HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 12/13/2007 - MINS 12 13 07 REG (Migrated from Optiview)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 1 of 72
This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this
summary must include this notice. Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and
invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio recorded.
The Regular Council Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on Thursday,
December 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m., Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION - Reverend Patrick Rose, Morning Star Chapel, led the invocation.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the regular meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
City Clerk Marchiafava called the roll.
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey,
Councilmember Bill Lusk, Councilmember Neal O’Brien, and Councilmember Rick Mohrig.
Not Present at the time of Roll Call: Councilmember. Tina D’Aversa She is attending her son’s first concert at
Milton High School and will be a little late.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Lockwood thanked everyone for being at the meeting. Tonight, there is a fairly full agenda and several zoning
cases. The Council would love to hear what one has to say and asked not to repeat what others have already said and keep
their comments brief. He also asked the Council to bear with them, there is a lot going on. He is going to try to keep
things moving along. He wants to give everybody a chance to speak, but asked respectfully that everyone keep to a
minimum and do not repeat and say the same thing.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-446.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
City Clerk Jeanette Marchiafava stated that staff would like to recommend the following changes to the agenda as
presented:
1) Add to Reports and Presentations - A Presentation to Councilmember Neal O’Brien and Councilmember Rick
Mohrig in recognition of their service.
2) Request that the Resolution abandoning Black Oak Road in the City of Milton be removed from Unfinished
Business.
3) Under New Business move items 2) A Resolution authorizing the solicitation of Tax Anticipation Note Financing
and 3) Approval of the legal fees for November 2007 for services rendered in October after the Consent Agenda.
4) Add to New Business – Approval to Authorize the Mayor to Execute a North Fulton Municipal Association
(NFMA) Resolution to declare their opposition to House Resolution 900.
5) Councilmember Lusk would like to add an appointment to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there were any other items to be considered.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 2 of 72
6) Councilmember Mohrig stated that he would like to remove Agenda Item No. 07-444, A Resolution regarding
reimbursement of legal fees for Councilmembers charged with ethics violations determined to be
unfounded.
7) Councilmember O’Brien stated that he would like to add an opportunity to discuss a resolution as well for a
Milton Property Tax Pre-Use Referendum item.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the meeting agenda, as amended. Councilmember
Lusk seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she had a question with regards to the mention of the adding the discussion
for Resolution that Councilmember Neal O’Brien just mentioned. She asked where he would be proposing that be added
and whether it would be added as a discussion item.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that he would like to discuss it and bring it to a vote and wherever it would suit the staff
and the Mayor would be fine with him.
Mayor Lockwood stated that it would be New Business.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated as a matter of discussion she has not even seen it. She would suggest that perhaps
they could have that as an update or a report for discussion purposes. So, a modification to that suggestion would be that
if it were to be added that they do it as a Mayor and Council report for discussion.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that he does not think they can vote on it at that point so he would prefer not.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he would agree with that because it certainly has merit and he appreciates it, but the Council
did just receive it. He does not know if staff has reviewed it. He really does not want to bring something forth and vote
on it not knowing what the ramifications are without going through the process and having staff review it and give the
Council their professional opinion.
Councilmember Thurman stated that it could always be deferred at the time they discuss it. If they are not ready to vote
on it, they can defer it at that time.
City Attorney Scott stated that it could be deferred, it could be defeated, and it could be any number of things.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he had a motion and a second to approve these items with the addition of Neal O’Brien’s
resolution and Rick Mohrig to delete his resolution. There was no further Council discussion.
Vote: The motion passed 4-2, with Councilmember Zahner Bailey and Mayor Joe Lockwood voting in opposition.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Leon Cole, Jr., 16700 Birmingham Hwy., Milton, GA, stated that he was speaking on last week’s meeting. It does
brush on a subject matter that is also carrying over to today. He is just speaking in general terms on this. He would like
to address an item that was on the December 6, Milton County Agenda. This was a resolution to abandon a portion of
Black Oak Road to sell it to a developer for $10. The stated public property requested for abandonment is approximately
1.3 acres. He would personally double that amount by offering the City $20 for the land. There is an old saying, “look
before you leap” and interpreted for the city government this means investigate/research before you act. After listening to
a recording of the very lengthy and redundant discussion of the abandonment matter, it is apparent that this City in this
case did not look before it leaped. A resolution was allowed to be brought to the table without any pretense of determining
required government policy. Indeed, the discussion centered around two major topics. 1) Lack of a road privatization
policy, and 2) Road liabilities. The Council had a policy, the Fulton County Road Closure and Privatization Policy was
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 3 of 72
adopted in 2005. He does believe that Milton has adopted and embraces Fulton County ordinances and policies until it
adopts its own. The procedures used in the formation and presentation of the Black Oak Road solution it is clear that the
City was completely unaware of the existence of this policy. There is not even a hint of required process being followed.
For example, was it really necessary for the City attorney, who is paid by the hour to become involved before critical and
ordained actions could be taken by appropriate City agencies who are salaried and whose recommendations would be vital
to the Council to properly evaluate the abandonment request? Noted also was the complete absence of public notification
and input. As he listened to the recordings of the Council and developer’s remarks, he was horrified that it might pass
without due process and the lack of knowledge. As far as liability is concerned, the danger lies with the developers having
allowed it to occur and not with the road per se. Huge cement field conduits are being destroyed by the Lake on Black
Oak Road’s cul-de-sac which ends at the lake. The cul-de-sac is definitely messed up from being used as a loading and
unloading area by heavy equipment entering from Hopewell Road. The developer must have been concerned about his
own public liability when he illegally placed cement barriers across the public road. Any present danger for the public on
this road rests squarely on the developer’s shoulder. He expects his City officials to know the rules and regulations
pertaining to any matter that might come before them before taking action and to look before you leap.
Mike Harris, 2410 Saddle Springs Drive, Sun Brook Farms Subdivision, Milton, GA, pointed out to the Mayor and
City Council since the beginning of October the City venture that is taking place at 2365 Saddle Springs Drive. These
events are held knowingly, breaking the existing zoning regulations and the consistency of land use in their neighborhood.
For the past 70 days, they have notified the City of Milton to enforce its own zoning regulations. They have had no
official notification of any resolution. They have since learned that the residents who sponsor and host these numerous
and unsuitable events in the barn have collectively applied for a use permit with concurrent zoning regulations. They
welcome the City’s stance that residents and students continue the event. They have also learned that the City has decided
to allow these events to continue despite the City’s own zoning ordinances, not to mention numerous building code
requirements. It is quite frankly, disturbing. These events have strongly put opposition in dealing with injunction towards
the City and residents hosting these events. While they knew that the neighborhood would place the road in use of a
regularly scheduled event, this is inconsistent with land use in their neighborhood with no in attendance from the
neighborhood. This runs contrary to zoning regulations. Several neighbors have replied to the resident's notification of
Young Life events in their neighborhood. They have asked them to stop. The City has received several letters requesting
the City to enforce its zoning and stop the events. Yet, the City continues to allow these events until a use permit is voted
on. The neighbors’ question is why is this allowed to continue? This is especially troubling considering Councilmembers’
children attend these events. We implore the City of Milton to revisit its decision to allow these events and reverse its
decision to stop these events.
Ed Parsons, 2960 Serenade Court, Milton, GA, thanked Leon Cole for his thoughts. He could not agree with him more
in what he is saying here. He attended the meeting last week and stated that it was pretty shocking to see that some of the
City Councilmembers were making a bigger issue about the liability of the land. They were concerned about who owned
it and what kind of damage had been done. He appreciates what Mr. Cole had to say. Secondly, he wanted to recommend
to the City that they adopt the technology to put the public City meetings on the website. Currently, many cities do that
like Marietta, Atlanta, and Athens. He talked with the CIO of Sacramento, CA. They have been doing it for a while. It is a
great way to share information with the public. This is one of the most populated City Council meetings he has seen. He
asked if they could imagine how many other people it would touch if they were to have these meetings out on the website
where one could see and review them. He has seen the technology where one can actually go to each different topic. He
does not have to listen to the entire meeting. He just picks an agenda item off of the site menu and it goes right into the
conversation about that particular item. He thinks the public would really find value in that. He asked the City Council to
consider adopting that technology very quickly. The second value to it is that as City Council goes through and they are
reviewing the Planning Commission meetings and the things like that, it is a great way for them to go back and review and
see what was talked about, what was discussed, what were the issues, what were the resolutions that the Planning
Commission came up with. He thinks it would be a valuable resource for the Council to hear it and see it happening in
these other committees. He asked the Council to adopt that technology as quick as possible. Just for the public’s
knowledge, it cost about $10,000-$12,000 to get it set up and about $1,000 per month. He is a technology guy and he
thinks it would be a valuable thing for the City of Milton to have.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 4 of 72
Paul Moore, 15290 White Columns Drive, Milton, GA stated that he had a quick question. The action that the Council
took tonight in the change of the agenda, is it now removing the Black Oak Road from the agenda this evening?
City Clerk Marchiafava advised Mr. Moore that it will not be heard and advised Mr. Moore that if he would like to
address that item now, the Mayor said that it is okay. If he wants to have two separate public comments, they will be
happy to accommodate him.
Paul Moore stated that he could roll it all into one. It was a week ago this evening that he stood before the Mayor and
City Council at an hour much later than this and he heard for the first time the presentation by Lee Duncan on Black Oak
Road requesting that the road be abandoned. As one recalls, the process prior to that was one that was pretty compressed
in its process. It was one that did not necessarily have the benefit of all the services that are available to citizens acted on
in terms of surveying the land, accessing its value, accessing the condition of the road, etc. It is unfortunate that they did
not have that prior to this. He did actually go out to Black Oak Road himself since then and took a movie. He does not
know if it would be available to pull up at this time to show. It is a couple of minutes long and for those that have not had
a chance to get out there. He would like to say a couple of more things in terms of the way the evening went. Last week,
three of the Councilmembers were diving for cover when the word liability was said in front of them that night. Karen
Thurman, Bill Lusk, Neal O’Brien…Moore continued that he could not have been more embarrassed for them this
evening with their actions that evening. It was like Chicken Little was here standing before them saying the sky was
falling when Lee Duncan was before them and he used the word liability. He stated that Bill Lusk paraded his credentials
as having a Class A Engineer’s license that allowed him to take a look at erosion and determine what it was. For the
record, he does not think Lusk was assessing the picture that night.
Mayor Lockwood asked Mr. Moore not to just address certain individuals.
Paul Moore stated that the process that evening was one that was rather abominable. It took a long time to get to public
comment. They exhausted out of standard procedure the developer’s opinion’s that evening as a way to make sure that it
was a part of a grant that they were giving to them without due process. The City is entitled to more of a process than
that and they need to adopt one. There is one available to them from Fulton County. It is a disservice not to have that and
he implored that City to take full advantage of that process. If they had been fortunate enough to see the movie, what they
would have found was that the erosion that was out there was absolutely inflicted by the developer. The road prior to
where he cut into the grade was absolutely in acceptable condition. He thinks that the City staff would assess it as the
same. It is not unlike any other dirt road in Milton. It has beauty, it has value, and it certainly should be incorporated into
the trail way system and bike and path system. He spoke to Clarence (he has forgotten his last name at the moment). The
developer dismissed him or dismissed all of the homeowners on that property around the properties adjacent to this parcel,
suggesting that they had no interest in what was happening there. Clarence has been there for 52 years, his entire life. He
said not once has he been approached by a developer or the City as to what his interests were in the change of that area.
And he said for the record, “he would like for it to stay just like it is.” It is unfortunate that they are not gong to hear this,
this evening. But again, he implored the Council to put a process in order. The City has land that has value, and this road
has value. If it is going to be available to the developer, he encouraged that it be done by due process where one assesses
the value of that land and gets some sort of compensation for it. They are looking for additional money for park land; they
are looking for additional ways to help fund traffic solutions for the Crabapple Crossing area. What better way than to find
some new found dollars and put them into their coffers than to make sure that this process…Mr. Moore’s time was up.
City Clerk Marchiafava asked Ms. Bentley if she wished to address the Council this evening. Her item had been
removed that she submitted a card for.
Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road, Milton, GA stated that she too went out to Black Oak road and met with
Mr. Efferman. She was appalled that this was even on the agenda. It was a sad state for their City. Moving forward, she
would ask that there is more due diligence done and she applauded Councilmembers D’Aversa and Zahner Bailey for
raising flags on this issue and not letting it be decided last week.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that that completes public comment.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 5 of 72
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A Proclamation declaring Friday, December 14, 2007, as Milton High School Girl’s Lacrosse Day in Milton.
Councilmember Karen Thurman read the proclamation:
Whereas, Lacrosse is a sport that requires skillful hand-eye coordination, mental awareness and physical endurance; and
Whereas, the girls’ Lacrosse program began in 1999 as a club program and that Milton High School has grown rapidly
since that time; and whereas in 2002 the Georgia High School Association officially sanctioned Lacrosse as a high school
sport and in 2005 recognized Lacrosse as a full-fledged championship sport; and
Whereas, the Milton High School girls’ Lacrosse team has a tradition of excellence in accomplishment in academic and
athletic competition reflecting the highest ideals of hard work, training and sportsmanship; and
Whereas, the girls’ Lacrosse team has had 20 members selected for All-State honors, four selected to First Team All-
American, three selected to Honorable Mention All-American and 15 selected as Academic All-Americans; and
Whereas, the team has reached the Georgia High School Association play offs every year since 2002 and was the first
public school team to win the girls’ Lacrosse stated championship; and
Whereas, the Milton High School girls’ Lacrosse team has won the Georgia High School Girls’ Lacrosse State
Championship an unprecedented three years in a row in 2005, 2006 and 2007; and
Whereas, the players on the Milton High School Girls’ Lacrosse team are champions not only on the field but also in the
classroom, in the community and in life and they are proud that this great team is located in Milton, Georgia;
Now, therefore, we, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Milton, hereby dedicate and proclaim Friday, December
14, 2007 as Milton High School Girls’ Lacrosse Day in the City of Milton, Georgia.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that the City Manager would be presenting the second item on reports and presentation,
which is a presentation to Councilmembers Neal O’Brien and Rick Mohrig in recognition of their service.
Service Recognition presentation to Councilmembers Neal O’Brien and Rick Mohrig.
Interim City Manager Lagerbloom stated that this meeting, the December 13th meeting is the last meeting of this
calendar year. The Council will reconvene at some point in January. A calendar for January will be approved at some
point in this meeting. As kind of an outgoing gesture of thanks to the Councilmembers that are leaving and this is their
last meeting…the staff has had a lot of interaction with the Councilmembers. They do their best to serve all seven of them
as equally as they can. As a staff, they end up forming relationships with folks that serve the City. From the staff tonight,
he would like to ask that the two Councilmembers that are leaving to join him so that he can them a plaque; something
that they can remember the City of Milton by being one of the inaugural Councilmembers. It has been a pleasure to serve
them and hopefully they have, in most circumstances, made them proud. The plaque read: “With heartfelt gratitude for
your effort in the launch of the City of Milton, and for your tireless efforts as one of Milton’s inaugural City
Councilmembers.
Councilmember Neal O’Brien and Councilmember Mohrig accepted the award and they were thanked for their service to
the City of Milton.
CONSENT AGENDA
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-447.
Approval of the Financial Statements for the period ending November, 2007.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember O’Brien seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that the next item was moved by motion and vote.
She read Agenda Item No. 07-449.
Approval of a Resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia authorizing solicitation of Tax
Anticipation Note Financing.
Resolution No. 07-12-67
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 6 of 72
Finance Manager Stacey Inglis stated that the resolution that is brought before Council is simply a resolution to solicit
the tax anticipation note financing. They are partnering with Troutman-Sanders to solicit interest rates from different
financial institutions. On a tax anticipation note, one cannot borrow any higher than 75% of the total gross income from
taxes collected in the previous year. As of December 6, 2007 the total amount of taxes collected for 2007 are
$7,712,063.00. Therefore, the maximum amount the City can borrow is $5,784,047.00. The City does not anticipate
borrowing that much. She has done some initial cash flow analysis. They are looking at probably borrowing between $3
million to $5.4 million. This is a short term loan that has to be paid off every year before or on December 31. They have a
loan that they are currently under that is around $5,155,000.00 that will be paid off on December 31, 2008. Troutman-
Sanders has performed the tax anticipation note process for Johns Creek this past year and they are also doing the one for
Chattahoochee Hills. The City of Milton is using them this year. They are considerably less than what the City did with
their previous firm.
