there.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that there will be a 40-foot perimeter setback around this
multi-family development. So there is at least 40 feet between that building and the closest building to that
east property line in that area that has trees in it. That would be a required dimension of 40 feet by the zoning
ordinance. It could be more than that but he doubts that there is less than another 40 feet.
Mayor Lockwood asked if Mr. Wilson was saying another 40 feet additional off of their property line.
Community Development Director Wilson said this facility that was built here will have a requirement of
a 40 foot perimeter setback along this same property line for any of these buildings. It could be more than
that but he would bet that it is not.
Mayor Lockwood inquired if they had 70 or 80 feet plus the 40, which is 110 or 120 feet from the building
to the actual drive.
Councilmember Mohrig stated if we are willing to extend that buffer and take the additional buffer out, is
the applicant willing to increase plantings and landscaping in that area?
Brian Snelling stated that they would have trees there in those islands anyway. If the parking spaces went
away he thinks the same spacing would apply. What they would do is…that is 50 feet and he believes their
landscape strip ordinance, when they spoke with Mark Law, they would stagger those. They have some there
now anyway behind the curb. They would then stagger those in a pattern and connect the patterns, one every
30 feet and they would probably, as they get into multiple rows they would stagger them. If they are doing
two rows of trees they are staggered in pattern. They would not just replace the parking with…..they would
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 28 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
have to put landscaping there but they would have to also plant some trees, shrubs and bushes to match their
landscaping plan everywhere else on the site. They would not just throw a bunch of sod down. Could it be a
condition that maybe in that area that the applicant “beef up” the landscape a little bit…plant it to buffer
standards.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they did not want to plant it any denser than buffer
standards.
Brian Snelling stated that the only thing he would speak to that is they would want to plant either…there is a
20 foot undisturbed buffer now that they will be supplementing that planting where it is thin anyway. They
have already committed to do that. Outside of that he stated that they are calling it a landscape strip or
something like that. He has to be a little careful because in Milton’s ordinance it doesn’t allow for certain
things in landscape strip like working and grading. If he had to put that driveway in he would like to be
working with Mark Scott and staff to get some relief to be able to grade and work in there. There is some
strange language in there that doesn’t even allow one to go into it. It is worded a certain way.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that it was supposed to be an undisturbed buffer.
Brian Snelling stated that they would definitely plant more trees in there to match their current landscape
plan.
Councilmember D’Aversa stated that her comment is that it sounds like the surrounding community would
prefer to have a more unique looking store and a uniquely sized store. And given the 100 foot requirement,
she would love to see the applicant consider putting their smaller footprint there and still come back to the
Council with a 100 foot buffer. She understands the economics of the store but she does think that the
applicant would be extremely successful. They have seen it throughout other areas in Milton when they do
things more uniquely that it does pay off. Her concern is that they are putting a very large box store in an
area that is probably not appropriate for it. If they put in the smaller store, they would not have to worry
about buffers. It would actually be much closer to the apartments and there would be no need for a variance.
Brian Snelling said one could not necessarily move the building because he would have less structure.
Councilmember D’Aversa stated that they were assuming that the applicant would not be willing to work
with the community and the community doesn’t want it to be closer to the apartments. Given that, she knows
that they have rules and regulations and overlays and ordinances but they have got to listen to the community
and she hasn’t heard anybody come out in favor of this large box store. There are also a lot of citizens who
are excited about it and love to shop at Kohl’s. She stated that it is not that they are not excited about Kohl’s.
She loves to shop at Kohl’s and she is thrilled to have these stores here. But she also thinks that the applicant
would be wildly successful by doing something a little unique and making the surrounding community happy
with the development as opposed to almost kind of force fitting it is what it sounds like they are hearing
tonight. That is her concern.
Brian Snelling stated that the owner of the property directly to the east that this effects is not opposed to it.
Councilmember D’Aversa stated that he (the owner) was a developer of the apartment complex and he is
not the citizens that live there everyday. That is the difference. The Council has heard from far more people
than are present tonight. Her honest opinion is she wants Kohl’s to be here, she wants their property to be
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 29 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
here. She thinks it looks beautiful just like the mayor has suggested. She is just concerned about trying to
force something into what are already defined specifications and overlays as opposed to building for that
overlay.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that he was concerned that as tempting as it is to suggest to someone a gut
feeling that a different marketing strategy would be successful he does not think they can accept that
responsibility. He thinks the Council has to act on what is before them and he would agree that he does not
think there is any sentiment that a 25-foot buffer is satisfactory and he is encouraged that the staff has looked
these last few days at a significant increase over that but short of 100 feet. He thinks the Mayor has
expressed support for the strategy that was offered whether that prevails or not remains to be seen. But he
stated that he was impressed by the work that has been done but he is also concerned. He thinks they need to
work with the input that has been provided from the community both in the room and outside the room deal
with what they can do as a Council and staff. He does not think it is really fair or appropriate to say to any
business that if they don’t accept the risk for their failure or success they can’t really say that if a store in
Oxford, AL is successful with a completely different demographic that they would insist on that. He thinks
that the Council can’t.
Mayor Lockwood asked if they could go back to the retaining wall issue on the northeast corner. What the
applicant has proposed now from what he understands is the slope.
Brian Snelling stated that was correct.
Mayor Lockwood inquired how far out could he push or build a retaining wall and still allow for the future
widening of SR 9? What he has currently is the slope in there. So if he put in a retaining wall up on that
northwest corner how much more clearance could he gain on the west side of the building there?
Brian Snelling stated that the simplest thing is to let the building stand. Either go all the way to the building
setback line and see what they gain there and then gauge that as to what type of retaining wall he thinks he
might have to build. He stated that if he moves his building all the way to the building setback line, if he
remembers correctly the retaining walls are 10-12 feet. He would have to build a 12 foot retaining wall in
that area to hold that back. It would be from the corner of the building it would come down and flank the
driveway and then turn up probably dead end out, probably go back to zero somewhere. He thinks the
topography…or maybe actually it would be full length. He stated that he thought he had a site plan that
shows it but he thinks it includes the 100 foot buffer. He would have to go back and see but he believes his
landscape engineer said that it would be 10-12 feet from around there. And it would probably just run a little
past the building to hold up the building. He would have to work the slope out depending on what goes there.