There were no questions or comments from the Council.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there was no public comment.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he would like to clarify for the citizens the reason that they have a Tax Anticipation Note or
a TAN is that as one knows, he gets his property tax bills at the end of the year. One does not actually pay his property
tax until October. So basically Milton, especially as a new City, has to have revenue to get through the year because they
do not receive their funds for the year until towards the end year. As Ms. Inglis said, it is a short term note with a very
small rate.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the Resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of
Milton, Georgia authorizing solicitation of Tax Anticipation Note Financing. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the
motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that the next item was moved by motion and vote.
She read Agenda Item No. 07-450.
Approval of Legal Fees for November 2007
Finance Manager Inglis stated that the October 2007 bill that was submitted recently is in the amount of $8,185.31. The
budget for legal fees for FY 2008 is $180,000. Upon payment of this invoice, there would be a balance of $171,814.69.
There were no questions from Council and no public comment.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember O’Brien moved to approve the legal fees for November 2007 for services rendered in
October 2007. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ZONING AGENDA
Mayor Lockwood asked the City Attorney for assistance with protocol. Councilmember Lusk has an appointment to his
board. He wanted to know if it was okay if they could hear that issue now.
City Attorney Scott stated that he believes that they can move that item to the agenda at this point.
Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood moved to Suspend the agenda in order to let Councilmember Lusk present his
appointment. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion on the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
Appointment to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
Councilmember Lusk stated that he appreciated the patience of those in the audience. He knows people are waiting on
their zoning cases.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 7 of 72
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that staff can have an oath printed in about five minutes.
City Attorney Scott stated that because every appointee serves at the pleasure of the Council and in particular the
Councilmember who appointed him, it automatically supersedes the previous appointee.
Recess
Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood made a motion for a three minute recess. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Reconvene
Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood made a motion to reconvene under the suspension of the agenda. Councilmember
Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to appoint Jon Carroll to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
replacing Al Trevillyan. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion
passed unanimously.
Oath of Office
Mayor Lockwood administered the Oath of Office to Jon Carroll at this time.
Councilmember Lusk stated that Jon Carroll has been involved in the community since he can remember. He got to
know Mr. Carroll last year fairly well when they campaigned against each other. Mr. Carroll has been a participant in
practically every City Council meeting that he can remember. He stated the City is glad to have Mr. Carroll on board and
he is sure that the other members of the committee will appreciate his input also.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she would like to second that. She has been very impressed with Mr. Carroll and
the fact that he has been willing to show up at these meetings, staying for a long time with them quite often. He is always
very positive about the City and they appreciate that. She knows that he will be a very positive and good member to have
on the CPAC committee.
Resume the Agenda
Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood stated that he would like to make a motion to resume the agenda going back to the
first zoning agenda item. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion
passed unanimously
City Clerk Jeanette Marchiafava stated that she would read the zoning rules. At the second 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 decisions will be heard in the sequence listed on the posted agenda. Marchiafava stated that she would
like to acquaint them with some of the rules and procedures for this meeting. The applicant and all those speaking in
support of an application will be allowed a total of ten 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 ten
minutes to present its position. If time remains the opposition will be allowed to rebut. Since the burden of proof is upon
the applicant, staff will be allowed to make closing remarks provided that time remains with the allotted time. City Clerk
staff will be keeping track of time and will inform the speaker periodically of the remaining time for his presentation.
Those called to speak will be taken in the order that the speaker cards were received this evening by City Clerk staff prior
to this agenda item being called. All speakers will identify themselves by name, address and organization, if applicable,
before beginning their presentation. The Planning Commission heard the rezoning items and recommendations have been
forwarded to the Mayor and City Council for their 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 he wishes to be received by the
Council in consideration of his 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
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 8 of 72
within two years immediately preceding the filing of the rezoning action being opposed, campaign contributions
aggregating $250 or more to a local government official of the local government, which will consider the application, it
shall be 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. A violation of the relative state statute constitutes a misdemeanor.
Therefore, if one has contributed $250 or more to a Council member and he has not filed a disclosure prior to the Planning
Commission meeting, the City attorney strongly suggests that he have someone speak who will now speak for the
applicant’s point of view.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated for the record that Councilmember Tina D’Aversa is now present.
She read Agenda Item No. 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. She stated that this item was deferred on November 15, 2007,
Community Development Director Tom Wilson asked if the applicant for this case is present. He stated that since the
applicant is not present his recommendation would be that the Council defer this until a later meeting at which time that
they can be here. They still need to have a public hearing since they have advertised, but he recommended that the
Council entertain that deferral.
Mayor Lockwood asked if anyone had had any contact with the applicant.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that she spoke to her earlier in the week and she knew about the meeting. She
tried to call the applicant at her office to no avail.
Mayor Lockwood stated that in all fairness to the applicant they certainly want to have her here.
City Clerk Jeanette Marchiafava stated that we still need to have a public hearing and she does have public comment.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Bill Lusk moved to defer ZM07-006, 2865 Webb Road. Councilmember O’Brien
seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey had one request and that would be to make sure that the applicant can be here for that
next zoning meeting. They have now deferred it twice.
Mayor Lockwood stated that staff would contact the applicant and confirm. He assumed they could take it off the agenda
if they need to.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion to defer this application was unanimous.
Mayor Lockwood asked for public comment on ZM07-006.
City Clerk Marchiafava called Ed Parsons on behalf of the Avensong Homeowners' Association. She stated that he has
submitted the necessary affidavit to speak on their behalf.
Ed Parsons stated that he wished to defer his comments at this time.
There being no other public comment and the public hearing was closed.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-437.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 9 of 72
RZ07-11 - To rezone from (C-1) Community Business) and O-I (Office-Institutional) to O-I (Office Institutional) to
develop a 140,000 square foot office building with a maximum height of four stories.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that Community Development’s recommendation for this case is
for approval of the two-story maximum in pursuant to the recommended conditions attached to this case. Robyn
MacDonald will provide some details for this application.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that the proposed office development is suitable based on existing O-I (Office-
Institutional).
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that he had to make one clarification in point of procedure. The
public participation plan requires that it is to be submitted to the community development department seven days in
advance of this meeting. It did not come in seven days in advance of this meeting. It is complete and has been reviewed.
The zoning ordinance allows the Council to consider deferral when a public participation plan does not meet that seven
day requirement. At this point, Wilson thinks the Council first needs to decide if they wish to defer or continue this case.
Mayor Lockwood asked staff’s opinion on if there is any benefit for the Council to defer this or hear it now.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that there was none that he could see. The staff is prepared for this,
they have all of the illustrations queued up and ready to go. He does not think anything will change between now and the
next meeting so he sees no reason to defer.
Councilmember Thurman stated that it was her understanding that some felt that it did go through the whole public
process.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the applicant did conduct the process that he was required to do.
All of the information is there, they have reviewed it, and it is complete. Staff just did not receive it seven days in
advance. So the question to Council is to continue or defer at this point.
Mayor Lockwood asked if everyone was on board with continuing.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that her only comment would be that hopefully as they move into 2008 maybe
they can just make sure that they double check that they have everything that is required.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that the proposed office development is suitable based on the existing O-I
(Office-Institutional) to the west pursuant to Z94-116 approved at 1572 square feet per acre and a height of two stories
and Z05-029 to the east approved at 12,844 square feet per acre at a height of two stories. The proposed development
would not adversely affect the existing uses nearby or adjacent uses if developed with the recommended conditions. The
proposed O-I zoning is consistent with the policy and intent of the Focus Fulton 2025 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The
existing zonings of office and commercial on the subject site and surrounding properties and adopted land use policies
support this request for Office-Institutional to develop an office building. However, existing zoning conditions restrict the
height to two stories on the underlying zoning. The proposed zoning is suitable for the site if developed at two stories.
This will ease the transition from the office to the residential to the north. In addition the policy for the subject site is for a
height of two stories pursuant to Z97-76. Regarding the site plan analysis, she stated that the site plan meets all of the
zoning ordinance conditions for O-I, the front being 40-feet of front setback, sides of 20 feet and rear of 25 feet. The
applicant has proposed a four-story office building in the current zoning which is pursuant to Z97-76 was approved for a
maximum of two stories. Also board policy for the surrounding commercial and office zoning limits building to two
stories in height. Therefore, staff will condition the height of the building to two stories not six feet, 30 feet from average
grade. In regards to the landscape strips and buffers required. The front will be a 20-foot landscape strip. From the side to
the east property line there is an existing 10-foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards that is required along the east
property line pursuant to Z97-76. The side on the west property line has a 10-foot landscape strip and the rear has a 10
foot landscape strip. In regards to parking, the proposed use requires 460 spaces and the applicant has provided 460
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 10 of 72
spaces. The area is heavily wooded with a stream running across the northwest corner. There were two specimen trees
located on the site; one is a 28-inch oak. She thinks the Council has the handout of the PowerPoint in front of them. There
is also a 43-inch double sweet gum tree. They have not superimposed the actual site plan, but where these trees are
proposed, one would be exactly where the parking lot is and the other one would be where the building is.
In conclusion the proposed development is consistent with sound policies and board polices for the O-I to develop an
office building. The petitioners request to a four-story is inconsistent with board policy on the site as well as for
surrounding development. Therefore, staff recommends approval conditional of RZ07-011with a height of two stories.
She commented that on page 18 of recommended conditions, staff would like to add the following:
1A – after “office and institutional”, an accessory uses at a maximum density of 15,076 square feet per acres zoned or a
total of 140,000 square feet, whichever is less, but excluding gas stations and associated gas pumps, free-standing fast
food restaurants, commercial amusement. Cinemas are allowed. Liquor Sales and Package Stores, upscale wine stores are
not allowed. Restaurants may sell liquor by the drink. Motels, hotels, adult oriented entertainment 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 laundry, video arcade, video machines that are incidental to otherwise permitted
businesses are not allowed. Pool halls, stand-alone massage parlors, stand-alone nail salons, stand-alone beauty salons,
stand-alone barber shops, clinical-therapeutic spas are not allowed and may include less than 400 square feet. Flea
markets, second hand surplus retail shops, road side vending, roadside produce stands or seasonal vending, billboards,
convenience stores, and fortune tellers. They would like to add that into 1A of the recommended conditions.
Mayor Lockwood stated that the Council will call the applicant to come forward.
John McMillan, 14255 Thompson Road, Milton, GA
He really appreciates the Council allowing him to be up here tonight. He started off by saying that he thinks they can
probably live with the staff’s recommendations if they need to. They need a little bit more height but he does think they
have a better design and he would like to go through that with the Council. This would be the fifth phase of their
development. They have been in this area since 1990 and they bought this piece of land in 1997. There is an area on the
site plan that is designated in the Division 6 Mega-Corridor. When they bought this property in 1997 they were glad to get
commercial, retail and office in the area. He thinks that anything but multi-family was what the folks in the area had said.
The ARC has designated this as a mega-center. The applicant was admonished by the Design Review Board to do a Sears-
style office building, the old City hall east. That just didn’t resonate with them. They like old town and so as such they
went over to the City of Suwannee and tried to adopt this as the designed proposed. McMillan stated that he has asked
John Hembre of Piper, O’Brien to speak to this.
John Hembre, 120 Providence Oak Park, Old Milton, GA
He is an architect with Piper, O’Brien. The architecture that is over in Suwannee is something that they want to try to
implement on this site. As shown on the images presented, trying to play it more in the office/residential style, something
that is broken up by multiple brick colors/ the undulation of the elevation so that one is really adding to the architecture
that is there. Having some play on the in and outs and shade and shadows so that it is not just one big blank elevation. It
really gives on the appearance of multiple buildings on a site. The height restrictions that were referenced being two
stories, there is a 60-foot requirement that is there. In an office building they are looking at 14 to 15 feet, floor to floor and
for a four-story office building they are going to be sitting right at 60 feet plus the parapet that they are having to deal
with. They know that they are going to have roofs springing from there with the canopy units that are going to be on top.
It is very easy for them to work within that requirement of 60 feet and still have a four-story office building working into
it. The architecture as seen here is broken up. It is giving one the image of smaller buildings even though it is a larger
building that they are dealing with and then one goes and looks at it in a larger section, if this was all one brick color
going from one end to the other with no in and outs on the elevation one could see that it would be just a very large
building that would just be overpowering to what is going on and not be complacent to the residential that is on the back
side, not working with it, not being conducive to it. Some other images were shown of what the architecture could be. If
they start to look at some other materials whether it is more of a big block type of affair, being more of the old historic,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 11 of 72
rural town affect that one can see in the center building. They can still have some of the balcony up there as being in an
office building environment. He showed an image that characterizes the ins and outs of the brick that one can see at the
top, trying to give it more of that residential feel with some detail really coming into the parapet that is on top of the
building. On the lower level, to still make this feel more residential/retail oriented yet still be business oriented by having
multiple entrances when one sees the site plan. The detail up at the top, leaving the opportunity for having some green
roof aspect to this building, which would also add to the overall residential aspect of what they are really trying to
maintain and aspire to in the City of Milton. He presented an image showing the intersection of Windward Parkway and
SR 9 where one can see the Kroger that is there. The entrance to the Kroger, being very monumental in effect is probably
somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 feet. So if the height of this office building were at 60 feet, it is not going to
be overpowering. They are going to be roughly 15 to 20 feet above that Kroger. It is not going to be overpowering to SR 9
because this site as it sits is also sitting much lower than the streetscape that they are already driving down. It is going to
be very depressed with the area that it is in, which also down plays the height that they are looking for in trying to go four
stories, approximately 40 feet below grade. They are at three-feet below grade so one can see where that height
differential is really going to play into the overall scheme of the building. An aerial of the site shows how it is sitting in
behind the Kroger. The aspect of an entrance from SR 9 as well as another entrance from the back side of the site working
the parking…presently on the site where the building is located does have some specimen trees that they are needing to
work around. They understand that and they are trying to optimize the site as best as possible. Can they look at moving
the building around to another location and so work the parking in? Absolutely. They are open to that as they work
through the planning aspects of this. Right now, they are just looking at the height of the building and the total number of
stories that they are going for.
John McMillan stated that the building actually does not occur where either of those specimens are. The parking can be
reconfigured if necessary, although they have a tremendous tree save area and that should offset those two trees. They are
very familiar with tree recompense. Typically they are trying to plant plants, 6-inch specimens to put a regular mass of
trees in the area. With the tree save area that is shown on a later slide, they go overboard to try to preserve as many large
specimens wherever they possibly can.
Mayor Lockwood asked City Clerk Marchiafava to stop the clock for one second. He wanted to give the applicants a
head ups if they want to save some of their time to answer questions that would be great.
John Hembre pointed out the tree save area that provides an excellent buffer from the residence even though there are no
windows on this end of the building. Basically they cannot see where the building would go. The neighbors were
informed when they bought their property that they are surrounded by commercial so they should be aware of that
although the owners did not understand it. The applicant pointed out the existing zoning, 1997 C-1, two-story with
basement, no height limitation, maximum height allowable, 60 feet. That is on the most northerly tract. The second is
1994 on the other one, two-story with basement, no height limitation, maximum allowable 60-feet. Those are the height
limitations on the site right now. The aerial shows how many big boxes there are in the area. That is the reason the ARC
has designated this as a mega-corridor. What they want one to do to prevent sprawl is to mass the buildings in one area so
that there is more green space, which is what the applicant is trying to do. One concentrates that density toward major
corridors like SR 400 and Windward Parkway so that they can be easily accessed. The benefits to Milton and the
community include low impact building, high tax base generator, low impact on schools, low impact on parks and
recreation, very little impact on fire and police services decreased as Milton residents commute by going to the Target
from within; owner funded traffic signal, which they are happy to do to clean up the Wal-Mart and Fries mess; retrofit
with St. Charles light fixture, which is a very expensive and beautiful fixture; brick on the sidewalks as what Sembler did
and the equestrian four-board fence. For about 10 years they have been trying to have that passed as a standard along SR 9
to look more like the frontage on Deerfield.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that the speaker had 15 seconds left.
John Hembre stated that he would like to reserve his last 15 seconds.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was anyone wishing to speak that is in favor of this application.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 12 of 72
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that those were the two submitted in support.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any opposition.
Travis Allen, 13095 Region Trace, Milton, GA
Travis Allen stated that his residence is inside the nearest neighborhood to this rezoning issue. It is the Preserve at
Windward Village. Their concern is not that the building is going to be in there, they hope that the Council will accept
staff’s recommendation on the two-story one and to the building. Allen stated that he would also like to take a look after
talking with the homeowners that perhaps the sidewalk on Webb Bridge Road does not really fit the character of the road.
There would be an isolated sidewalk there. Perhaps instead of a right-in/left-in entrance, actually perhaps it is a right-
in/right-out with no sidewalk and maybe a landscape strip. Allen stated that the applicant mentioned that the project would
have a low impact on schools. But, there is actually a middle school and an elementary school located within a quarter of
a mile distance of this piece of property. Many of those children actually walk along Webb Bridge Road, which its own
sidewalks are approximately 30 percent. This would impact them. Any additional traffic would impact these children that
walk to and from school especially during the springtime months when it is nice weather outside. The applicant also stated
that there would be no impact on the parks and recreation. If one considers the Milton bike and pedestrian path trail part of
parks and recreation, it would have an impact on that trail and its second year phase would be scheduled to run on the
opposite side of Webb Road. They have to keep that in mind and accept staff’s recommendation on the two-story limit to
the height.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated there were 7 people that want to speak and the total is 10 minutes.
Sara Allen, 13430 Avensong-Ives Way, Milton, GA
Sara Allen stated that her main opposition to this is the two-story limit. This is what they have deferred in the past
meetings with the SR 9 overlay. She asked the Council to consider the fact that that is still up in the air and she would like
to impose that restriction on this property.
Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road, Milton, GA
Laura Bentley stated that the development of Webb Road should be very carefully considered. Simply stated, Webb Road
can become an extension of SR 9 or it can be a well-planned area, which serves both the business community and the
residents. In Bentley’s opinion this now beautiful road is the front door to Milton’s breathtaking neighborhoods and farms.
They have an incredible opportunity to make Webb Road a pleasant area that is representative of their unique community.
Due to the transitional nature of Webb Road, she strongly supports the two-story, 30-foot building limit that both the
Planning Commission and the City of Milton staff have recommended. Bentley urged Mayor and Council to accept the
work done by staff and the Planning Commission and to adhere to their recommendations.
Dr. Angela McIntyre, 13365 Merrywood Court, Milton, GA
Dr. McIntyre stated that she is representing the Regency at Windward Square homeowners' association. She had made a
request to actually speak after Ed Parsons because she wanted to put on record that the homeowners' association…
City Attorney Scott interrupted and requested a Point of Order. He said if Dr. McIntyre is speaking on behalf of the
homeowners' association, she needs to fill out an affidavit.
Mayor Lockwood asked Dr. McIntyre if she was speaking on behalf of the homeowners' association.
Dr. McIntyre stated that she was.
Mayor Lockwood stated that afterwards she needs to state for the record that she is speaking for the homeowners'
association and also complete an affidavit.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 13 of 72
Dr. McIntyre stated that she had made a request to speak after the Avensong community, specifically Ed Parsons, and to
put on the record that the Regency at Windward Square homeowners' association board members have had discussions
with them. They are in full agreement with the comments that will be presented by Ed Parsons.
Ed Parsons, 2950 Serenade Court, Milton, GA
Ed Parsons stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Avensong Homeowners' Association. Avensong’s
recommendation is they recommend that the Mayor and Council accept the staff and Planning Commission’s
recommendation for approval conditional of RV07-011 with height limits of two-stories not to exceed 30 feet above the
average grade and other conditions stipulated by the staff. Additionally they would like to have the following conditions
to be considered: 1) Consider ways to develop but save the two specimen trees located on the parcel; 2) Erect a black
equestrian style fence along Wood Road; and 3) The detention pond should be earthen with something other than a chain
link fence around the detention pond. He likes what Sembler did; they did a four-board with a 2x4 fence. It looks a little
bit nicer than chain link. On behalf of the Avensong's Homeowners' Association, that is what Parson had to say. He asked
if he could make a comment on his own outside of the homeowners' association. He appreciates the applicant presenting
the pictures. One thing is he did take a look from the intersection of SR 9 and Windward Parkway. If one looks back at
that picture he will see that the trees that are in that forest are about 60 feet tall. So when one sees the picture of Kroger
standing up there, it is probably about one-third of those trees. So if they were to go four stories it is going to be 40 feet
above the back of that building. He thinks the best demarcation is to look at the trees that are on the horizon in back of the
Kroger. That is approximately how high a four-story building would look like in there. He asked that the Mayor and
Council take that into consideration as well.
Heidi Sowder, 525 Sunflower Court, Milton, GA
Heidi Sowder stated that she believes a four-story building on this section of Webb Road would be detrimental to the
surrounding community. It is not aligned with the Focus Fulton 2025 comprehensive plan and these policies were adopted
by the City. The policy states specifically that building heights should be consistent with the surrounding area and/or be
consistent with transitional policies. Sowder submitted to the Council that this is not consistent with what is existing in the
immediate area. It is more of the south on SR 9 and the City of Alpharetta as well. As a matter of fact, one can drive all
the way down into Roswell and he will not see anything taller than two stories except for the North Fulton Hospital. That
being said, the majority of their buildings that are over two stories are over in the Deerfield Office Park where she feels it
is more appropriate to have those size and height of buildings. Secondly, the policy states that existing trees, particularly
specimen trees and trees along roadways should be preserved. Sowder would appreciate it if the applicant would be
willing to work with staff and do all that he can do to preserve any of the existing trees on the site. In conclusion, she
asked that the Mayor and City Council support all of staff’s recommended conditions and that the City has adopted.
Leon Cole, 15700 Birmingham Hwy., Milton, GA
Leon Cole stated that he too supports the two-story building concept. He is just afraid that if it goes up to three or four
stories that is going to set a dangerous precedent for the future.
Kim Horne, 415 Wade Glen Ct, Milton, GA
Kim Horne stated that she would echo comments made before her that would recommend that the Mayor and City
Council support Planning Commission and staff’s recommendation to limit the height of the building for two stories or 30
feet. Something that she realized this evening in reference to the applicant’s comments is that it seems that they are
somewhat different than what was mentioned at the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission he specifically
said that his building, if it were four stories would be in excess of 15 feet above the Kroger and now they are saying the
same height as the Kroger. She would beg to differ that something has changed since the Planning Commission meeting.
The other comment she would like to make is that she thinks the applicant should have been reminded or should still be
reminded that he did not follow the City of Milton policies. He did not have the CZIM; he didn’t attend the Design
Review Board until after the Planning Commission found that he had not been to the November Design Review Board
meeting. He went back and had a courtesy review last week. Now he did not submit the public participation plan in time.
Horne thinks that he should be required to stick with all of the policies and not be given any leniency whatsoever.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 14 of 72
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that concludes public comment. She stated that at this time the applicant could present his
rebuttal.
Mayor Lockwood stated that the applicant has a few seconds left. He would like to cut to the chase and ask a question.
He stated that Mr. McMillan had mentioned that he could probably live with staff’s recommendations.
John McMillan stated that right now what they have approved on the site is two-story with a basement. While he does
not feel that is the best design solution for the City of Milton or the community, he can live with that if that is the pleasure
of the Council. What he needs is conventional office height for the stories. If for instance on the high side they have 35
feet then he thinks they could have two full stories and have an implementation for the basement to have a full height to it.
The architect said that he needed 15-17 feet. One would have to have 35 feet on the top side and then 45-47 feet on the
bottom side. They way it is structured now, 30 feet average would end up with eight foot ceilings. That does not make
sense from an obsolescence stand point. Currently under the zoning the applicant is allowed 60 feet even though it is just
two-story. Both tracts have a 60-foot height limitation. They originally were zoned for two-story with basement but no
mention of height limitation to them.
City Attorney Scott stated that if the Council is going to have discussion they need to close the public comment portion.
The opposition still has time.
City Clerk Marchiafava asked Mr. McMillan if he wanted to exercise his right to use his 12 seconds.
Mayor Lockwood inquired if there was any other public comment.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there is still some time left on both sides, but that does complete public comment
right now.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any opposition that wants to rebut, to please come forward. No one came forward.
City Clerk Marchiafava closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he thinks what the applicant is saying is that he would be willing to live with staff’s
recommendation except for the 35 feet on the top side versus 30 feet. It would be a two-story with basement. He asked
Tom Wilson if he had any comments on that height restriction.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson stated that he understood what the applicant is saying about the height
of the story in this type of architecture. Perhaps two stories cannot be built in the 30 feet.
Councilmember Thurman stated she had a question just for clarification and said that she knows there is a medical
office building on Windward Parkway that is actually within the City of Alpharetta. Do they have any idea…it is right
there on Windward Parkway, right beside the Kroger across from the Italian restaurant, Dr. Aubrey’s building.
John McMillan stated that the building is about 35 feet tall, but it is right on the roadway. There is 15 feet of each story
plus the little parapet. The part that is right on the road grade sticks up, and if they are at 35 feet, they will be below the
top of the Kroger. Right now the buildings position is 10 feet below the same grade as the Kroger and it is approximately
36 feet high.
Councilmember Thurman stated that her question was do they get a better looking building by going up five feet than
they would get just if they stuck to the 30 feet.
John McMillan stated that he does believe going the 35 feet gives one a lot more opportunity in the aesthetics and the
proportions of that building to make that architecture play on itself the way it should. If they were to shorten the building
to 30 feet and with the parapet height, that does limit what one can do with the architecture on that building to further
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 15 of 72
enhance its ambience in the way it needs to look and the way it needs to be reminiscent of the residential that is around it
and how it is going to work in the overall architecture of the community. So 35 feet can further enhance that architecture
of the building.
Councilmember Thurman assumed that the actual building plan had not gone before the Design Review Board yet, just
preliminary ideas. Everything would have to go before them and they would have to approve anything before a building
permit was issued.
John McMillan stated that was correct. He said that presently they only have some site plan schematics relative to the
concept of where this building will be positioned, its elevation where it would be relative to grade and what they are
trying to do relative to the overall height of the building.
Councilmember Lusk stated that he wanted to be clear on the elevations of the building that the applicant is proposing, a
35-foot high building. In absolute terms, does the applicant know the elevation means sea level of Kroger as opposed to
what the finished floor elevation will be of his structure?
John McMillan stated that Kroger as shown on the topo line is 1100 feet at finished floor. That is what the grade level is
where the parking lot is. Where the applicant is proposing to building a building is 10 feet lower so it would be 1090.
Councilmember Lusk clarified that in relative terms a 35-foot high building would be 25 feet above the finished floor
elevation of Kroger.
John McMillan stated that he personally went over and measured the parapet on their existing building, which is the Sol
le Salon building, which is the same finished floor elevation as the Kroger and it is 31 feet off the ground at that site. And
if one compares the two…the Kroger is higher. He personally measured the Sol le Salon all the way at the top of it where
its parapet is 31 feet. It is actually lower than the Kroger is. One might see a little bit of the building over the low section
of the Kroger, but it is less likely that one would see any of it.
Mayor Lockwood stated that it sounds like at this point that the structure has gone from four-story, 60 foot building to
suggesting a two-story plus a basement at 35 feet on the high side. He asked if there were any comments from Council.
He would like a poll to see what their thoughts are on that.
Councilmember D’Aversa asked if that would be including the parapet.
John McMillan stated that would be the total of the building, parapet and all.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated just for clarification that it was her understanding that staff had recommended
two-story, 30 feet tall and that Planning Commission had recommended two-story, 30-feet tall. If she is not mistaken, the
Planning Commission historically recommended two-story, 30 feet tall and there is some additional language in there
about the eaves and grade. She believed it that the Design Review Board historically also separate from just this particular
site but looking at the whole SR 9 overlay area had also recommended two-story, 30 feet to the eaves. It concerns her that
on a site by site basis they continue to move away from the recommendations of the Planning Commission, of the Design
Review Board, of the citizens. She heard this evening that the applicant has not been to the Design Review Board
officially. There was a courtesy review, but the official meeting for whatever reason the applicant had not been there.
Rather than to make exception to those recommendations that they have already had, she would prefer to see the Council
stay with the recommendations of Planning Commission and staff of two-stories and 30 feet. And that after that Design
Review Board, again the DRB has architects on it and they have made this recommendation understanding that there is an
ability to build office buildings that abut another area that are able to be constructed. She would recommend that the
Council stick with those recommendations that have been forthcoming so that they do not begin to walk down a path of
one off exceptions. They said that they were going to be more diligent about SR 9 and she is concerned that they continue
not to be as diligent about SR 9. She stated she can only speak for herself. She would support two stories and 30 feet in
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 16 of 72
consistency with the Planning Commission, the staff’s recommendations, and the Design Review Board and the citizens
that they continue to hear from.
Mayor Lockwood added that he certainly respects the DRB and the Planning Commission’s recommendations although;
he does want to say that they are recommendations and he believes they are going from 60 feet down to 30 or 35 feet. He
thinks that is more in keeping with the intent and being in the construction business, he realizes that for the benefit of not
only the applicant, but also the City and aesthetics, to have a two-story building and one at the height of 30 feet both from
the exterior and the interior it could have some impact. In the study of all of SR 9, he thinks it is between 30 and 35 feet.
He thinks 35 feet may give one a little bit better relief and would overall look better. That is why he is not stuck on the 30.
He wants to have it close, but he thinks there needs to be a little bit of flexibility on a case by case.
Councilmember Thurman asked staff if there is a reason that they recommended 30 rather than 35 feet.
Community Development Director Wilson stated for consistency with the comments from the Design Review Board
and the Planning Commission when they talked about modifying the SR 9 overlay district and limiting it to 30 feet. That
is where the 30 feet came from.
Councilmember Thurman clarified that it was not from anything, any policy or anything else?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was not.
Councilmember Lusk inquired if the 30-foot height limitation was established from a constant elevation.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was established from the average grade at the base of the
building to the bottom of the Eaves.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she had one comment about height. She has heard a lot about comparison to
the Kroger. She believes that Webb Road is not SR 9. She believes the Council should remind themselves that transition
policy or the transition back to residential, not to transition to commercial because Webb Road is going to be transitioning
back to residential and back to the schools. It is where people live not where they shop and SR 9 at the Kroger.
Mayor Lockwood asked what the existing zoning was and the height.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the underlying zoning is O-I and it would give them 60 feet
maximum. Generally they limit the stories without limiting the height but he knows in this case they have been asked to
limit both the stories and the height.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he wanted to stress that he is not trying to go against the plan or whatever, but he is okay
with a 35-foot. He thinks it is close to the intent on a case by case basis.
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that the last speaker made a comment about the 35 feet with the parapet. Would the 30
feet include the parapet or would the parapet be…
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it would include the parapet also.
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that she is for it having a parapet that exceeds those 30 feet. The building height would
be the maximum of 30 feet, which is what she recommended last week during a similar case development which the
Council subsequently approved 35 feet. She still thinks there needs to be some room above that 30 feet for the parapet.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that one could simply say that he would limit the height of the
building to 30 feet a parapet not to exceed five feet higher.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 17 of 72
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she would be more in favor of that than a 35-foot total height.
Mayor Lockwood asked if the applicant wanted to address that.
Rick Hembre stated that the height restriction of 30 feet from floor to floor overall on the building being a two-story
building and then adding five feet applicable relative to the parapet is very doable. The one thing that most people do not
realize in an office building is that the mechanical units are sitting on the roof. He applauded Councilwoman Zahner
Bailey relative to wanting that parapet height to be there because so often that parapet height is not taken into account. if
that building is set at 30 feet and they are having to take that into account to do the parapet the floors are far-shortened, the
ceiling heights are far-shortened because not everyone realizes what is actually above that ceiling being the structure, the
mechanical equipment, the lights, the sprinkler system, all of that takes up anywhere from 30 inches to 42 inches of space
above that ceiling. And that is if one is doing everything just exactly right. The mechanical units get very large on the
roof. They are actually more obtrusive than any building height that they could ever put in the City. That is something
that they need to be very cognizant of, they need to make sure they are screening. In the City of Alpharetta, it is a
requirement that they have to do and he wants them to do that all across the City of Milton relative to what they are doing
in this commercial development. So yes, they need to have that parapet height 30 feet floor to floor for two stories. It is a
very workable number. That additional five feet can help hide that unit. It is not necessarily going to hide it 100 percent.
That can never be guaranteed because of the side angles and the viewing. One is going to have some different vantage
points for their high or their low on a building. The more that they can do relative to that parapet height and the building
height that they allow for, it will only going to benefit the overall look of the City and the buildings that are being built
within it.