Councilmember O’Brien inquired from this depicted position how much movement can one achieve right
now? From depicted to the 40-foot buffer?
Brian Snelling stated that the dashed line is roughly 10-12, maybe 15 feet that they can shift that building to
the west to get it closer to SR 9.
Councilmember Lusk said they have probably covered this ground before but asked if they do move the
building to the setback line on SR 9 how much clearance or buffer would one get from the east side of the
building?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 30 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Brian Snelling stated that it would depend on if the Council would let him keep the driveway down the side
of the building or not. If he eliminated it he could do a 100-foot buffer. With that driveway there one is
looking at maybe another 15 feet. Whatever they add here they would add onto the end of these parking
spaces once they converted those to landscaping. So they are looking at 70 or maybe 80-85 feet in this area if
it were all landscaped.
Councilmember Thurman asked how trucks would access the loading dock.
Brian Snelling stated that they would either get rid of the driveway or the trucks would not be able to access
the loading dock. Or they would be required to shift this driveway closer to the intersection, which again
would be below that 400 foot threshold that city transportation wants, and GRETA and DRI and all of the
other approvals that they have gone through. It is currently 419 feet from centerline to centerline.
Councilmember Thurman asked currently how does one expect trucks to access the loading dock. From
Deerfield or SR 9?
Brian Snelling stated that they would come SR 9 to Deerfield into the truck dock area back in. When they
leave they would come back to the signal. Kohl’s has even stated in a conversation earlier that they have put
together their own truck plan for their deliveries and they instruct their store managers to instruct all
deliveries and they can request or require that the truckers go back to the signal, which they naturally are
going to do anyway. They are going to look for the easiest way to get out. With that being said they can do
everything that they can to make them go here. He could not guarantee that one truck may not go down
Deerfield Pkwy., there is just no way he can do it. They do that a lot on their shopping centers. The one
down on Edgewood that they spoke of earlier they came up with a truck routing plan that ensured the only
place that they could go was back behind the parking deck. But they recommend that they send it out to all of
the store managers that this is where the trucks need to go. For the most part they do adhere to it. They would
be forcing all trucks to go back to the signal at SR 9 to Windward Pkwy to SR 400.
Councilmember Lusk asked that they recap where they are at this point, what they tentatively have agreed
upon and where they stand as far as what conditions…
Mayor Lockwood stated that he does not know that they have agreed with anything but what they are
talking about is if the applicant were to shift the building and have to go to the expense of having to put a
retaining wall in…probably his guess would be 80-85 foot buffer versus 100 foot, would that be fair to say?
Brian Snelling stated that it would for the most part. He would like to not extend that the full length because
he does want to keep that detention facility there.
Mayor Lockwood stated that they were just talking about from the building back. They are not looking at
the other buffers.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked what happens to that other 10 foot improvement setback. It is 100
feet plus that 10-foot improvement setback. Wasn’t it really 110 feet?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was a 100 foot buffer with a 10 foot improvement
setback, which one would substitute for 80 or 85….
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 31 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that it was not 85 feet it was 80-110 and somehow that additional 10
feet has gotten lost in this conversation.
Councilmember Lusk stated that what he really thinks is important is they are talking about a 25 foot
natural undisturbed buffer and then how much they supplement that. Let’s say one brings it to 80 feet. That
supplement is a landscape strip because they have got to be able to get in there and grade that will then be
replanted to buffer standards. A landscape strip does not require a 10 foot improvement setback off of it, a
natural undisturbed buffer does.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that that would be working from the variance request versus working
from what is the development standard that they adopted legally. She is not trying to arrive at it from the
variance request, she is trying to get there from the 110 feet that is currently required.
Councilmember O’Brien inquired if there was presently a prohibition on truck traffic on Deerfield Pkwy?
He heard the number this week in pre-briefings and there will be 20,000 vehicles using Deerfield Pkwy when
it becomes a part of the west side parkway. Is there a prohibition?
Public Works Director Dan Drake stated that there was none that he knows off. The City does not have a
truck routing system within Milton as of yet.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that they have spent a lot of time on the buffer and they have not
resolved that. She would like to talk about some other conditions that they have heard from citizens and she
does not want to lose the opportunity to mention those if she may. With regards to drive-throughs the
Council heard a request that there not be any drive-throughs for dry cleaners or for fast food establishments.
They had talked about that as well as no more than two drive-throughs for banks. She would like this body to
consider that as a condition. They have not talked about the height of the building. They did hear weeks ago
that on the SR 9 overlay many citizens wanted to see that the height restriction of 30 feet… she does know if
she is better off going through all of these. She asked the applicant to mention very quickly what the height
of this current building proposed?
Brian Snelling inquired if Councilmember Zahner Bailey meant the Kohl’s? He believes the main body is
28 ½ feet.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if there was any point of that building that goes beyond that 30?
Brian Snelling stated that there might be a couple of architectural pop ups to screen the RTUs on the roof
that may go above that. He thinks that it would not exceed probably…he thinks their internal requirement on
that is 35 feet on phase II. The building will be over 35 feet. This building is 28 feet on the main body and a
few parapet pop-ups depending on where they need to screen. It looks like 30’ 8” to screen the RTUs and
those are things that they will probably have to figure out.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she had a question for Tom Wilson. With the 30 foot height
limitations, is the parapet considered the height of the building? Is it still part of that calculation?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 32 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Councilmember Zahner Bailey inquired if one’s building height is at 28; would there be a way to modify
that parapet to meet a 30 foot requirement? She is assuming from a design standpoint one probably could.
Brian Snelling stated that they only have a 30’8” height in the mezzanine area and that is the only area. He
pointed out the area on the SR 9 side that is 30 feet; the rest of it is 25’8”.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that it sounds like a 30 foot height condition would match that and it
would meet some of the concerns.
Brian Snelling stated that it would be 30 feet only in the mezzanine area. The mezzanine only gets a
parapet.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the SR 9 overlay already restricts the buildings to two stories
north of Webb Road.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that was correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked is the condition that Alan mentioned from Avensong no more than a
30-foot, two-story equivalent?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was restricted to two stories by the comprehensive
plan and the standards for the big box ordinance restricts it to 35 feet and no higher.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is why she is suggesting that the Council consider a 30-foot
maximum height. The other thing she wanted to talk about is fencing. Right now the discussion includes
some discussion about chain link fence. Two things that she would like to substitute would be in Section 3H.