Councilmember D'Aversa added that this will also give the applicant to opportunity to work with the Design Review
Board as he goes forward with the design of his building. She is sure they will have some really good recommendations
for how the applicant might hide that equipment.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he had a question pertaining to some comments by the citizens about the sidewalk. Is this
the only area that would have a sidewalk?
Community Development Director Wilson stated not ultimately. He thinks there need to be sidewalks along all of their
streets in the SR 9 overlay district.
Mayor Lockwood agreed because eventually they will be connected. He knows that in some cases the subdivisions are
allowed to put money in a fund and hold off until later.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he would not recommend that here.
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that Mr. Allen was absolutely right when he reminded them that there are a lot children
traveling from several of the subdivisions that have been spoken on behalf of tonight over to Hopewell and Cochran Loop.
Mayor Lockwood stated that at this point it sounds like to applicant is okay with staff’s recommendations of a 30-foot
height with a five-foot allowable parapet for a total of 35 feet including parapet, and then based on staff’s
recommendations.
John McMillan stated that he would say that it is correct except that he does not think there is a basement mentioned in
the recommendation and certainly they would want that instead of the 30 feet, which is on the high side plus the five foot
parapet up there.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they can add two stories plus basement not to exceed 30 feet high
plus an allowance of five feet per parapet.
Mayor Lockwood inquired if that still keeps the total building height to 35 feet including the parapet?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 18 of 72
Community Development Director Wilson stated from average grade at the bottom of that building.
John McMillan stated that if one is averaging it then he is compressing the three stories.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if the building then become a three-story building. Have they just gone from a
two-story to a three-story building?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they had not. It is a two-story building with a basement. Based
upon the building having 50 percent of its periphery underground.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the reason for her question is she thought she heard the applicant refer to
three stories referencing the side on which one would see the basement. She wants to make sure that they have not
unintentionally just gone from a two-story to a three.
Councilmember D’Aversa said you could add underground basement.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that one could say underground basement. Any two-story building can
also have a basement as long as 50 percent of the periphery is underground.
Mayor Lockwood stated that they are still talking about the average height being 30 feet plus five feet for the parapet.
John McMillan stated just like on a house, if one looks at the back side of it, the daylight side it would be three levels. If
he looks at the front side, which is what he is talking about, which would be the SR 9 side in this situation; it would be 35
feet (30 feet for the building and five feet for the parapet) from that side.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she is going to ask for a Point of Order. Perhaps the Council is going into a
different discussion. Knowing that the intent of the Planning Commission was to limit this to two-story and 30 feet and
that the staff’s recommendation was for two-story and 30-feet, she asked Tom Wilson to please clarify in his professional
opinion how they get consideration for a basement without opening the door to what would be perceived as three stories?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that any building can have a basement. Any building can have a
basement underground that is totally and completely underground. But the threshold for a basement underground is really
50 percent of its periphery being underground. As long as at least 50 percent of that lowest story is below grade it is still a
two-story building not to exceed 30 feet with a five foot allowance for a parapet. It does not matter whether or not they
insert reference to a basement.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the two-stories, 30 feet with a five-foot maximum allowance for a parapet
would still allow the consideration of a basement.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it would not include the basement.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey clarified that in theory they could still reference two-story, 30 feet and the five foot
potential parapet without making mention of the basement and that way they are not confusing ourselves.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that a basement is defined as a level below a floor of a building with a
maximum of one half of its total wall area below grade. A basement is not story. The term basement is synonymous with
cellar. As it is written, it would not preclude a basement 50 percent of which would be underground.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that they could leave it without that condition.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 19 of 72
Councilmember D'Aversa asked if the applicant would clarify the transportation improvements that he had mentioned in
the form of lights and what not. She asked him to clarify what he had in mind.
John McMillan stated that they are proposing to put in a signal. Obviously they have to pass the Warrant test, which he
thinks they did and get the DOT to accept it at the north end of the applicant site, that factor is not their site but they have
inter-parcel access to the school which lines up with the Wal-Mart. They want to place a traffic signal there since that area
is getting pretty congested and that is really the only place the DOT will allow one. That is the last entry way into Wal-
Mart off of SR 9 right by the cactus place.
Mayor Lockwood inquired if the applicant was saying that he is committing to put one their or he would like to put one if
the DOT allows one.
John McMillan stated that however one wants to say it. They are committed to putting one there if they will allow them
and he believes they have every assurance that they will.
Councilmember Thurman inquired if applicant was planning on coating the mast arm decoratively.
John McMillan stated that they would have the decorative mast arm and they have also located the St. Charles lights,
which is a beautiful 14-foot high antique, historic looking fixture with a big globe. It is a nice-looking light fixture that is
pretty expensive. He is suggesting the retrofit in the front of the buildings or the front of the project up on SR 9 with that
to try to take some leadership in injecting a nicer look to the area. He is certainly good with putting the four-board fence.
They actually are putting the four-board fence around their water feature at their Bethany project. They plan to do the
same thing with this project and have a fountain as well down in the Webb Road area. They helped to design the four-
board fence requirement. He does not think one can do a chain link fence anyway. They want it to look nice. They bought
that piece of land in 1997 and have been holding on to it for a long time and they do not plan on going anywhere. They
want to do only what is best.
Mayor Lockwood stated that was something could approve with conditions or is that in the conditions with the four-
board fence and the sidewalks.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she had a question of staff, too. With these decorative traffic lights she does not
know if there are several different styles or what but she wants to make sure that they do not have decorative traffic lights
every block that look different.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that they need to tie it together and he thinks that more of the Deerfield look with the
four-board fence and the stacked stone and the landscape and everything they could take up SR 9 the better. It is always
the multi-family guys that fought them in the past that they didn’t it would look right if one integrated something like that
because it would be piece mil, but they have got to start somewhere.
Public Works Director Drake stated that they do have a design standard that their decorative mast arms will be
consistent throughout. They have received the traffic signal Warrant study and a few people will be reviewing that study.
There are different conditions as to whether this signal is warranted or not based on access. The school will be asked to
access through the existing property there and if the signal is warranted that existing properties access that. At full access
it would become a right-in/right-out with a raised median. That is what they put in there traditionally with the approval of
GDOT and the City of Milton traffic engineers. So those two pieces are in their existing conditions.
Councilmember Thurman clarified that they are in the conditions that are recommended for tonight.
John McMillan stated that they were.
Councilmember Mohrig clarified that the applicant would be paying for that signal.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 20 of 72
John McMillan stated that was correct, it would be at their cost, not the City’s.
Councilmember Lusk asked Dan Drake if he said it was right-turn in/right-turn out. Is that the location where the traffic
light is?
Public Works Director Drake stated that if the traffic light is warranted, the existing driveway that goes into that
existing office development would then become a right-in/right-out and there would be a raised medium. That would be
supplemented with the new traffic signal warrant. If not, that would their primary access to SR 9 if that traffic signal is not
warranted. That is the intention of their conditions here in the zoning.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she heard that the applicant is prepared to support the equestrian four-board
fencing at the front of the property. She also heard a citizen ask the Council to confirm that the detention facility was
earthen. She does not know if she saw that in the recommended conditions.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was there.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey confirmed they would have an earthen detention facility.
John McMillan stated that was not correct. Part of it is earthen, but the lower portion needs to be just like it is at Bethany,
which is a split-faced block on the lower level. That way they can consecrate the floor and hold the water in the bottom
and also it would be a live water feature, which works far better that way. They will make sure that is correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that as a Point of Order, her request of staff is to verify what they have as a
condition of zoning? It is an earthen detention facility, is that correct?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that detention facilities shall utilize earthen embankments where
possible. Wall structures are not encouraged. If wall structures are proposed they must meet the acceptable design
standards of the department of community development.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that there was no mention there about that being encircled with a four-board fence
or five foot four-board fence with the internal 2x4 wire.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they need to add to that that it would be surrounded with a six-
foot high, five-board equestrian style fence around the detention pond.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if it is also accurate that the Design Review Board would be looking not only at
the site plan, which would include the approach for this detention facility? As an example, if there was to be a water
feature, the Design Review Board has the authority to look at that and provide some suggestions for what a water feature
could be that would be attractive to the site. She asked that as part of their motion the Council would consider that the
detention facility also be specifically addressed as something the DRB would take a look at. With regards to lighting, she
stated she did not have any doubt that the lighting that the applicant is suggesting might be attractive but again, to the
point of consistency on SR 9 she does not know if that Charleston lighting is necessarily consistent with what they may
have just heard about last week from some similar applications. She would ask that rather than the motion be specific
about the lighting that is proposed, that the Design Review Board have the opportunity to weigh in on that lighting. Not
that that cannot be considered in terms of what was proposed but she would be hesitant to remove lighting review from
the Design Review Board in an effort to be consistent with the SR 9 standard. The other thing that she wanted to mention
is that rather than leave it to chance, she heard the applicant say that he would indeed be prepared to consider saving the
specimen trees that were highlighted. As a condition of zoning she would like to ask that the Council consider actually
saving those specimen trees being that there is an opportunity to reconfigure the parking to accommodate that. Just as a
matter of consideration, given the discussion on this area relative to the sewer areas versus non sewer areas, she believes
that in an effort to confirm what they are doing versus what they are not doing, she would ask that a consideration of
clarification under Section I and add an Item 1C that would effectively be what she believes the applicant has agreed to
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 21 of 72
but it makes it clear. Something to the effect of the owner would agree to not to seek access to public sewers for anything
other than the improvements highlighted here. In other words the owner agrees to seek access to public sewer only for the
improvements located in the entirety of land lots 1048, which is land lot 1048 that abuts SR 9. That is because this
involves the same parcels of land, both of which front SR 9 providing access to public sewer and that would be consistent
and additionally, with regards to the owner agreeing not to seek any access to sewer for the land that is outside of 1048, in
other words if they would agree not to seek anything from land lot 1049.
The reason she brings this language up is that the Inter-Basin Transfer Agreement is very expressed as to which land lots
it allows for access versus those which do not. And rather than leave that to interpretation, she would much prefer this
evening that the Council specify that. Even though the front page of this indicates that it is district and land lot 1048,
when one looks at the actual site plan it actually references land lots 1048 and 1049. Land lot 1049 is not allowed for
sewer access. The only way that she can support this conditional approval with the additional elements would be for them
to clarify this item. She asked Tom Wilson, as the head of the Community Development Department, to comment as to
whether or not these points of clarification would indeed be appropriate based on the discussions this evening.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the two recommended conditions that were just mentioned are
consistent with the Inter-Basin Transfer policy.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Tom Wilson if he could specify the parcel numbers. She does not have access to
that based on the analysis that the Council has. Before they get to the point of making the motion, she asked that within
that language of clarification, and this would be for land lot 1048, that they also specify the specific parcel. And for
purposes of the public record, that is because this site plan includes some prior zonings that went back to 1997 as well as
the Inter-Basin Transfer Agreement. She thinks it is important that they clarify specifically what is included versus that
which is not.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he does not exactly have those parcel ID numbers, but he will get
them.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she thought they had decided when the last sewer was issued that sewer was
something and water was something that were Fulton County related items and that they were not going to get involved in
anything related to sewer or water. That is why this applicant had withdrawn was based on the staff recommendation that
these be handled at the county level rather than at the City. She is afraid that if they start handling things like this at the
City that are really county related issues they are kind of muddying what is under their jurisdiction and what is not.
Mayor Lockwood stated that it looks to him like the parcel that does not have sewer access, which is where the applicant
put his parking lots, in all practicality that is going to limit that site from ever having anything developed on it anyway
because parking is there for the other building. Would that be a fail safe?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that there was nothing shown on the site plan now in 1049 that needs
sewer or would even require sewer. Were the applicant want to do something other than the parking lot, he would have to
come back to Council for a site plan revision. Nevertheless, land lot 1049 is prohibited from having connection to sewer
by the Inter-Basin Transfer Resolution of Fulton County.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Tom Wilson if it would be appropriate and consistent with the Inter-Basin
Transfer Agreement. That if they simply clarify they are doing nothing more than giving additional detail that right now,
if they are silent on the issue, it does not make clear that there is not the potential of asking for extension into Land Lot
1049, which is not allowable according to Inter-Basin Transfer.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that what he thinks he hears Councilmember Zahner Bailey saying is
she is simply clarifying for this specific parcel of land, the Inter-Basin Transfer and how it applies to this parcel.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 22 of 72
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that was correct. In particular the reason she feels that it is imperative for the
public record that they do this as a matter of condition is that unbeknownst perhaps to some of this Council, this does
include two different land lots. It includes land lot 1048 and land lot 1049 and because of that she thinks that it is
important that the Council clarify and that also removes any mystery and it makes it crystal clear that this site plan is
intended to have the building on lot 1048 and anything that would be sewerable would be on land lot 1048.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that Councilmember Zahner Bailey is correct. He mentioned to John
Hembre that there was also a land lot 1113 but he does not know that the applicant has anything planned in this part of his
property. Mr. Hembre stated that those were the two existing shopping centers. That is already sewer and everything is
there. He pointed out 1048 where the buildings are located. He further stated that he wanted to make sure that there were
not other land lots there that they had not talked about.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that was part of what fronts along SR 9. If they clarify this but they just make
clear that this site plan beyond this being conceptual, but the portion that is in 1048 would have access to sewer vis-à-vis
the Inter Basin Transfer Agreement. It would be making it clear this evening that 1049 is indeed not accessible to
sewerage.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he thinks that is the way that it is set up now. The Council would just be clarifying that. He
asked if the applicant was okay with that.
John McMillan stated that they were if they could talk about some of the rest of the things she is asking for.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that if the intent is only to sewer that, which is allowable under the Inter-Basin
Agreement.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he thinks the applicant had agreed to that. He just wondered about the other point she had.
He stated that they are on the track, they are getting to a good place…they have gone from a four-story building, 60 feet
high to a two-story plus a basement, 35 feet high. And they are working through some of these things. At this point, he
would like to ask if there is a motion from someone basically with staff’s recommendations plus some of these items they
have talked about.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she would be happy to put a motion forward. She is gong to do her best to
capture what she has heard. She believes she heard staff say that they do not need to reference the basement because that
is already included
Motion: Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey moved to recommend approval conditional for RZ07-011 and that would
include staff’s recommendations and would slightly modify staff recommendation with regards to the height to
incorporate, which would be two stories or 30 feet with the potential ability to have a parapet up to five feet. She would
keep that at two stories, 30 feet with up to five feet for the parapet specifically. She would ask that in Section 1C they
insert the language that that the owner agrees to seek access to public sewer only for those improvements located entirely
in land lot 1048 that fronts SR 9. Specifically because this involves the same parcels of land, both of which front SR 9 and
provide access to public sewer, and is the same parcel that joins. Additionally, the owner agrees not to seek any access to
sewer from or within land lot 1049 as land lot 1049 is not available for sewer access according to the legally adopted
Inter-Basin Transferred Sewerage to the Big Creek Basin.
She stated to John McMillan that what they are saying is that because that was all one parcel it is clarifying that it is the
second phase of the development that was already developed next to SR 9.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he does have the language.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that is because this is consistent with as just defined, the Inter-Basin Transfer of
sewerage under the Big Creek Basin.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 23 of 72
Mayor Lockwood asked the applicant if he was okay with that wording.
John McMillan stated that he was.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the additional footnote that Tom Wilson mentioned, they do not have the
individual parcel numbers, but again for a matter of record, once those are available…as a matter of record.
Councilmember Bailey asked Mark Scott if she should mention those as to the specific parcels to which they are
referring.
City Attorney Scott stated that there is no problem with referring to the land lots or the parcel numbers.
Mayor Lockwood stated that they may need to simplify this.
Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey stated that her understanding is that these would include parcel 1048-042. She
restated that the three parcels are 22-5270-1048-042-0, secondly 22-5270-1048-041-2 and thirdly 22-5270-1048-013-1.
That would be consistent with Tom Wilson’s comment about the parcels. Moving on to the four-board fence. It shall be
within the condition that there will be an equestrian four-board black fence at the front of the property. Similarly, they
would have the detention facility which will be earthen and/or if there is a portion of that that is something other than
earthen that in its entirety it will be surrounded by a six-foot high, 2x4, five board fence again to try to be consistent with
what they approved last Thursday, with an internal 2x4 wire mesh and whatever terminology they need to clarify that. She
said her motion would include the saving of the two specimen trees that were mentioned. She also asked that the lighting
be consistent with that which was recommended either for Sembler and/or as what would be approved by the Design
Review Board. This could of course include what the applicant referenced. Also, in terms of the alternative sidewalk she
confirmed with Tom Wilson that they already have that every 50 feet it is stamped so they do not need to add that.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that was correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey added that the Design Review Board would be reviewing the site plan, as well as the
design, in particular because they have only done a courtesy review to this point.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that was automatic.
Mayor Lockwood asked if they needed to recap that motion.
Motion Restated: Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the re-stated motion is for an approval conditional for
RZ07-011 that includes the statements already made with regards to inserting a 1C that would give specific reference to
the Inter-Basin Transfer Agreement. Additionally it would include a height of two-stories, 30 feet with a maximum of five
feet additional for the parapet. The detention facility would have a six foot, five-board fence surrounding that detention
facility with a 2x4 hog wire on the interior. The Council will be requiring the saving of the two specimen trees that are
highlighted on the site plan. The lighting would be as approved by the Design Review Board as is the site plan and the
building. The equestrian black, four-board fencing would run along the frontage of this property.
That concludes all items discussed in the motion.
John McMillan stated that Sweet Gums are an abomination. They do not need a double Sweet Gum. That is a mess, it is
not a specimen. It may be classed as that but that is the wrong answer in his opinion. The point of it is they have a
tremendous tree save area. They have a ton of stuff along there that is going to buffer the community and everything else.
They do not need to be bound by it. Let them pay for the recompense, he is happy to do that, he knows how to play that
game. He has put in big trees, he has a tree-save he has done all of this stuff…he asked the Council not make him keep a
Sweet Gum.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 24 of 72
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated as a Point of Order her motion was to include saving of these two specimen trees
and the reason being is that they did hear that those two specimen trees could be saved with some reconfiguration of the
parking. Our policies do specify that a 43-inch caliber Sweet Gum is a specimen tree.
Interim City Manager Lagerbloom stated that at this time there needs to be a second on the motion.
Second: Councilmember D'Aversa seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Thurman stated that she would like to make an amendment to just exclude the one Sweet Gum tree,
which the applicant has requested be excluded based on the fact that he is going to offer recompense. She did not hear him
say that he definitely could work that into the thing, he just said that he would try to. She thinks he is giving in on an
awful lot of things here tonight. They have gone down from a 60-foot, four-story building to a 30-foot with a five-foot
parapet two-story building. They have the black fence, they have the earthen dams, they got lights, and they got stamped
concrete.
Motion to Amend the Motion: Councilmember Karen Thurman made a motion to amend the motion to exclude the one
Sweet Gum tree.
Second: Councilmember Mohrig seconded the amended motion.
Discussion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated as a matter of consideration that if the Council were to consider the amended
motion, she believes she heard John McMillan state that he would be prepared to recompense with six, six-inch caliper
trees. She asked if that was accurate. If they are going to give consideration to allowing a 43-inch tree, whether one likes
to clean up after them or not, she would ask that that amendment, if it would be Councilperson Thurman’s pleasure, she
would say that the recompense would include a consideration for the six inch caliper trees as it relates to that particular
recompense for that specimen tree.
Mayor Lockwood asked Councilmember Thurman if that was okay with her.
Councilmember Thurman stated yes as it relates just to the one.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he had an amended motion and a second. There was no further discussion.
Vote: The amended motion was passed unanimously.
Mayor Joe Lockwood stated that he would like to thank the citizens and the Council and the applicant because there was
a great deal of compromise on this and he thinks they are walking away with something that everyone can live with.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-438
RZ07-018/U07-009/VC07-010 - To rezone from C-1 (Community Business) and O-I (Office Institutional) to C-1
(Community Business) to develop a 5,700 square foot retail commercial building and a Use Permit (Article 19.4.41 (1) for
a three story (less than 60 feet) 110,000 square foot climate controlled self-storage facility and a two-part concurrent
variance to: 1) To locate the refuse area adjacent to the street (Article 12G.4.B.4) and 2) To allow parking islands every
11th space instead of every fifth space (Article 4.23.2)
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the Community Development Department’s recommendation is
approval of the rezoning RZ07-18 and approval conditional of the use permit 07-009 and denial of both parts of
concurrent variance VC07-010. To give details of this request Robyn MacDonald is going to take the Council through a
brief explanation.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 25 of 72
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that the proposed commercial development is suitable base on the existing C-
(Community Business) approved on the subject site as well as non-residential zonings and developments surrounding the
site. However, the requested height is not suitable in view of adjacent and nearby property based on current policy to
allow two stories in height pursuant of Z05-29. Portions of this subject site approved at 12,844 square feet per acre and
not to exceed two stories. And 00Z-9D, subject site approved at 8,653 square feet per acre and not to exceed one story.
The majority of the site is consistent with the Focus Fulton 2025 plan, which the City Council approved last year. The
existing zonings of C-1 on the subject site and surrounding properties support this request for a 5700 square foot
restaurant but is partially inconsistent with the proposed 110,000 square foot climate controlled self-storage facility at a
maximum height of two stories based on policies of existing zoning on the site that condition it to two stories. Staff stated
that the use permit if developed in concordance with staff recommended conditions and provisions of the zoning
ordinance; the proposed climate control self-storage is expected to be compatible with other land uses nearby in the
surrounding area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of U07-009. Regarding the site plan analysis, the site plan meets
the requirement of the zoning ordinance. Regarding the height, the applicant has proposed a three-story climate controlled
storage facility. The current zoning was approved for two stories. Board policy for the surrounding commercial and office
buildings do not exceed two-stories in height. Therefore staff will condition the height of this self-storage facility to two-
stories not to exceed 30 feet from average grade. Staff notes that the applicant that the applicant is providing 91 parking
spaces which exceed the required 80 parking spaces and he had asked for a concurrent variance to reduce the parking
islands every 11th space instead of every 5th space. Staff recommends denial because they do not see a hardship that is not
self-imposed. Other considerations include the SR 9 overlay district requires refuse areas to be placed in the least visible
location from public streets. It is staff’s opinion that the applicant should relocate the refuse areas to the side or rear of the
building. Therefore, staff recommends denial of Part I of the concurrent variance. The site is in compliance with the SR 9
overlay district development standards and is also compliant with use permitting for Article 19.441. In conclusion, the
proposed development is consistent with the plan policies and board policy for the development of C1. Petitioners
requests for four stories in inconsistent with board policy on the site as well as the surrounding development Therefore the
staff recommends two stories and they recommend denial of parts 1 and 2. Staff stated that she wanted to make a
comment that on Page 20 there is an oversight. It had said on the beginning recommended conditions it should be
approved O-I. That should be corrected to reflect that it should be approved C-1 (Community Business Conditional). The
staff would like to add that laundry list of exclusions to this 1A as well. a) The following uses are excluded: gas stations
and associated gas pumps, freestanding fast food restaurants, commercial amusements (cinemas are allowed), liquor sales
and package stores (upscale wine stores are allowed), (restaurants may sell liquor by the drink), motels, hotels, adult
oriented entertainment businesses including adult bookstores, 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
salons, stand alone beauty salons, stand alone barbershops (clinical/therapeutic spas are allowed and may include less than
400 square feet of beauty/barber shops and less than 400 square feet of nail salon), flea markets, second hand surplus
retail shops, roadside vending, roadside produce stands or seasonal vending, billboards, convenient stores and fortune
teller. That concludes the staff report.
Mayor Lockwood stated that the Council will here from the applicant and all of those in favor of the application.
Ken Morton, 14732 Taylor Valley Way, Milton, GA
Ken Morton stated that he has lived here his entire life. His family has been in North Fulton since the land grant of the
1860’s when needless to say times have changed. Morton is very proud of what all of the Council members have done to
get this City started in a very positive direction. Times certainly have changed. As a child he could ride his bike from
Providence Road to SR 9 and then to his grandparents farm which is where Stone Creek Church is now. One would be out
there and if a car passed on SR 9 he would look up to see who it was because he might recognize them. Certainly things
have changed a lot. Smart, quality commercial growth is essentially for not only helping them to maintain the taxes they
pay but the right amount of strategically placed commercial services is critical in the success of their City. That is why He
is excited about their project. His family has owned parts of this property for nearly 30 years and his business is right here
on this property and he plans on staying here, both living here and his business here for a long time and years to come.
After doing a lot of research, he determined that the best use for the property was for them to put a restaurant on the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 26 of 72
corner, on their front out-parcel or possibly a bank, which would fit real nicely there. Their common storage idea they feel
like is a fantastic one because there is a real benefit to the type of building that they are talking about with the climate
storage. There is very low traffic volume. There is only like eight to 10 cars a day that will actually visit the site. They are
only required to have 20-25 parking spaces for the cars per day. It is a great use for this site. Typically, the second out-
parcel is always hard to figure out exactly what is going to be the best use for it. There will be low sewer usage. In the
entire building there will only be two restrooms. One of the most important things it is a most needed service. If one
knows anything about climate storage to try to get a space, they are full or near capacity all up and down SR 9. The
Council should know the applicant is providing a service that the citizens are going to benefit from. Maybe some cars
would actually be able to go into some garages and garages get cleaned out, with the benefit of having it. The use is a very
low impact use. In order to make the economics work they have got to have enough square footage. They do not want to
have a super large footprint because the travel distance that customers will travel is limited. They are going to go across
several hundred feet to get there. The good news of their building is they are able to keep their floor to ceiling height at
10’8”. The Council has been hearing previously and knows everyone is excited about talking about more building heights
here but unlike office space, which as the architect said earlier is 13 to 15 feet, the applicant’s floors are only required to
be 10’8”, which is a real benefit. They are able to keep their building to a minimum. Their building height is at 35 feet. C
1 zoning allows for four stories of 60 feet. Two conditions that have been put on which is 1B-the limiting of height to 30
feet is too severe. They need to be with their parapet at the 35 feet. That is a tough condition that they just could not live
with. The other condition that they did not have on their property prior to zoning was for the fast food that the Planning
Commission put on this past week with a fast food restriction on the front out-parcels. That is too, a dramatic restriction
on the applicant that reduces the value of their property and limits the use. He further stated that he really appreciates staff
and the Planning Commission has been very supportive of their uses. He asked that the Council also support and help him
solve this last hurdle that he has. He can assure them that with his office being next door in the office-condominiums that
he plans on building it is imperative, and being a life long citizen here in Milton that it is done right. He thinks that as the
Council will see here with the building that he can put up and they can discuss that he is committed to quality and his
partners are too in making sure that they do that. He wants folks to look at their corner and go “wow that was done with
excellence” and he would certainly appreciate the Council’s support and he will save his remaining time.
Sara Allen, 13430 Avensong-Ames Way, Milton, GA
Sara Allen stated that she would want to go into the opposition of the fact that the applicant indicates that fast food
restaurant are going to incur a hardship on him and the way they have fought over the Sembler property and the restaurant
structure that is around there, she thinks Milton would be better preserved by putting a non-fast food restaurant there. That
is something that they should look at. The other thing is when she went to a few meetings where Mr. Morton presented the
climate controlled structure to the citizens; she must say that it is the nicest climate controlled structure that she has ever
seen. However, he indicated that if he was imposed with the 30-foot limit that it would be something that he would not be
able to do, whereas tonight Allen is hearing tonight that he can do it with a 30-35-foot limit. She thinks that they are going
down like Julie Zahner Bailey was saying that they are constantly going down the fact that they will put 30 feet with the
five-foot parapet limit. She thinks that Mr. Morton has investigated his options of what to put there but she thinks from
what she has read with the concept that other communities adjacent to the property, she thinks he could probably think of
a better use for that property. She thinks his idea of having a restaurant there is a good use of the property. She
recommended that the Council look at the staff recommendations limiting the height restrictions. When she spoke to the
applicant that would take it off the board but she is not sure as far as what he has expressed tonight if that would in fact
take it off the agenda.
Ed Parsons, 2950 Serenade Court, Milton, GA
Ed Parsons stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Avensong Homeowners' Association existing right up the street
from this location. He would recommend that the Mayor and City Council accept the staff’s and Planning Commission’s
recommendation of approval conditional of RC07-011 with a height limit of two stories not to exceed 30 feet above the
average grade and including all other zoning conditions recommended by the staff. They also recommend that the Mayor
and City Council accept the staff’s and Planning Commission’s recommendation to be denied a two part concurrent
variance to 1) locate the refuse area near the street, Part I VC07-010 and 2) to allow parking islands every 11th space
instead of every 5th space, Part II, VC07-010. Additionally, he recommend the following zoning conditions to be
considered: 1) Include the same exclusions by use restrictions as the similar Phase II development located on SR 9; 2) To
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 27 of 72
consider ways that the developer can save the three specimen trees located on this parcel; 3) Erect a black equestrian style
fence along Webb Road at SR 9; and 4) The detention ponds should be earthen and no chain link fencing shall be used.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that Dr. Angela McIntyre submitted something to be read into the record if she was not
available. The statement read that she would like to say that the Regency at Windward Square Homeowners' Association
board members have had discussion with the board members at Avensong and they are in full agreement with their
comments.
Heidi Sowder, 525 Sunflower Court, Milton, GA
Heidi Sowder stated that she pretty much agrees with what everyone else has been saying. She agrees with the Planning
Commission’s comments and staff’s conditions for this. The other thing that she would like to add regarding the refuse
bins is that they do have an enclosure around them. It is a requirement to shelter them but typically, most times they are
not very nice looking. Her only request would be that in addition to the saving of specimen trees that the applicant will
also provide some screening shrubbery in addition around the exterior of the refuse bin, and that the refuse bin does get
placed to the rear of the building.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that completes public comment for this hearing. There is still time on both sides
remaining.
Mayor Lockwood asked the applicant if he would like to use some of this rebuttal time.
Ken Morton stated that in regards he wanted some clarity. They did originally come with a 30-foot tall building but they
went back and did some redesign down to 35 feet. The tallest point is 35 feet but along SR 9 it is actually at 24 feet. So
two sides of the building are at 24 feet and two other sides are at 35 feet.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that the opposition still had time for rebuttal. No one came forward.
Mayor Lockwood stated that they would close the public hearing.
Mayor Lockwood asked the applicant if based on staff’s recommendations what are the issues that the applicant has. Out
of staff’s recommendations, is there anything that he cannot live with on this project?
Ken Morton stated that with the exception of the building height, the exception that he cannot live with is he needs it at
35 feet just to be able to hide any HVAC units. As one can imagine he will have quite a number of HVAC units and to be
able to hide those properly, he needs to get to 35 feet. That is the requirement that he needs. He wants to work with staff
and Planning Commission on the variances. They have been wonderful to work with. The fact that they moved the islands
and the trash that would face Webb Road, they can move that around to the back of the building to out that in that
location.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she sees they have in the conditions the stamped sidewalk.
Community Development Director Wilson pointed out on the plan where the stamped sidewalks are located.
Councilmember D’Aversa inquired if the four-board fence was there also?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the four-board fence was not there.
Councilmember D’Aversa stated for consistency, because there is a four-board fence on John McMillan’s property and a
four-board property across the street at Sembler’s does not it make sense to have a four-board fence as a condition there?
Ken Morton stated that he was going to have underground detention.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 28 of 72
Councilmember Thurman stated that she would like for the lighting to sort of be consistent throughout the SR 9 area if
possible.
Community Development Director Wilson added as approved by the Design Review Board. He would like to correct
one thing if he may at this time. That is condition 3e (i) that the southbound right auxiliary lane and a four-foot right lane,
not five-foot right lane. That is a staff error.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey clarified with Tom Wilson was saying that 3e (i) should not be five feet.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it should be four feet.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that consistent with the discussion of the last application and in addition to the
four-board fencing and the lighting she would ask that the Council ask this applicant as a recommended condition to save
those trees as a specification. She would add that that would be under 3c and that would be that the owner’s agreement is
to preserve the three specimen trees in the northeast corner of the site to the approval of the City arborist to ensure that the
trees have truly been protected. She also would ask similar to the last case as a matter of clarification for the record that
under Section 1a due to the fact that this is within and buffers along the non-sewer versus the sewer as a matter of
clarification that they would add 1e to state that the owner agrees not to seek public sewer access or connection for any
improvements located outside of the Big Creek sewer basin. They obviously have a letter attached from Angela Parker
noting that this is within the Big Creek so this is simply clarifying as they did in the last case that they would agree not to
seek sewer extension beyond these parcels that are part of this application. That would be an addition of 1e.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Tom Wilson to confirm that that language would be consistent as they discussed.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they have a letter from Angela Parker at Fulton County that
specifies that this property is part of the Big Creek Basin not the Etowah Basin and therefore is excluded or the Inter-
Basin Transfer is not relative to this property. So what they are asking for is that he seeks no sewer connections outside of
the Big Creek Basin.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey was making sure that becomes a matter of the condition for zoning clarification.