Should would like to substitute an eight-foot high opaque, solid wood or masonry wall on the east property.
She would like to remove any mention of chain link fencing. She would also want to make sure that they
introduce and make sure that the language in any condition talks about full board fencing outside of the
sidewalk or asphalt trail and that was a specific recommendation made by Brian Maloney of the bike or
pedestrian pathway. She wants to make sure that that was adequately addressed whether it is this evening or
if they pursue a deferral or however they end up arriving at a final decision point this evening. Another thing
that concerned her and she understands it may have been just a typo on somebody’s part but it talked about
one bike spot per 100 and she thinks that was a mistake. She would prefer it say something like one multi-
bike rack per store entry. She believes that Kohl’s particularly does this. It is not a big deal but it is a detail
she thinks they should capture in a condition. With regards to sidewalks or alternative pathways, a number
of the Council members had talked about the importance of having sidewalks five feet or an alternative
pathway five feet from the edge of the road because the whole goal is to have a trail way for people to
actually utilize. Obviously, along SR 9 with the traffic patterns she would suggest that they have a condition
of zoning that discusses sidewalks and alternative pathways being at least five feet from the edge of the road
to the first edge of the that sidewalk. This was discussed in the review session. She does not want to lose that
thought. She thinks that is an important condition of zoning whether that be denied or deferred. With regards
to the trees, the Council has heard from many citizens that this clear cut obviously is a concern. She thinks
they have an opportunity, collaboratively working with the business community to step up the size caliper of
tree that is used. She would not want to enforce anything that would be onerous but she thinks some
percentage increase, whether it is the trees along the roadway…she thinks the 25 percent at four-inch caliper
would be an improvement if those were along the roadway. She also recommends that within the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 33 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
development, within those landscape strips that they at least consider stepping up from a two-inch caliper
tree to at least a three-inch caliper tree. Again, this is going to be 430-450,000 square feet if it is not a
different footprint of density that will be clear cut. She thinks they owe it to this community to step up the
size of those trees that would be recompensed. The Council had already talked about lighting. She thinks
that it would be important for those lighting standards to be a condition of zoning. With regards to the
detention facility, she stated that she has heard and she knows that the current recommendation is for that to
be a naturalistic detention facility. She would just continue to applaud that effort on the part of the developer
and would ask that when that is fenced, which has already been mentioned, that particularly around the
detention facility as they have done on another SR 9 rezoning, that the full board fencing and any wiring that
would provide for the safety be a part of that naturalistic design. The other thing that she thinks the applicant
talked about but she does not know if they captured it definitely is that when one looks at that sea of asphalt
currently, there is nothing at least that she is aware of in the current conditions that requires a landscape
island, whether it be every six parking spaces or every eight. The northwest overlay requires something
similar. She would ask the Council this evening to make sure that they consider that as a condition of zoning
so that one does not have non-interruption of parking. She thinks they need interruption of parking if they are
going to have less seas of asphalt. She did hear, and she appreciates the fact that the applicant has a truck
routing plan. She realizes that the Council cannot condition that truck routing plan but if they could have
language within anything that they do tonight or subsequent to this evening with regards to the…if they can
embrace it, encourage it, whatever language would be appropriate, as close as it can be short of being able to
require it; she thinks that needs to be a matter of record whenever they come to a conclusion. She also heard
some discussion about noise considerations. If she missed this, she apologizes, but she inquired if they could
also speak to hours of operation as well as times for truck deliveries? She knows that in other instances they
have limited the delivery times to a specific time of day and she thinks they need to do that here again as a
consideration for the neighbors. That should also include when Dumpsters get dumped. She thinks they need
to be specific and she heard the concern about a noise ordinance and she thinks the Council needs to address
it. She thinks they need to address in terms of time the store delivery as well as when Dumpsters are dumped
as well as whether or not that gets consideration.
Several Council members stated that the dumpster issue was part of their solid waste ordinance to include
the time for dumpster pick up.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she was just making a point because they had a gentleman that
talked about the noise ordinance. She wanted to make sure that the Council covered it adequately.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that since they are now talking about conditions of
zoning he stated that since the package was printed and sent to the Councilmembers or even put on the web
sit, he has re-structured condition 1a, which is the condition regarding use. His recommendation when he
said to the Council that it was for approval, it is with approval with this substitute condition 1a. With the
permission of the Council, Mr. Wilson stated that he will read it into the record.
“Condition 1a would allow retail/service/commercial and/or office and accessory uses, including fast food
restaurants limited to bagel, bakery, coffee houses without window services and ice cream shops, none of
which may be freestanding. Also including exterior food and beverage service areas when associated with a
permitted business. Allowed uses shall not exceed a maximum density of 8,806 square feet per acre zoned or
a total of 141,511gross square feet, whichever is less. Furthermore, the following uses shall be excluded: gas
station and its associated gas pumps, all free-standing fast food restaurants, commercial amusements,
cinemas are allowed, liquor stores and package stores, wine cellars are allowed. Motels, hotels, adult
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 34 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
oriented businesses including adult book stores, adult entertainment or adult entertainment establishments as
defined in Article 3.3.3, check cashing stores, pawn shops, coin operated laundries, video arcades, video
machines that are incidental to otherwise permitted businesses are allowed. Pool halls, stand alone massage
parlors, stand alone nail parlors, stand alone beauty shops, stand alone barber shops, clinical spas are allowed
and may include less than 400 square feet of beauty/barber shop, and less than 400 square feet of nail salon,
flea markets, second hand, surplus retail shops, road side vending, road side produce stands or seasonal
vending.”
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if they could also add no convenience stores and fortune tellers or
billboards.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that if the Council makes a motion then they should add
that as part of their motion.
Mayor Lockwood stated that at this time and maybe point of order time basically the Council has three
variances that they have spoke with the applicant about, they have staff recommendations, they are talking
about the buffer issue and slightly moving the building. Now they are also talking about additional zoning
requirements. At this point the applicant has not come to the Council with those and don’t need these items.