Ken Morton stated that was fine except they need to take in mind that the other part where there is office condominiums,
which is also part of this development also gravitates to the Big Creek Basin.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that this refers to anything that would be outside and that is what it specifies, that
it is with regards to this recommended condition that the owner agrees not to seek public sewer access for any
improvements of this rezoning or any others outside of the Big Creek Sewer Basin referring to these specific sites.
Ken Morton stated that he just wanted to make sure because his office condominiums are not a part of this particular
zoning. His office condos are all going to be developed all at one time.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he wanted to understand about the office condominiums.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked the applicant where his office condominiums were relative to. This language
refers to this rezoning that is before the Council and wants to make sure that he is not looking to access any sewer that is
on land that is of the Big Creek Basin, so if he has another site that is part of the Big Creek that would be consistent with
this statement.
Ken Morton stated that he does.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that it was just to clarify so that they do not have any question going forward.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 29 of 72
Community Development Director Wilson clarified that Mr. Morton has four properties in land lots 1047 and 1048.
None of these four properties are in the Etowah Basin. They are therefore excluded from the sewer connection service
area adopted by the Board of Commissioners on August 4, 1999. All four of Mr. Morton’s properties are in the Big Creek
and he shall not seek sewer on his property outside of the Big Creek Basin.
Ken Morton stated that was fine.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she would also ask as they heard from one of their constituents that they
would have screening around the refuse bin. That would go back to the Design Review Board but she would want to add
as a condition of zoning that in addition to the material surrounding that that there would also be some sort of landscape
screening to accommodate the concern that was noted. On the detention facility, she would also like, again consistent with
the last rezoning to ask that they insert the language that they would have around that earthen detention facility a six-foot,
five-board black equestrian style fence with the 2x4 wire on the interior.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he thought he heard Mr. Morton say that there was underground detention.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that was just in case it was changed.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that it also includes obviously, the recommended conditions of staff including that
which Robyn MacDonald read into the record when she presented this case.
Mayor Lockwood asked if anyone else had any questions for Mr. Morton. He wanted to clarify that originally Mr.
Morton was looking for a four-story, 60-foot facility.
Ken Morton stated that was correct.
Mayor Lockwood asked Mr. Morton to clarify what he is looking for now.
Ken Morton stated that it was going to be 35 feet with a basement.
Mayor Lockwood inquired if it was two stories plus a basement?
Ken Morton stated that because of his floor to ceiling height he can do three stories but it will not appear as a three-story
building. It will be no more than 35 feet.
Mayor Lockwood asked if the one story would be consistent with the basement.
Ken Morton stated that it would be one story and then three stories no higher than 35 feet.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that the original perception was 60 feet and Mr. Morton is now stating that he can do 35
feet and the choice is up to the Council whether they want to look at air conditioners or not. Aesthetically if Mr. Morton is
able to do 35 feet, which seems to be the number of the night that is palatable for him to do this project.
Ken Morton stated that he might need clarification from Tom Wilson, but the height across here is 35 feet. The towers
on the ends are taller than 35 feet. Of course this is if one is standing on Webb Road. If one is on SR 9 it is 24 feet. His
question is, is this really the towers that would fall into the height?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the way the condition is written, one has 35 feet from the average
grade at the base of that building. If the towers are higher than 35 feet from the average grade of that building, they would
fall outside of these conditions.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 30 of 72
Ken Morton stated that he hates to eliminate the towers. They add so much aesthetically to the building and he was
hoping to just enhance it that much more to keep the towers as such a small percentage of the overall building in hopes of
keeping those.
Mayor Lockwood asked Mr. Morton to clarify that. He needs to see average height. If the towers are higher than 35 feet
but there is a part of the building that is lower than 35 feet.
Ken Morton stated that it was hard to say what the average is because two sides might be different.
Mayor Lockwood stated that if they decided on the 30 feet plus the five foot parapet, is that the way it was requested?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was at grade at the base of that building.
Mayor Lockwood stated that that would give Mr. Morton some flexibility to do his towers if the rest of the building was
less than 35 feet.
Councilmember O’Brien inquired how high the east side was. He understood that the building was 24 feet plus it look
he has architectural features that are a few feet higher with that tower or parapet.
Ken Morton stated that it would be another 15 feet with the tallest tower point there.
Community Development Director Wilson supposed they had a rectangular footprint. One determines the elevation at
each corner and adds them all together and divide by four. That is the average elevation of the grade. Add 35 feet to that
and no part of this building can extend higher than that elevation. That is how it works. How much taller are those towers,
he knows Tom Wilson said 15 feet, but it does not look like it is 15 feet on that front elevation.
Ken Morton stated that to the tallest point is about 14 feet, right at 14 feet but it could be 14 feet above the 35 feet.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the 35 feet is to the bottom of the eave or the top of the parapet.
In this case the bottom of the eaves and the top of the parapet is about the same. So the pitched roof on top of that
probably does not count.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he thinks the towers do add aesthetics to the building. It looks much better he is asking staff
and the applicant if there is a way that that meets the letter of wording versus the eaves, versus the natural projection of
that.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the 35 feet is at the bottom of the eaves where there is an eave or
to the top of the parapet where there is no eave.
Councilmember O’Brien asked him to put the color rendering up. He asked about the tower on the right hand side. If the
bottom of that eave was at 35 feet, he is okay to have the actual roof structure above that? He stated that it appears that
way on the right-hand side; on the left-hand side it would be different.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he was trying to give the applicant a way that he could still do something to make it still
meet. But obviously the aesthetics look a little better with the towers.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that for most people when one says storage he cringes and is picturing little huts with
orange overhead doors. But, as was pointed out, this is probably the most attractive storage facility that he has ever seen.
The other thing is if they are dealing with an arbitrary number they remain substantially, approximately half of the 60 foot
guideline. If they quibble over a couple feet they might get a very ugly structure that they will hate rather than getting
something that is attractive. He thinks that should be a consideration.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 31 of 72
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked to clarify about the Design Review Board. If she is not mistaken this really should
go to the Design Review Board. The Design Review Board has recommended two story to 30 feet so she would imagine
that if it would be the pleasure of this Council, that if it ends up consistent with what they just approved, if it is the two-
story and 30 feet and up to five feet for a parapet she would hope that the applicant would work in concert with the Design
Review Board and she thinks that is why they have a Design Review Board is to help make sure that those things are
indeed not arbitrary and that it meets the SR 9 overlay and that it meets the highest standards as possible. She would have
faith in that process with their Design Review Board and the folks that are there and would hope that this building, she is
assuming it has not yet been finalized…she asked if it needs to return to the Design Review Board?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it has not been presented for a building permit yet so they have no
architecture. At the time it is presented as a building permit it will go to the Design Review Board as an official review.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that that makes sense. This has not been to the Design Review Board. The
process requires that indeed it would. If they set the height as it should be, consistent with other buildings, it would then
be up to the applicant and the Design Review Board to come back with something that is fitting as the gateway to SR one
would hope.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the applicant is going to go to 35 feet tonight then the Design
Review Board will work with 35 feet.
Mayor Lockwood stated that would allow Morton to work with the tower on the right. He may have to do some tweaking
on the tower on the left. He certainly thinks it is a very nice looking building. He likes the fact that not only it looks good
but it has very little impact traffic wise and all that too.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that having said that and earlier they had mentioned a preservation of
the trees, he thinks Public Works Director Dan Drake would like to speak to the Council about some traffic improvements
which might impact the possibility of saving those trees.
Public Works Director Drake stated that there were two other points he wanted to make before they talk about the trees.
The first one is he wants to point out on page 2228 of the zoning condition 3e (iii) the installation/dedication of a new
decorative mast arm at SR 9. That is the signal that is being put up by Sembler. The point that he wants to make is that
they are requiring on this condition more than Sembler. He wanted to make sure that they were all aware that they would
have to retrofit that signal to be decorative. As they heard last week that Sembler was going to put a decorative mast arm
but this condition is requiring that that signal be a decorative mast arm. He wanted to point that out.
Councilmember Thurman asked if in this case if they would have to pay for the additional amount to have it decorative
since Sembler is already committed to having a regular one.
Public Works Director Drake said that was his understanding.
Councilmember Thurman stated that Sembler had said that they had already ordered one, but is that going to hold up
anything as far as them having to have it installed by a certain day? That initially is what they were talking about was
upgrading the pole Sembler is setting in there with attach skirts as the City of Milton has done.
Public Works Director Drake stated that the other thing it does say in there is, “is allowed as approved by the
transportation engineer of Milton.” They can work with them to see what decorative things that they would put on there.
But it does obligate it to some trying of that.
Ken Morton stated that he was unaware that Sembler was not doing decorative. That leaves him in a position that he does
not know what that cost could possibly be. And in not understanding that puts him at a big disadvantage of what that
could be. He was assuming that they were going with decorative and had no reason to think otherwise. He certainly wants
to contribute to their portion of the improvement of that intersection. It is critical.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 32 of 72
Mayor Lockwood asked if they had any data based on some of the upgrades that have been done.
Public Works Director Drake stated that they did not and if they are trying to make it a standard there may be quite a bit
more that they are going to have to really think about what they would like there.
Mayor Lockwood asked what staff’s recommendation on that.
Public Works Director Drake stated that their recommendation is for the two signals that they have already bought the
materials for is to try to provide some minimal amount of covering of the bottom and make it a little more decorative than
just a black pole that they will have out there. It will not be the same standard that they are going to be looking at
requiring in the other areas as far as decorative mast arms, as they talked about earlier.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that just because it involves now a couple of developers or applicants around the
same intersection and if the she recalls, Tina D’Aversa on last Thursday mentioned and talked about pretty eloquently
how because it is a gateway the goal really is to have those decorative mast arms. That is why she was reminded that a
similar condition was referenced where they actually were able to require the developer to put in all decorative mast arms.
What strikes her is maybe there is an opportunity here for these two applicants in conjunction with the Public Works
department to go and determine what is the appropriate mechanism for determining that. Asked if this would provide
them an opportunity to make this gateway perhaps as they had hoped it would be and that they could, between the two
applicants have them seek out a mast arm that would be consistent with that other decorative mast arm.
Public Works Director Drake stated that this is a matter of timing. They have already ordered their materials. His
recommendation is that they would look and augment their existing equipment they have already bought and try to do
their best to make it look as decorative as possible. That is the leeway that he believes they have in this condition and they
would like to pursue.
Mayor Lockwood stated that Mr. Drake brings up the point that Sembler is already in and that was a big discussion they
had with them. Mr. Drake had a discussion with Brian Snelling about their material had already been ordered and what
not. And as one remembers, they talked about having them look at options to upgrade. He can certainly see that the
applicant and his partners want to be a part of that and improve it but also they cannot just sit there and have him agree to
something if he does not know what the costs are or whatever. He would like to see how they clarify that or give them
some kind of a cap or something so that they can agree or disagree to it.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that as he reads this it looks like they are obligating him to actually put in a decorative
mast arm, not doing any upgrade. It looks like it is saying in essence replace if he has got to dedicate a decorative mast
arm.
Public Works Director Drake stated that his reading of that part is approved by Milton transportation as per GDOT.
That gives them a leeway to not require brand new equipment. He should try his best to upgrade to as decorative as
possible.
Mayor Lockwood inquired as to what Mr. Drake’s opinion was of “his best”? He is trying to clarify this so that they do
not have something….
Public Works Director Drake stated that he did not have anything to really offer here right now. He is suggesting that
they will sit down with both Sembler and this applicant and GDOT to see what they can do to make it as decorative as
possible. It maybe something that they need to discuss with the Design Review Board or some other body. It is a tighter
time frame than he thought.
Mayor Lockwood stated that was something that would be okay. Just discuss that with them and come to a
reasonable…he understands that Morton cannot go spend $100,000 on it.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 33 of 72
Ken Morton stated that he would be glad to sit down and work with them on that. It is not a problem.
Public Works Director Drake stated that his second point, before he gets to the trees is the following pages 23-28 of the
Driveway access, .3e(v). They talked about in their meetings earlier this week about that access point on SR 9. It was their
recommendation that they did not want an additional access point on SR 9 but it is his understanding that the applicant has
received approval from GDOT and they were trying to find out what that was. It was their understanding that it is a right-
in/right-out and a left-in. He believes they would be okay with compromising on the right-in/right-out. It is the left-in
piece that they are having heartburn on. It is the piece that they are going to make their best case to GDOT to not allow
them to have that much in. One thing they would like to see on the right-in/right-out, whether it is in the median or closer
to their driveway is actually some type of raised median to actually self-enforce that right-in/right-out without the help of
that left-in. This condition as they read it is that the driveway access is permitted by both the Public Works Department as
well as GDOT and they would like to meet with GDOT and talk about this in a very timely manner because they do have
some concerns.
Ken Morton stated that they talked a lot to GDOT about it and got their approval. It is important for them to have that
left-in there. They know that they cannot have a left-out, they do not want a left-out it would be too dangerous and they
certainly do not want that. But a left-in is important to them.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she had a question for Dan Drake because she knows they did have a lot of
discussion about this on Monday. She personally would like to give the Public Works Department an opportunity to go
back to GDOT. Obviously this is not the only intersection. They are trying to deal with transportation issues up and down
this area of SR 9. She thinks this Council would be remiss if they didn’t provide Drake the opportunity to go back to
GDOT. Her request, with all due respect to the applicant, she thinks their responsibility is to the greater traffic flow of that
area understanding the other impact of these other developments. She would actually like for the Council to give Drake
the opportunity to go back to GDOT and discuss that right-in/right-out as well as the left-in. Her sense is that Mr. Drake
perhaps was not part of those original discussions with GDOT.
Public Works Director Drake stated that they are not part of any discussions with GDOT.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that given that this is in the City of Milton and that SR 9 is a huge transportation
issue she would ask and she would ask for staff to help her, help them determine the best language. Would it be possible
to have this where they allow the City of Milton public works to go back to GDOT and discuss this issue in total? It
would then be up to their public works department in those conversations to come up with the best solution.
Mayor Lockwood stated he agrees but in his mind it is a GDOT and a public works decision along with the applicant. It
is not a Council decision. He added that it is a safety and traffic.
Public Works Director Drake stated that it was a traffic/safety as well as an act of management issue that they believe to
a point they are with GDOT. One of the points with the Sembler property, they did meet with Sembler and GDOT
together. They just did not have that opportunity on the fourth for whatever reason.
Ken Morton stated that they did meet with Abbie Jones and GDOT. They all met in the same room together to discuss
this very issue.
Public Works Director Drake asked if at that point was the access point of the left-end discussed.
Ken Morton stated that it was. It has always been that and it has always been a discussion with GDOT.
Public Works Director Drake stated that might be his oversight on this but it is a piece that they need to reconsider.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 34 of 72
Mayor Lockwood stated that he does not want to get to where the Council is making decisions on GDOT and traffic. We
do not have that experience.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she believes the applicant had said that his first preference was to have a common
driveway with Remax and they were not receptive to that.
Ken Morton stated that was correct. They met with them and staff and Abbie Jones was a part of that discussion with
them. They were unwilling. He offered to pay for all of the improvements they did and they refused to grant them that.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she would still like for staff at some time or another to pursue that with him. She
feels as though the less curb cuts they have, maybe the better. If there is anyway that they can get it down to just a shared
driveway or something between the two parcels. She thinks that is what would be best. She knows Remax is not real
receptive.
Public Works Director Drake stated that was covered under zoning petition 3e(ii) “Provide motorized inter-parcel
access to all adjoining properties as required by the engineer of Milton. So they already have that condition giving them
that.
Councilmember Thurman inquired if it does have the inter-parcel because she does not think that Remax is aware of the
fact that they are going to have the inter-parcel access.
Public Work Director Drake stated that it gives them the authority if they are not, to not require it, but it gives them the
authority to discuss and he believes they have done their due diligence on that.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Mayor Joe Lockwood if the same would be true and to Councilmember
Thurman’s point if they basically come to vest that authority in the public works department along with what she is
hearing Dan Drake say is on item E5, rather than to have that as an already approved condition of zoning. Instead, they
would want to say that they are, relative to the driveway access on SR 9, rather than to permit it, that they would
encourage or that they would have as this condition public works go to meet with GDOT and the applicant rather than to
go ahead tonight and agree to the right-in/right-out and that left-in. She is hearing that it is a public safety concern.
Public Works Director Drake stated that he does not think that any additional wording change needs to be on 3e(v). It
would accommodate him. He will give more of an update on it. That would give him the opportunity to go back with the
applicant and GDOT to address that and ultimately come up with the best solution in his professional opinion. He added
in his interpretation of that. To get to the point about trees, Jim Seeba has gone out there and looked at the review of
those trees out there and he and Mark Law came to him this morning about holding off on some of the road improvements
and the effect of that.
Staff Jim Seeba stated that the applicant stated that they do have requested road improvements along SR 9 and on Webb
Road. Basically, Webb Road will require widening of approximately 12 feet plus a shoulder widening of about five feet.
And along Cumming Hwy. / SR 9 it will require widening of about 16 feet plus an additional widening for the easement
there. The total impact of that intersection will encroach upon the tree save areas and whether they can save the trees or
not will be determined in the final design. At this level of design they really cannot make that determination.
Mayor Lockwood asked if he would be obligated to compensate for the trees.
Staff Jim Seeba stated that he would, but at this concept level of design they really cannot make that determination.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey thanked the applicant for that input, but she thinks based on how she had proposed the
line that that would give Mr. Morton that flexibility and it would say in the owners’ agreement to preserve the three
specimen trees in the northeast corner of the site at the approval of the City arborist. Then they can modify that to ensure
the trees have been protected, including consideration of the widening that should be discussed with public works. The
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 35 of 72
point being that it does not just say, “let’s try” but it does say that they will as a condition of zoning save those trees
unless there is other evidence based on his input that requires those to be taken out. But that would be the authority vested
with him to make that determination.
Ken Morton said that the problem with these trees is they sit in a hole. They sit way down below the road level and there
is no way they he could possibly put their parking lot in, even where their entrance comes in there with a 29” oak because
they sit so far down in a hole they could not possibly be thinned.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he thinks what he is hearing is the applicant makes the effort in dealing with the staff to try
to save the trees, which may not be possible. But then, he has the option to do recompense with other trees.
Ken Morton stated that they want to save the trees in any way that they can and make it a part of it would be great. But
they certainly still want to have their option of if they cannot possibly to recompense.
Mayor Lockwood stated that was what he was hearing.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that was close. It was a little more flexible than where she was headed. She
asked Tom Wilson to comment based on his impression of that 36-inch, 32-inch and 29-inch oak…she understands the
grade difference, but rather than to presume that those absolutely cannot be preserved because that is a little bit different
than trying to make their best efforts to save them. She asked Tom Wilson to comment.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it seems now since he and Councilmember Zahner Bailey talked
earlier that threat to these trees is not only the development itself but also the road improvements. If they say that they
should preserve those trees to the extent that the treated road improvements do not harm them, they can say that, which is
essentially what they have been trying to say. Ken Morton’s point that they are so far below grade that he would not be
able to enter his property and still save those trees after the road improvements have occurred. He thinks they probably
need to have some sort of a way that the community development director or the public works director can make that
determination.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey proposed that they add that language that between the Design Review Board, the
Arborist and the Community Development Director that that be part of that evaluation. She also asked that in the
amendment in the prior case that in those particular instances with those three specimen trees, if it were to be that they
could not be saved that the recompense for those three in particular would go to a larger caliper. She would like to ask
that they consider it to be consistent with what they had the last applicant require, which was a six-inch caliper tree for
any of those three that could not indeed be saved. She asked if that would be acceptable.
Ken Morton stated that it would be acceptable.
Mayor Lockwood stated that it would probably be in the applicant’s financial interest if he could save them so obviously
he will see if he can. But if staff states that he cannot then he will recompense it and for those trees, which are the larger
trees, just recompense trees.
Ken Morton stated that he was okay with that.
Councilmember Lusk asked if the traffic improvements had been laid out.
Ken Morton stated that they had. He stated that he is not sure he quite understands if there is going to be additional
improvements above what they are doing because they are doing the right decel lane. He does not know if there are
additional improvements on top of that.
Councilmember Lusk stated when the design is finalized on the traffic improvements, they should be able to determine
at that point in time whether those trees can be saved or not. But he is going to encroach in the drip lines or close to those
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 36 of 72
trees and it is going to require fill on top When his design is final it will be able to be determined at that time. He hesitates
to go through unusual procedures to save trees when in fact at that point in time and design it is pretty obvious that they
are salvageable. He thinks the applicant is committed to recompense. It is obviously to the applicant's advantage if the
can save them, but obviously engineering-wise he will be able to speak if he can or cannot and he will have to get with
staff to recompense.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that perhaps the language helps to encourage a little bit of extra effort and she
thinks with a bit of extra effort the trees could be saved, especially the large trees. It would make more people want to
come and bring their items to keep in storage there.
Ken Morton stated that his property holds two famous trees in the north Fulton area, Old Milton and North point so he is
very familiar with famous oak trees.
Mayor Lockwood stated that at this point he thinks they are pretty clear unless he hears anything else, something
different than what they have talked about, he would like to kind of move forward. He stated that he would try to make a
motion unless he has someone else that would like to try to make a motion.
Motion: Mayor Lockwood moved to approve this application based on staff’s recommendations with the exception that
they talked about a 30 foot height plus a five-foot parapet and that the applicant is intending to have since at this point it is
a matter of stories because they are looking at what they see on the outside and the elevation. Three stories of storage and
a basement. They have added the language about a five-board fence with the welded wire if there is any detention.
Screening on the dumpster was already in there. It is in there that the sidewalks will have the stamped concrete pavers
every 50 feet. There shall be a four-board fence along the right-of-way. The lighting shall be approved by the Design
Review Board, and move the trash receptacle to the back and to deny the variance.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked that they add the language that she had proposed with regard to clarification about
sewer. Tom Wilson clarified that there was no sewer connection outside of the Big Creek Basin.
Mayor Lockwood clarified that they are not trying to limit the applicant for anything that is already due him.
Councilmember Thurman stated the additional conditions that have already been in there as far as what is allowed.
Community Development Director Wilson asked if she was talking about the excluded uses. He stated that 1a, b, and c
would be more consistent.
Mayor Lockwood asked Tom Wilson to read them for the record.
Community Development Director Wilson read:
The following uses are excluded: gas station and associated gas pumps, free standing fast –food restaurant, commercial
amusement (cinemas are allowed) liquor sales and package stores, upscale wine stores are allowed, restaurants may sell
liquor by the drink. Continuing with the excluded uses: motels, hotels, adult oriented entertainment and businesses
including adult bookstores, adult entertainment and adult entertainment establishments as defined in Article 3.3.3, check
cashing stores, pawn shops, coin operated laundry, video arcades, video machines that are incidental to otherwise
permitted business are allowed, pool halls, stand alone massage parlor, stand alone nail salons, stand alone beauty
salons, stand alone barber shops, clinical/therapeutic 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, roadside
vending, roadside produce stands, seasonal vending, billboards, convenience stores and fortune teller are all excluded.
Mayor Lockwood asked the applicant if had a comment on that?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 37 of 72
Ken Morton stated that he had a back track to the actual building height was 35 feet. He wanted to make sure that his
floor to ceiling is 10’8”, so the total building height including the parapet is no more than 35 feet. He just wanted to make
sure that his floor is like 31 feet and his parapet is like four feet tall.
Mayor Lockwood stated that for this motion he does not know if he would have to go back and amend it or if he could
change it to the 35 feet total. The motion had not been seconded yet.
Second: Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Mayor Lockwood if his motion included the agreement regarding the specimen
trees that there would be an agreement to pursue in conjunction with the Arborist and the Community Development
Department an attempt by the applicant to save those three specimen trees including consideration of the road
improvements and that if any one of those three could not, that the recompense trees would be the six-inch caliper that the
applicant agreed he could do.
Mayor Lockwood stated that it was on the record, but he does not think he included that in his motion.
Motion to Amend and Vote: Councilmember Thurman stated that she would like to amend the motion to include the
agreement above regarding specimen trees. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the amendment. The amendment was
passed unanimously.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any further discussion.
Continued Discussion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she was confused about where they are on the height of the building.
Mayor Lockwood stated 35 feet with three stories. The 35 feet includes the parapet.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she would be remiss if she did not mention concern that the three stories goes
beyond what staff recommended and goes beyond what Planning Commission recommended. She asked if there would
be a second to amend that even if they went to the 35-feet to clarify that four feet of that would be the parapet and still to
keep it at two stories. She is concerned that with each one of these they are re-interpreting what they think is standard.
She was just curious if they are not starting to move away on a case by case basis from the standard.
Motion to Amend: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to amend the previous motion to address the height to allow
for two stories to 30 feet or 31 feet with the accommodation of up to four feet for the parapet.
Second: Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the amendment.
Discussion on the Motion to Amend:
Mayor Lockwood stated that the reason that he was okay with the three-story, they went from four-story (60 foot height)
down to the 35 feet, which is within the range of what they have done in the past. He is sure the viability of the business,
if one took a third (33 percent) out it would not work. Everything that is going to affect the City and its citizens from the
outside it looks like a two-story building. It is a low-impact building. If they had this case again, or an identical case
maybe they have set a precedent but there may not be. He stated if they had the same identical case and believes he would
feel the same way about it. He is looking at the intent here and the intent from the residents and what they see, and he
thinks it is a really good project.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that her concern was without this design having gone to the Design Review
Board, it is an attractive picture but that does not give her any confirmation that as an actual building that it could not
instead look like a three-story building that could potentially be a different use because they have not conditioned it other
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 38 of 72
than to say that it could be three-story. They think it is going to look like a two-story. She believes that that leaves more
flexibility than what would be consistent with the two-story and 30 feet.
Mayor Lockwood asked her if she would be comfortable if it were in the conditions that it has to look like a two-story, at
least on the front.
Councilmember D'Aversa asked what is the policy and procedure. They are going down the path of developing a policy
for a two story building, because the Planning Commission and staff recommended that they go forward with that and that
the city defers that decision based on the comprehensive plan land use plan going through the process. She asked what
takes precedence. Do they make a determination to foresee their height or do they make a determination on stories? What
has been the opinion of the norm for that or is that a legal question as far as precedence goes?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they can obviously say that any one of those items; square
footage, height, and number of stories. Generally, they limit either the height or the number of stories. It has been rare
that they limit both height and the number of stories but there is no reason that they cannot. So far they have limited the
number of stories to two, height to 30 or 35 feet and he thinks what they are asked to consider right now is three stories
that does not exceed the height of a two-story building as they have been approving it in the past.
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that they are doing that from design specifications that have not gone through a design
review. Maybe that would have to be the process, pending that process.
Councilmember O'Brien stated that he wanted to agree with the Mayor. In a previous case, as Tom Wilson pointed out,
typically one would limit height or stories but not both. But they continue to demonstrate that they are very unique in
Milton. In the previous case the most relevant factor for all concerned was how many stories. With an office building
which demanded approximately 15 feet, to him he is struggling with the fact that a storage facility is essentially a cube. As
long as the façade is attractive and meets their very high standards and expectations, it is not really that important how it is
subdivided inside since it not really an occupant building. He is more concerned about the height overall in its
satisfactory outcome appearance-wise. To him, as small as those levels are in the subdivided storage areas, he does not
think that that should be as critical of a consideration and he thinks that is perhaps what the Mayor was perhaps driving at.
As long as they end up with the height limit that they have, that is substantially below the 60-foot guideline that exists. He
believes the applicant is trying to be very flexible. As long as they get a good outcome, that is the basic criticality here.
Councilmember Lusk stated that he will support the Mayor on his comments there too. He thinks they have run into a
dilemma, where they are specifying building height and number of stories. He would say if they are confirming to what
he thinks ultimately that they are looking for is building height, he really does not think the number of stories is that
critical. It could be a mausoleum in there with six-foot height ceilings with four or five stories. He thinks that by
restricting the number of stories they are really the occupancy of these buildings. He thinks they are going a little bit two
far when they are restricting occupancy.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he does think they need to be careful from the City’s standpoint and the citizens, he thinks
they need to keep in mind that they are looking for the overall aesthetics. They are also looking for safety and traffic and
things like that, too. But when they go dictating people’s business and what they can and cannot do in their building then
they partake a responsibility for their viability and all of that. The Council has to look at it as if the applicant can meet
their expectations and standards of their aesthetics and what not. That should be the most important thing.
Councilmember D’Aversa stated that she thinks the challenge is that they have not determined the…they had one that
came before them from their Planning Commission and their staff review and they have deferred that decision. So, they
have put themselves through this whole dilemma.
Councilmember O'Brien stated that they are kind of the final arbiters and he added that what the Mayor is not saying is
if they get a project that is desirable in a given place in the City, if they arbitrarily or capriciously hamper the revenue
generation that the City would enjoy that is not a bonus either. If the outcome is the same, but they can have more
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 39 of 72
revenue from their businesses in the City which are deemed to be desirable then he is not sure that is a far-sighted solution
either.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he feels like they are digging too deep. He asked that they recap where they are. They are
on their second amendment to a motion that Julie Zahner Bailey made and Tina D’Aversa seconded to limit this building
to three stories.
Vote on Second Motion to Amend: The motion failed by a vote 2-5, with Councilmember Zahner Bailey and
Councilmember D’Aversa voting in favor of the motion.
Vote on Third Motion to Amend: Councilmember Thurman stated that she would like to amend the motion to 32 feet
with no more than up to 35 feet with a parapet.
Councilmember Thurman thinks they have a compromise there that he gets in the 10-feet by adding 8+8+8 and
hopefully close to two feet. That would give him what she believes he would need so it would be a building height of no
more than 35-feet high with parapet.
Second: Councilmember Lusk seconded the amendment.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he needed a Point of Order about where his original motion was? The Council had not
voted on it yet. He clarified that they have this amendment to amend his motion.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that Mayor Lockwood mentioned earlier that he would be receptive to having the
32 feet, even if it were three-story, appear based on DRB input as though it was two-story. She asked whether or not
Councilmember Thurman’s amendment to the original could include reference to the appearance of two-story to preclude
it from being....
Councilmember Thurman stated that she would prefer just to let the DRB make that decision. If they make it look like
three stories with 30 feet then it probably is not going to look right anyway. She would like for the Design Review Board
to have some flexibility.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he was okay either way with that and asked if the applicant would be okay with making the
building appear as a two-story building. He stated that it possibly could happen, but he would rather leave it that if they
can work with the Design Review Board.
Ken Morton stated that he would be happy to work with DRB to get it to look like a two-story building. He cannot
guarantee that standing right here saying that he can definitely make it look like a two-story building, but he is willing to
try to do that. He will make every effort that the can to do that.
Mayor Lockwood said that the only hesitation that he has on that is since the applicant is going to have to go back and
rework the building to get the height down…to him it looks like a two-story, but the Council cannot really hold him to
that now because they have asked him to work on that.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the Design Review Board will review whatever elevation and
building permits that it has been presented. The Design Review Board does not have the authority as the overlay district is
written to take a three-story building and require that it appear to be two stories. There is no design standard, which they
can apply or broadly interpret enough to say that a three-story presentation to them should be changed to become a two-
story in appearance.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey inquired if the would have the authority given their condition of zoning.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 40 of 72
Community Development Director Wilson stated that if the condition of zoning said that, then the Design Review
Board would not, but the Community Development Director would.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that that was why she proposed the potential amendment was so that it could
indeed be constructed to be reviewed or to be seen.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he would support that because that was originally, when they talked about allowing the
three floors, part of the negotiation. When they were talking a little bit ago it would look like a two-story building and
that was a suggestion. So he will add that.
Community Development Director Wilson clarified that it would be three stories with the appearance of two stories.
Mayor Lockwood stated that Councilmember Thurman would have to add that to her amendment.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she thought it would be up to the Community Development Director’s discretion
as far as what looks like a two-story and what looks like a three story.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he does not want to box him in too much because he is going to do some new design.
Councilmember Thurman asked the applicant if he was okay with that because she thought they just heard that he was
not.