They wouldn’t have to add these items unless the Council were to request that and they would agree to.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that was correct and the applicant could agree or not
agree to it.
Mayor Lockwood stated that they could add some of these items if they wanted to.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they should ask the applicant if this list of
prohibitive uses is a problem...
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said before they ask that question, as a matter of point of order if going
from an A to a C-1 is a required rezoning. She believes that conditions of zoning are their purview if they are
going to allow a rezoning from A to C-1 separate and distinct from the variances. A Council member stated
that from A to C-1 is a very small part of it. It was stated that it doesn’t matter. As a point of order going
from A to C-1 the Council has the authority vested in them as a body to add any conditions of zoning…they
have the authority to have recommended conditions. It is not about…this is a matter of order. It is up to the
Council to decide what conditions of zoning are appropriate based on the rezoning request that is before
them.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it is entirely within the Council’s purview to make a
motion with any conditions of zoning that they wish to add to it. It is entirely within the applicant’s purview
to of course not accept it and then the Council will have a decision…
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she understood whether or not the authority… she stated that
realistically they could have not come before the Council with the rezoning request for that one piece. It is
just for the variance for the others and then they wouldn’t have needed the dock variance at all.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he thinks he understood her, yes.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 35 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that there was a lot within this that she does think are important
details. On one of the conditions that they talked about in their review session that has not had any discussion
here this evening and that is the landscape strip. She knows that at face value it would make sense to just
eliminate that all together. But she had proposed, and this is the second of the three variances. The landscape
strip that is currently between the two phases, what she had suggested is some additional language that she
had clarified during their review session. That is that rather than to approve the elimination of that was
instead to perhaps, change that language just to say, “to reduce the required 10-foot landscape strip along the
southern property line to the extent necessary to allow for inter-parcel connectivity between phase I and
phase II.” And the premise of that is that because one has in reality a lot of parking, there is 430-450,000
square feet, if at least by not eliminating that in its entirety they do add a little bit of green space, if one can
call a landscape strip green space. But at least it would add back or at least not remove a landscape strip that
could provide some breaking up of that parking. She does not think one would lose anything, she thinks the
community in theory gains a little bit.
Brian Snelling stated that if one looks at their color site plan out there, they have a sidewalk going through it
to allow connectivity. They have parking lot islands on either side of it and they have a wide sidewalk
through there. They will have some plantings.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that that language would not be so different from what Mr. Snelling
presented…
Brian Snelling stated that the Council could try to write it any way that they want. He does not know how
they would write it other than…
Councilmember Thurman asked Mr. Snelling what they were looking at right now?
Brian Snelling stated that they were definitely looking at phase I. The building on the right is the PetCo that
is the building furthest north on phase I. Phase I basically runs almost through that sidewalk that one sees
going from east to west. That is approximately phase I that runs right up along side that building which will
be the next major anchor to the north. One can see that wide strip there is roughly where they would leave all
of the landscaping and then obviously down against SR 9 they have that wide area that comes up the side of
what they are calling Building 900 that has the little dormers on it. In the back part of the phase I would be
the 20-foot landscape strip where the detention facility is. So, in a sense they have exactly what the Council
is asking for.
Mayor Lockwood inquired if Mr. Snelling was showing the detention facility as a natural or hybrid or
concrete presently? And how much does that footprint change how much does that compromise the parking
ratio depending on what is ultimately decided upon or required?
Brian Snelling stated that the detention pond that one sees that they are representing, because of when they
designed that several months ago, they show that as the wall that is the footprint of the detention pond that
they were actually trying to permit six months ago and got turned down.
Mayor Lockwood stated that they could call that the non-natural version.
Brian Snelling stated that it has walls below grade but he guessed that one could. They are lovely in the
sense of design in that on their current design one thing they are looking at doing is…because they have lost
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 36 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
so much time, but with that, both ponds were designed and permitted under phase one. There is one that has
gradient walls in it and is currently being built. It is hidden by all of the building. The same theory is behind
the other pond. It is behind the building. It also has a 25-foot landscape strip around it so that one will not see
it. It is at the back of the property, one cannot see it from the right-of-way. But during their civil permitting
process for phase I, which all of this topography was taken down under, once phase II came on board, in
order to get these retail units here, they needed to reconfigure this pond and in order to do that they added
some walls in it. This would allow them to build these buildings. If they had to do that same volume in a
completely earthen pattern, it is about two-thirds of an acre more than one sees there and the way that it is
currently out there and now that they are required to put in that temporary measure…the top of the slope
comes down roughly in the middle of these buildings and makes those buildings unbuildable if he had to
leave it in that volume in earthen. One thing that they are considering now because of part of the way it is
designed is to keep this same footprint, where one sees the wall patterns, which is 10 feet at the top of the
slope to try to go underground with pipes to try to hold the volume that they need. That is one option that is
very expensive. There are building walls that are essentially taking up an extra two-thirds of an acre is also
very expensive in creating this unbuildable land. Right now because of timing and what they need to move
forward, they are considering keeping that earthen end of it also, even though it is not a current requirement,
they understood it and it was rejected earlier as part of a civil engineering vision. It was turned down and
portrayed to the applicant as a request that no one wanted. So in order to save time that they didn’t have to
waste there, the applicant decided to make that temporarily earthen and they would keep alternatives open.
Councilmember Thurman stated that building it especially in line with being green component, is it a
natural look to design it to actually what the standard is increasingly for the industry and she thinks it is
going to be a benefit to a development because the applicant’s pond is in the back of the property and there
are an actual number that there are folks that live at the back of the property that would be looking at this.
Not to mention the customers that would enjoy hopefully a better looking detention facility. She is thrilled
that the applicant is considering a more naturalistic detention. She thinks that hopefully more of the industry
is headed that way.
Brian Snelling stated that with the landscape fencing requirements they have one will not see it. He could be
standing at the pond won’t see it anyway. That is one thing he is considering doing there. But they know that
is not feasible on every piece of property. He is really not sure that it is feasible here or not.
Mayor Lockwood stated that a good point was made that it is behind the building anyway. No one can see
it. He stated that he would like to go back to some of the items that Councilperson Bailey brought up. Would
the applicant be okay with no chain link fence along the back?
Brian Snelling asked Mayor Lockwood if he was speaking about along the east property line?
Mayor Lockwood stated that he was.
Brian Snelling stated that in speaking of that fence it is not something that…
Mayor Lockwood stated that it is just a security issue.
Brian Snelling stated that they weren’t even required to do it. Actually GRETA and others wanted them to
inter-parcel connectivity sidewalks through there. They met with the Villages of Devonshire and the Camden
Deerfield properties who directly abut them and they asked for the fence on their property to prevent people
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 37 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
from walking back and forth. After many discussions, several discussions, a majority of this, roughly 1200-
1600 feet comes to the Villages property line. The rezoning condition would only apply to roughly 1200 feet.
But in his conversations with the Villages and Camden, they don’t want an opaque fence or they don’t want
a wood fence because they want it on their property line. If the applicant had to put it on his property line
they would have to put in a 25-30 foot buffer. It would have to be on the interior of that buffer. Right now
the buffer would be 35 feet into their property and would not serve the purpose the neighbor’s want. From a
maintenance standpoint the neighbors asked the applicant if they would help them. They were planning on
building fences anyway. They would work with them. They applicant stated that he would build the fence
along the property line. They are going to work with the neighbors to build it on their property and then the
neighbors are going to take over the ownership and the maintenance of that fence. From that perspective it
has nothing to do with the visual and from the fact that one will not see it from anywhere pretty much on
their property because they do have some issues. They prefer them to be black vinyl chain links because in
kind of dies into the trees. The thing they have agreed to on in talking with Tom Wilson is if they were to
build that within 200 feet of the property, they would stop the fence within 200 feet from Deerfield so it
would not be seen from Deerfield and if it was pushed to continue all the way through Deerfield, that last
few hundred feet could convert to a decorative wrought iron or some kind of wood, some kind of fence that
meets the current four board.
Councilmember Thurman asked if in some of the other areas he would be using the four board fence.
Brian Snelling stated that the detention pond is already going to have a chain link fence around it. That one
was permitted to have a chain link fence under his current permit. He does not see the point of changing it,
but he can. It is not like it is going to be visible from anywhere. As far as putting the fence along SR 9 and
Deerfield that is not a cost that the he has anticipated. They can still have it on phase I.
Mayor Lockwood clarified that where there is fencing called for the applicant would be okay with it if it
works.
Brian Snelling stated that was correct.
Mayor Lockwood stated that it was brought up about the bike path and an asphalt path to the bike trail to
work within that program. He asked the applicant if he would be willing to do that?
Brian Snelling stated that he would to a point. Some things he has heard are like a minimum. He would be
hesitant to work with a mandatory minimum from back of curb to edge of sidewalk because it does get tight
down here and SR 9 is skewed off of the right-of-way. There is 110 feet of right-of-way out there now that is
sufficient for the future widening for bike lanes, medians, everything. Unfortunately, the way that SR 9 is
currently paved it is off center towards the applicant’s property. They would actually need to work with Dan
and Abbey with the city staff. They met with GDOT and they feel like they have come up with a plan to push
that sidewalk as far off of the back of curb as possible with regards to topography and existing utility poles.
They will meander that as far away from the curb because they understand traffic safety. The thing at the
other side of the highway is currently the standard two-foot side strip and they have even agreed to an extent
to go back to phase I with the approval of that two foot side strip. The have agreed to wherever they can they
would push that as far off as possible due to topography…
Councilmember Zahner Bailey clarified that in some places that is no more than two feet. So they could
end up with nothing more than a two foot strip between edge of road and edge of pavement and they have
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 38 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
referred the conversation to Mr. Drake. She stated to Mr. Drake that maybe in context to that whole review
session on Tuesday that he had some suggestions and it was discovered that several people on this Council
during that meeting looked to have a five-foot distance. She asked Mr. Drake to speak to that.
Public Works Director Drake stated that he spoke to the standards that were set from the Bike Path
Committee with having a six foot asphalt trail with a minimum a four feet from the back of curb. One of the
options is to have an easement on the property for that to meet that four-foot and a six-foot requirement. It
would be up to the applicant if it is acceptable. He stated that he would like to bring up one thing about the
fences, the four board fences. As written in this letter they would be between the street, the back of curb and
the trail. There will be some areas where if there are retaining walls and they are putting the trails as far back
as possible then there may even be a rail requirement and maybe the fence would be more appropriate as a
substitute for that rail towards the back as well as towards the street. He wants to make sure that they have
some of that flexibility to those design standards.
Brian Snelling stated that it is their intent to do everything that they can where there is room and close to the
road. The city has been very good to work with and he will do what he can. The Council says that it must
meet a minimum of this for the entire length and that is all Snelling is trying to say. He is not opposed to
working with people and trying to get things done and meet the wishes of the city. But sometimes of one
tries to put in an all-encompassing condition he may make it worse.
Mayor Lockwood stated that his point is that it is possible to work with the staff. The other thing he
mentioned was what Mr. Snelling’s thoughts were on…it was brought up about the trees, maybe some of
them along the road, beefing them up to four-inch caliper versus two-inch.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that in many cases they only required a two-inch caliper tree.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that along the right-of-way the standard is three-inch but
they would beef it up to four. In the parking lot the standard is two-inch.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that was why she addressed them as along the road as well as within
the interior of the development.
Brian Snelling stated that in looking at the plant list that they have 3 ½ -inch, two-inch. Out at the detention
ponds the trees are mostly two-inch. In the parking lot islands the current ordinance requires that parking lot
islands have two-inch caliper trees, they meet all of those requirements. He has already bought 31 acres of it
and in going through it on page 2 he would really have to do a cost analysis. He has already budgeted out
most of that because he knew what the design would roughly be if they were approved to this. Sometimes in
going from a two-inch tree to a four-inch tree sounds easy in a room but it triples the cost of the tree. It is one
of those things that they can look into but he thinks their landscaping plan is probably going to get close to
$1 million.
Mayor Lockwood asked Mark law if he knew the difference between a two-inch tree and a three-inch tree
or whatever. What are his thoughts? Sometimes over time within a couple of years one cannot really tell the
difference between the two.
City Arborist Mark Law stated that a two-inch tree would take about three years for it to become
established. A four-inch tree would take six years to get established. It depends on what one wants. If he
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 39 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
wants immediate impact then one would go with a larger (four-inch caliper) tree. However that does require
more maintenance and the smaller tree does have a better chance of rooting out quicker and establishing
itself quicker. With the drought conditions that the area is in that may be a factor to consider. The landscape
strip is already requiring three-inch trees and two-inch on the parking lot islands. He did notice that
Councilmember Bailey requested that only 25 percent of the trees be of a larger caliper. That might be
acceptable right there but the smaller trees he thinks would provide a better choice at this time.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that was why she mentioned the percentage. But the goal is when
one goes back out to that site that is currently clear-cut and she thinks in consideration of the concerns voiced
by citizens, that the Council has an obligation to them to try to look for some opportunities to try to make
that a little more attractive than what it would have otherwise been with the two-inch caliper tree.
Brian Snelling stated that if he understood Mark, he was saying the smaller caliper trees are actually more
viable right now just for taking in that first couple of years.
City Arborist Mark Law stated that over all they normally are but with the drought situations it seems to be
more of an issue. That is one reason they would be more…
Councilmember D’Aversa asked if that were a perpetual requirement for the developer or petitioner? At
what point is the loss of a tree a pure loss by its replacement?
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that it is always a requirement that if the loss of a
tree occurs it is required to be replanted. They are in perpetuity. So if one loses one of the trees, he replaces
it.
Councilmember Lusk stated on the path issue, he first had the idea of going to a 10-foot standard and he
would like to incorporate that concept if possible if the Council gets to a point where they have a conceptual
understanding or agreement if it would fit. As he understands it the bike path plan would have 10-foot
standards so if they could reach to that he thinks that is a more usable path for two-way pedestrian traffic or
for people with strollers and that sort of thing in that corridor.
Mayor Lockwood stated that one would have to…if that would work. He does not know if…
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that he thinks they need to let Dan talk about the
increased dimension and whether or not it will fit in the site plan or not.
Public Works Director Drake stated that with their discussions with the Bike Path Committee and the way
that they are interpreting it is that is a 10-foot bike lane and what the committee was recommending is that
they have a four-foot on street with a six-foot off street. That is what they are proposing here is a four-foot
on and a six-foot off. There would b a train of removing that off and on street four a 10-foot, which could be
an option. They were going more towards the separate use path.
Mayor Lockwood stated that at this point he thinks if no one wants to make a motion, he would give this a
shot.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that this is a very complicated set of conditions and
they have talked about a lot of things. He asked Mayor Lockwood if he could indulge him for five-minute
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 40 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
break until they can get back here and re-write these conditions of zoning and print them out so that there is
no confusion or misunderstanding about what the Council is about to make a motion for.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that they did not talk about the loading dock when they mentioned a
wall. Has that wall been reviewed by the Design Review Board at this point? Have they seen…
Brian Snelling stated that on November 6, 2007 Kohl’s came down and talked to the Design Review Board
and brought some elevations down. The screen wall was discussed, which is typically shown. The
applicant’s architecture here tonight is not accurate because Kohl’s designs their own building, but that is the
intent of the screen wall. The architecture of the screen wall will match the building. It clearly shows that
when the truck is down in the dock one will not see it because of the screen wall.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that her point about that though is it creates a different visual. It
extends that building so one has more mass. They already have a pretty large mass and she wanted to point
out that a wall doesn’t necessarily, yes it might hide the loading dock but what it actually does is extend that
plane and it is obviously not that tall. She does not see that as being landscaped or any discussion about that
being landscaped so she does think they need to consider that a wall is not always the best end result.
Brian Snelling stated that one would basically be looking at the same thing they would be looking at on the
side of the building if the loading dock wasn’t there.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if there was any discussion about that being landscaped as an option,
having 10 feet in front of it to try to landscape so that one would not just go from wall to asphalt. She asked
Tom Wilson if they had any notes from what the Design Review Board had to say about that. She asked if
maybe during the five-minute break he could look for those comments from the Design Review Board.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they actually didn’t have anything to say about
landscaping in front of that wall. A member of the staff stated that there was some mention of it. They did
talk about the fact that it has to be a drive aisle and to the top end, he personally thinks it would be very
difficult to keep anything alive against that wall. This is based on the pure fact that other vehicles would be
coming down through there. It would be tough to irrigate it. That wall would have some heat elements to it
that would create almost a little microcosm there. He thinks that it would hurt anything that one would try to
plant there. He is not saying that it is something that they can’t talk about. That is one reason they beefed up
the landscaping in a sense at that property line between the Kohl’s and the out lot because that out lot could
realistically be sold off if a restaurant wanted to come in and buy it as their own out lot. They would have
some beefed up landscaping along that property line where it is more natural and not just up against the
building.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she did not know what the distance was from the edge of that
landscaping. She asked the applicant if he knew what that might be.
Brian Snelling stated that it would be roughly 25-30 feet. He thinks the 25 feet would meet the fire
marshal’s requirement and he thinks they added a little extra room in there because he believes that maybe
there is a compactor somewhere that if a truck comes down there, he needs to be able to turn around and get
back down off it. It should be a little bit wider to enable the truck to back down in there.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 41 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Five Minute Break:
Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood made a motion to take a five-minute break. Councilmember D’Aversa
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Reconvene:
After the break Lockwood reconvened the meeting.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he was going to make a motion. There was some conversation with the
applicant and Mayor Lockwood wanted to stress that he knows personally that the City of Milton is
supporting this development and wants to do it right but they are a little uncomfortable with just throwing so
many things around at the last minute.
Motion: Mayor Lockwood moved to defer this decision until their December 6, 2007 meeting.
He stated that he is committed to the applicant in working with them and the staff to firm up all of these
ideas and changes that they are talking about and bring it back on December 6th.
Second: Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion.
Brian Snelling stated that he is basically okay with that. He has tried to work well with staff and even some
of the members of the community. They had multiple meetings some which no one showed up for and then
some that had a good turnout. He stated that one thing they are up against because they did submit this is
June, they had to go through the DRIs and now this zoning cycle they have expended about six plus months
there of time. If the applicant were willing to take the risk on their own and design some of these plans,
especially maybe the Kohl’s, then can they submit that either prior to or shortly thereafter and go ahead and
get on some of the Design Review Board cycle and some of that permitting process? Can they work with the
staff to try and expedite some of these building permits to make up for the lost time. He just wanted to make
sure that they cold get the permits and do that.
Community Development Wilson stated that would not be a problem. The city would just not issue the
permit until then.
Vote: There was no further discussion from Council. The motion was passed unanimously.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he would like to thank the developer and Brian Snelling and everyone else
who was involve for going through this. He just wanted to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the
Council’s decision but he certainly wants to work with the applicant and look forward to having the Kohl’s
in the neighborhood.
Mayor Lockwood stated that the Council does realize the time issue and that is why if they deferred
something they defer it for 30 days. The Council is deferring it to their December 6, 2006 meeting which is
three weeks away at most. They will get together as soon as possible and that way…he does not want to drag
the application out anymore.
FIRST PRESENTATION
Agenda Item 07-426
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 42 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Approval of Amendments to Chapter 7, Alcohol Beverage Licenses, of the Code of Ordinances for the
City of Milton, Georgia.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the first presentation. Councilmember Lusk
seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Agenda Item 07-431
Approval of Ordinance Annexing 1400 Mayfield Road.
Ordinance No. 07-11-55
City Attorney Mark Scott presented the item. He stated that he thinks the Council has had a chance to read
the packet. This is the second reading of this item. As the memo outlines for the Council, a few weeks ago
this item came in through public safety. They learned that there was actually a property remaining on
Mayfield Road that had not been annexed by either the city of Alpharetta or the City of Milton. Interim City
Manager Chris Lagerbloom paid the property owner a visit and found him to begin with he had Milton
campaign signs on his front lawn. So he obviously had some interest with Milton and from that point
Lagerbloom asked the owner if he had heard that he was remaining unincorporated. The owner was aware of
that. Mr. Lagerbloom asked the resident what his pleasure was, would he want to come into Milton? The
resident stated that he would. Mr. Lagerbloom got the resident’s phone number for him and he called him, he
e-mailed him the annexation application and they have a complete annexation application under the 100
percent method. Mr. Scott asked that whoever makes the motion if he would make the motion as printed in
front of the ordinance. The motion to approve the ordinance is printed in front of the Council with one
correction and that is if one looks at the second exhibit to the ordinance, which has the plat on it, section II of
the ordinance refers to the property located on land lot 1058 of the second district, second section of Fulton
County, Georgia. Upon closer look it is also on land lot 1103 so if someone would be so kind as to make an
amendment when he actually makes the motion to include both land lots 1058 and 1103 in Section II of the
ordinance Scott stated that he would greatly appreciate that.
This property is on Mayfield Road abutting against the land lot line where…more or less from Freemanville
over to this point. The city line follows Mayfield Road at this point it chinks up forward along the land lot
line. There is a bit of property if one looks at the plat, the property just to the lower left, southwest of this
that is still in Alpharetta but it is still contiguous to Alpharetta across Mayfield Road.
This is really a public safety issue more than anything else because Fulton County alerted Alpharetta and
Milton about this because of the fact that this property would once they discovered it, which they only
discovered it about a month ago, would remain unincorporated. They realized that they were going to have to
serve this for public safety purposes from Johns Creek and Johns Creek was not available from south Fulton,
which could be a horrible response time as one can imagine.
He said there was no reason why the Council should not approve this. The applicant would like to annex. It
is just one property. It is about six acres zoned AG-1. That won’t change and it is a good fit with Milton.
There is a barn on the property and it is a very Milton-like property. Scott recommended to the Council that
they pass the ordinance to annex the property.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there was no public comment.
Mayor Lockwood asked for a motion and a second.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 43 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Motion and Second: Councilmember O’Brien moved to approve an ordinance annexing 1400 Mayfield
Road adding the addition of Land Lot 1103. The language is section II. Councilmember D’Aversa seconded
the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion was approved unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Agenda Item 07-432
Approval of an ordinance establishing solid waste collection services within the city of Milton;
providing for the scope and nature of the operation; providing for the disposal of garbage, solid waste
and refuse; requiring the execution by service providers of a non-exclusive agreement with the city of
Milton, providing procedures for the handling of complaints; providing for an infrastructure
maintenance fee; requiring indemnity insurance; providing for revocation and amendment;
prohibiting assignment and subletting without consent; providing for forfeiture; and for making other
provisions.
Ordinance No. 07-11-54
Interim City Manager Chris Lagerbloom said that he was bringing in the solid waste ordinance for the
second year. It is due to expire on November 22, 2007. This just re-solidifies it for a year in its current form.
Lagerbloom stated that he can tell the Council that he saw one e-mail earlier today and he will throw it out
before the Council if it is their pleasure. Since they passed this the first time they also passed a noise
ordinance. The time that is in this Solid Waste ordinance that was in the first one that they passed was to
allow for collection from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The noise ordinance indicates 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. during the
weekday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday. Lagerbloom stated that he was sure necessarily if they could
control Saturday pick ups within that time frame but if it is the Council’s pleasure he would think that it
would make sense to maybe amend that 7 o’clock beginning in the morning to match the noise ordinance,
which is 7:30 a.m. If that would be the pleasure then the motion will be to amend that time from 7 a.m. to
7:30 a.m. in section 4.3. If the Council does not think that is necessary and wants to keep it at 7 to 7, it could
pass just as it is. This would allow the City to continue with the same ordinance for the next 365 days.
He mentioned that the City has talked about the possibility of adding some type of recycling clause to this
particular solid waste ordinance. He had a conversation with the city attorney who indicated that his opinion
would be that there is some possibilities to do that but it would be more appropriate to do it in a five letter
agreement directly with the franchisee rather than trying to incorporate it into this particular document.
Councilmember Thurman stated that her only question on that would be a function of timing and without a
definitive time frame is that something that they could look to in the near term?
Interim City Manager Chris Lagerbloom stated that it was, absolutely.
Motion: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the ordinance establishing solid waste collection services
with the amendment as stated to have the collection hours coincide with the noise ordinance.
Mayor Lockwood asked Mark Scott if that was specific enough?
City Attorney Scott stated that there has been no restatement so they could do it from the amendment to list
7 to 7:30 on the record.
Second: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 44 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
Mayor Lockwood added to that amendment that the pickup time is 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Approval of the September 2007 invoice for legal fees.
Interim City Manager Chris Lagerbloom stated that the fact that this made it to the Council tonight is
nobody’s faulty but his own and he realized that his is not traditionally the way the Council would like to get
the documents to the meeting agenda. He also realized that there is some urgency in making good on a bill as
opposed to holding this until December 6, 2007. He stated that he made the decision very frankly because
there is not a lot on here that is actually billed to the mayor and city Council from this month. But he can tell
them that with the exception of about 10 items the costs that were incurred as each item was heard at the staff
level and have been reviewed and signed off on by the staff members throughout the document also indicates
that there is a split service of things billed to the city attorney’s fees as well as for other counsel that was
used during this particular month. The total bill is $19,734.96. This represents the last legal bill for the fiscal
year 2007. The amended budget for legal fees in FY07 was $237,000.00. This represents 100 percent of the
year billed at $220,427.59 putting the City at 95.84 percent of budget. Lagerbloom stated that he would give
the Council a couple of minutes to look over those.
There are a couple of items that are not incurred at the staff level. Again, he does not feel that any of them
are in question. They all look to be in line with what would be accepted. Lagerbloom offered his apologies
that this gets to the Council so late.
Mayor Lockwood stated that if there were no public comments he would ask for a motion and a second.
There was no public comment.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the September 2007 invoice for legal fees.
Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion was approved
unanimously.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Joe Lockwood stated that he appreciated everyone’s cooperation on that last zoning item and,
hopefully, they can move forward on it and make the best decision. He appreciates everyone working
together on that.
Mayor Lockwood added that, as most of the Councilmembers are aware, of the issue they have with Fulton
County the EMS. Fortunately, for the animal control they have decided to extend that so that may be a new
year issue. But, on their EMS for those that don not know all of the details, Fulton County has typically been
subsidizing the response time. The response time according to the state is 12 minutes. They have enjoyed an
eight minute response time and the county has subsidized that. Milton’s is somewhere around $600,000 a
year for their area whereas some of South Fulton is a couple of million dollars. Fulton County is kind of
playing like they all moved up to Chattanooga and they wanted city so the county has decided not to
subsidize that anymore. He does not feel that it is going to negatively impact Milton because there is going to
be some negotiations going on with the provider. Obviously they are going to have a little more incentive to
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 45 of 46
___________________________________________________________________________
keep the works. The North Fulton mayor’s of all of their cities are going to work together to try to come up
with something that benefits all of them and keeps the service for their citizens. They are fortunate to have
such a great fire department and the EMS guys there. They typically have the fire trucks there with an EMT
before the ambulance arrives anyway.
Those are two issues that they are working together on with the North Fulton Mayors.
There were no Council reports at this time.
STAFF REPORTS
Interim City Manager Chris Lagerbloom stated they have had the opportunity to partner with their friends
in the City of Alpharetta as they do their “Shop with a Cop” program on December 11, 2007. It is nice to
partner with them because they are doing it in Milton at the Wal-Mart. The city has elected to provide some
folks to be there that night to shop with the kids. Certainly they will send something out to the Council of
anyone wants to attend. At this point Lagerbloom has also committed to them that he thinks it is possible that
he can find some funding in the amount of $1000 or he will do it himself. But anyone who would have any
interest, they have raised right at $6500 at this point in the City of Alpharetta. That will be used to influence
65 kids. They have the ability to add some kids to it because of Milton’s commitment to putting people there
but he does not think it is necessary that they take all of the glory from it but that they also make some
contributions. A 100 percent tax-deductible contribution…again if they are able to find the $1000 in ten $100
increments or twenty $50 increments or whatever they can find. Lagerbloom stated that he would make up
the distance in anything they were to make. He is not trying to guilt anyone into it but it is a great event and
if anyone has any interest in helping the City support that program that they have been able to participate in,
it is a very heart warming, good experience.
Interim City Manager Chris Lagerbloom stated he has done it for years in a row and it is a good time.
December 11th, it starts at 6 p.m. They asked that the volunteers get there at 5:30 and the kids start to show
up at 6. The event will be held at the Wal-Mart in Milton. Checks can be made out to the Alpharetta Police
Athletic League. They are a 501c3 and one’s donation is 100 percent, for this event, tax deductible as is
earmarked for this special event. He stated that he was happy to be the collection point for that to make sure
it gets to the right people. It’s a good event and Lagerbloom thinks they are going to be able to assist more
kids through their willingness and their opportunity to participate.
Interim City Manager Chris Lagerbloom stated that he wanted to let Linda put the Council in the loop of
what the holiday events are that are occurring in Milton. The only reason this is coming up at this meeting
this late at night is it is the only time before they have another Council meeting so there is not another
opportunity to bring it before Council before the actual event.
Projects Coordinator Linda Blow presented the Council with the information on the holiday event that
begins at Scottsdale Farm on November 23. The family day is Saturday, December 1st. If there are any
particular questions the information is on the web site and everything that occurs during this is done for the
benefit of North Fulton Community Charity. They aptly asked them to set down the needy families to let the
City of Milton help those that are within the Milton City limits first, and if there is anything that spills over
or if they get lucky and just get funds for them that of course will be doled out. They are having a silent
auction and tree decoration. The trees are donated for their use by the Scottsdale Farms. They are having a
train ride and hopefully a live reindeer for the children to see and Santa is going to be there and they are
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, November 15,2007 at 7:00 pm
Page 46 of 46
going to have the Milton Memory Tree. They have lots of things going on. During the week they are having
carolers and they are professiona1 carolers. They invite everyone to come out this week and listen to some
holiday music.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The purpose of the Executive Session to discuss pending legislation.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember D'Aversa moved to adjourn into Executive Session. Councilmember
O'Brien seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.
Motion and Vote: CounciImernber Thurman moved to reconvene the regular meeting. Councilmember
Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion was passed unanimously.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember D'Aversa moved to adjourn the regular meeting at 11:lO PM.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Date Approved: Janlrary 14,2008
2, /'
,/,--1 -
%ckK i?la,cc,,& ".a i,
Jeanette R. Marchiafava, City Clerk Joe Lockwood,my&