Amended Motion to Amend: Councilmember Thurman stated that her amendment now is to have it look like two-story
building, be no more than 32 in height with an additional three feet allowed for a parapet. Councilmember Lusk approved
the amendment and Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the amended motion.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The amendment to the motion to amend passed unanimously.
Mayor Lockwood stated that now they are moving back to his original motion and seconded. There was no discussion.
Vote on Original Motion: The motion passed unanimously.
Five-Minute Recess
Motion and Vote: Mayor Lockwood moved for a five-minute recess. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-439
RZ07-019/U07-010/ VC07-011 -To rezone from C-1 (Community Business) to O-I (Office-Institutional) to develop
23,000 square feet of office. The applicant is also requesting a Use Permit to exceed the district height, (Article 19.4.21),
to allow the building to be constructed at a maximum height of 70 feet that includes an underground garage and three
stories of office. To request a three-part concurrent variance to 1) To reduce the side setback from 20 feet to 15 feet along
the north property line (Article 8.1.3.C); 2) To reduce the 25-foot non-impervious buffer, to allow approximately 6,010
square feet of encroachment to allow parking on pervious pavement (City Code Chapter 14, Section 6.5(i); 3) To reduce
the 50-foot undisturbed stream buffer to allow approximately 675 square feet of encroachment to allow parking on
pervious pavement (City Code Chapter 14, Section 6.5 (ii)).
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the Community Development recommendation is for approval of
rezoning, RZ07-019, approval conditional of use permit U07-010 and approval conditional of concurrent variance VC07
011, parts 1, 2 and 3. Robyn MacDonald will provide some details about this application.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 41 of 72
Interim City Manager Lagerbloom stated that in item 2 they have used the word “non-impervious”. He thinks that
“non” would not appropriate if non-impervious means pervious. He asked that the Council disregard the “non” portion of
non-impervious.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that this was a 3.04 acre site currently zoned C-1 pursuant to Z0025 approved
for retail service, commercial and/or office. It has a density of 5,197.37 square feet per acre or a total of 15,800 square
feet, whichever is less for the current zoning on the site. The site is currently vacant. It is wooded and contains an
unnamed creek which flows along the southern property line eventually draining into Lake Deerfield. It is currently
bordered by O-I to the north and south and C-1 to the west, which is the Wal-Mart development. The property is part of
the planned development of Lake Deerfield and is subject to covenants of the development. The property is also subject to
SR 9 overlay district regulations. Basically the office development is suitable based on surrounding approved zoning to
the north for O-I, for six-stories to the south as O-1, for six-stories to the east as O-I, for four-stories and C-1 to the west.
The densities range between 11,500 square feet to 10,191 square feet so it is consistent with the density in the area as well
as height. She stated that Staff notes that the rezoning will have some impact on the environment and natural resources
but materials proposed by the applicant in the recommended conditions will help mitigate these issues. In conclusion, as
far as the rezoning petition RZ07-19, staff recommends approval. Regarding the use permit per Article 8.1.3a O-I zoning
allows a four-story, 60 foot tall building. The applicant is requesting a use permit to allow a three-story, 70 foot tall office
building with one story of parking underneath the building. While the building technically will be four stories, the parking
structure will remain open and embedded in the slope. Only three floors will be occupied by offices. The structure will be
70 feet high from finished grade. Other use permits for height increase have been approved in the vicinity as previously
stated. With regards to the site plan analysis the applicant is requesting of the concurrent variance to reduce the north side
yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. This will allow the proposed building to encroach into the existing 20-foot setback by
five feet. The property is bounded on the south by an unnamed creek and its associated buffers. It is the staff’s opinion
that this is a reasonable request due to the size, shape, and topography of the subject lot and recommends approval
conditional of part 1 of the concurrent variance. She continued to state that in addition to the state’s 25-foot stream bank
buffer, Chapter 14, Article 6, Section 5 of the City code requires that an undisturbed natural vegetative buffer shall be
maintained for 50 feet on both side banks of the stream along with an additional 25-foot setback beyond the undisturbed
buffer in which all impervious covers shall be prohibited. Grading, filling and earth moving shall be allowed but
minimized within the setback. The applicant’s letter of intent states that the site was originally subdivided in a plan when
the state only required a 25-foot stream buffer along with a 35-foot stream buffer required by Fulton County. Based on
constraints due to the shape of the property in the more restricted buffer the applicant states that it is necessary for the
proposed parking to encroach into the 50-foot buffer and 75-foot impervious setback. The proposed development shows
parking encroaching to the 50-foot stream bank buffer by approximately 675 square feet and parking encroaching into the
75 foot impervious setback by approximately 5,701 square feet. The letter of intent states that the developer has taken
every effort to avoid placing any development within the stream buffer in which it has been maintained or natural portions
of the property wherever possible. In conclusion regarding the other concurrent variances, due to the applicant’s effort to
minimize surface runoff on the entire site and the constraints of the property staff recommends approval conditional of
Part 2, VC07-011 and of Part 3 of the same concurrent variance. Ms. MacDonald continued by saying regarding parking,
the applicant is providing 75 parking spaces and there are 69 spaces required per the zoning ordinance. Staff notes that all
of the proposed parking will be constructed of pervious concrete and that 20 spaces will be located under the proposed
building. There is no on-site detention proposed for this site. She wanted to make that clear because there is a condition
in the zoning in the recommended conditions that references the detention area. The applicant needs to work on deleting
that. Any runoff from the site will be routed to Lake Deerfield. The pervious concrete proposed for the paving is designed
to minimize the amount of oil and sediment that will enter the stream. Most of the oil, antifreeze, and other automobile
fluids that can be washed in the streams when it rains will be picked up by the first flush, the first one-inch of rainfall. By
capturing the first flush and allowing it to percolate into the ground, the pervious concrete allows soils form the stream
biology to treat the polluted water naturally. The arborist notes that there is a really good mix of hardwood trees, small to
mature in size. There appears only to be one specimen tree located on the site, a 30-inch tulip poplar. The arborist
suggested that the applicant try to incorporate green design elements as much as possible. In conclusion, staff
recommends approval conditional of RZ07-019 and U07-10 as well as approval conditional of Parts 1, 2, and 3 of VC07
011. Regarding the recommended conditions, she believes that Dan Drake has some changes regarding some of the
conditions.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 42 of 72
Public Works Director Drake stated that there are some condition changes that the applicant is requesting and he would,
at this point, ask that the applicant bring those up. Drake stated that they have verbiage to respond to that. These are last
minute changes but they were not prepared to bring them to staff as they actually requested them.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked the applicant if he was okay with deleting the on-site detention since it goes into
Lake Deerfield. She was referring to 6B on page 24. The applicant stated that on 6A he was going to demonstrate through
engineering analysis. The water quality will be demonstrated as well through the pervious pavements.
Mayor Lockwood stated that at this point they would hear from the applicant.
Wendy Butler, 11330 Lakefield Drive, Johns Creek, GA.
Wendy Butler stated she is here on behalf of Charter Global who is proposing to have their corporate office operations in
the proposed building. As one can see from the site it has a very unusual long, narrow shape and along the southern border
there is the stream. The site was initially subdivided when there was a 25-foot stream buffer. With the addition of the 50
foot and then the City imposed a 25-foot stream buffer. There is a stream buffer that goes up through the middle of the site
to get to the 25 feet, which is actually the 75 feet. The 25-foot City buffer that goes beyond the 50-foot is the non-
impervious setback. While they were asking for a buffer for that, she stated that she would want to clarify that all of the
encroachment into that buffer as with the entire parking on the site is with pervious pavement. In fact, the site is 93
percent pervious. The applicant has made a tremendous effort, every effort to preserve green space. They will, in fact
preserve the specimen tree that is on the site and preserve as many trees as possible on the site up at the front, along the
side and even along here. During the process of review with the staff there was a number of discussion and even at the
Planning Commission about why they possibly could not move some of this parking to the back. The reason that they are
not doing that is because there is a real nice sized tree right there and a very steep slope. By providing the pervious
parking and by keeping the parking up here they can preserve some nice tree space back here. She presented a rendering
of the building looking from the north side down. What one sees at this grade is that the underground parking is tucked
into the side of the slope. The site has a very steep slope from north to south so while one has three stories of office space;
it is actually a four-story building at a height of 70 feet, which accommodates the parapet around the top. The height is
consistent with the heights that have been approved in the adjacent property. There are six stories that have been approved
on the north as well as on the south. Additionally, the site is proposed to be developed at 7,565 square feet per acre, which
is significantly under the densities that are approved in the surrounding area. There are six stories and over 19,000
(19,190) square feet per acre. Just north of this site there is the Verizon, which is across the street, which is a little over
11,000 square feet per acre. The Springhill Suite, which is south of this is 13,000 square feet per acre. So, again one has a
height that is completely consistent with the adjacent properties. There is a density in the development that is significantly
under the developments that are approved in the area and there is a significant effort by this developer. This would be his
office building. This is not a speculative office development. They are very good environmental stewards saving every
tree that they possibly can on there. They like the natural wooded site. They have gone before the Design Review Board
and have tried to accommodate all of the requests that they have had including preserving as many trees as absolutely is
possible. The Planning Commission also asked that the applicant preserve as many trees as possible and they are happy to
make that commitment to do that. She stated that she had a couple of comments on the proposed conditions by the staff.
They are in agreement with those. But for example, the condition no. 6 relative to the detention facility requires on site
detention and in fact the site is served by Lake Deerfield. As to condition 4, which relates to the driveway queue, the site
has shared access from the adjacent property. They are also trying to limit curb cuts so they will be using the same curb
cut that was approved on the Crescent Properties development to the north. Right now the queuing on there, the length of
the neck for the queue is adequate to meet this proposed development. However the northern property has not yet been
developed and when it is that will alter the length of the neck that is needed to accommodate the queuing and the applicant
is more than willing to work with Crescent Properties. Once one knows what the impact will be and what the traffic
impact will be from development when it is completed on the northern side in order to extend that queue. They just want
clarification on condition no. 4B-2 requiring striping the full width of the Deerfield Parkway because there is a median
here. The question was whether or not that striping would be required on both sides. She thinks that the condition does
accommodate per traffic approval. If there is any comment on that they are happy to work with the Department of
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 43 of 72
Transportation to resolve that. At this time, she stated that she would leave time for rebuttal. John Oliver is present from
ERS, their civil engineer. The architect is also present and they would be happy to answer any questions for the Council.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that saving that time for rebuttal they will move into opposition.
Ed Parsons, 2950 Serenade Court, Milton, GA
Ed Parsons stated that he was speaking on the behalf of Avensong subdivision. They recommend that the Mayor and City
Council accept the staff and Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval conditional of the U07-010 including
all of the zoning conditions recommended by the staff, as well as the group of conditions of parts 1-3 of VC07-011.
City Clerk Marchiafava read into the record from Dr. Angela Macintyre. “I would like to say that the Regency at
Windward Square homeowners' association board members have had discussions with the board members at Avensong
and they are in full agreement with their comments”
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that she had a card from Leon Cole, but she does not think he is present. That completes
the opposition.
Mayor Lockwood asked the applicant if he anything he wanted to say at this time.
John Oliver, 1000 Abernathy Road, Sandy Springs, GA
John Oliver had comments regarding a couple of their issues. They have been questioned by some of the staff on some of
the details and he thinks they have got some of the details kind of worked out. He does not have much of a rebuttal.
Mayor Lockwood closed the public hearing. He asked the applicant, based on staff recommendations what is the
difference between…are they willing to work with staff’s recommendations.
John Oliver stated that they were willing. It is kind of semantics. One of the issues was just clarification of the repaving
of Deerfield Parkway. They just had a conversation during the recess where they were kind of wondering the way it was
written, they would have to repave both sides of Deerfield Parkway all the across the entire front. It is a relatively new
road. His company was in charge of designing it for Hines. They have come to a consensus that the real issue is right here
at the drive entrance and that the repaving of the road would be at the drive entrance, 50 feet on each side of the drive
entrance to the median. It is all southbound lanes. He stated that he believes in the past that has always been the intent.
Mayor Lockwood asked staff if they wanted to address.
Public Works Director Drake stated that they talked to the applicant about this and the intent of this is typically without
such a wide median. So they have agreed that they could accommodate that and they have some wording changes for 4B
2 such that it would say that the overlay and striping for full width of the southbound lanes of the intersection of the
improved driveway with Deerfield and 50 feet each side as approved by transportation and engineering. Both applicants
have represented themselves and they are okay with that.
Councilmember D'Aversa asked if there was one specimen tree on this property.
City Arborist Mark Law stated that there were several located on one of their initial plans.
Councilmember D’Aversa stated that when Mark Law did a site inspection he only found one that was in the vicinity.
There are still several in the stream buffer real close to the stream, within the 25-foot stream buffer. Those were not
labeled on his site inspection but in the area of disturbance he just found the one specimen tree. She asked that applicant
if he would be okay with that requirement that he preserve all of the specimen trees.
Councilmember Karen Thurman stated that she had a question concerning inter-parcel access between the two
buildings and the back of the property. Right now she does not believe there is any inter-parcel access. The applicant
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 44 of 72
stated that there is no inter-parcel access. Actually a lot of this disturbance is caused from just getting the fire trucks along
the back inside. They have spoken with the adjacent owner. They have, by deed, access in this area here. That access does
not go in the back. The landowner was not interested in negotiating with the applicant on gaining that. So they made the
effort, they had a meeting with them; he was not interested in it. She inquired if they had that, would they do some of the
impervious surface required for the fire department to turn around if there was inter-parcel access required between the
two properties, or has the owner already took out their complete zoning and site plan and they could not condition it to
that?
John Oliver stated that he would reduce the amount of encroachment into the buffer. It would not remove all of it but he
would reduce…and actually, if that were the case, he could possibly rotate the building and do a couple of other things.
He is really tight on both sides in trying to squeeze this thing in. The drive just to the south of the building is there for
truck access to get to the back of the lot. He needs to get fire trucks and tractor-trailers back there just to be able to load
and unload. The fire department does not like to go underneath buildings when they are on fire. Someone brought that up
in the Design Review Board meeting. He has not met a fire marshal that would allow that to happen so that is why they
are not going in that direction. He stated that this was just for fire access. If he had access over here, and he tried, he
could reduce it even more. The pervious pavement is expensive and actually just this drive is expensive. There is no
parking off of it; the parking is from the inside.
Councilmember Thurman asked staff if the adjacent property owner already has his zoning conditioned to a site plan or
is there any flexibility with that.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was already conditioned to a site plan. One can see that
shadowed in on the site plan. They have not started construction.
Councilmember Thurman inquired how long they have to start construction once the get the approval or is it indefinite.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was indefinite.
John Oliver stated that this zoning plan is actually for Hines Interest. They have since sold it to Crescent. Crescent has a
couple of other dwellings on it.
Councilmember Thurman stated that what she is saying is they have to come back before the Council. Oliver stated that
they were going to come back before Council. If they were going to come back before Council they could some changes
in their site plan that would make them change conditions.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the Council could do that.
Councilmember Thurman inquired if they would be able to condition it to Inter-Parcel access there in the back?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he certainly could do that.
Councilmember Thurman inquired if the applicant has any idea when they will be coming back before the Council.
John Oliver stated that they have no idea. In speaking with the applicant in trying to get some access over here, there
question is that they really do not know what they want to do over there and they did not want to preclude anything. They
do not have a problem with sharing access it is just that they do not want to be tied to anything because they do not know
what they are going to do with the property at the present time. They know they want to build some office buildings there
but right now they do not want anything to limit them. So once they get their design taken care of and master plan they
will come back.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 45 of 72
Councilmember Thurman stated that they do not have any idea of whether they are looking at six months or year or
three years. Oliver stated that they have not spoken to him in at least four years regarding this. Thurman was just
wondering if there is anyway they can do that to try to cut down on the impervious surface it might help the situation.
John Oliver stated that it would be nice but after the fact they have kind of done the damage. The pervious pavement is
an excellent product. They are going to blend it in to everything. He thinks it will look very, very natural. The applicant
wants nature trails throughout the project. He really wants to enjoy the wooded piece of property.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that given that Oliver operates with some other folks as well and normally they do
not have a definitive time frame, would there be any benefit, do they have any leverage points with those other applicants?
Is it before he would end up constructing it as currently reflected? Is there anything that the Council can do to help him to
pursue that inter-parcel access before he is committed to this site and not being able to reduce those impervious surfaces?
John Oliver stated that he was not aware of anything.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that from staff’s perspective there was nothing that right now would encourage
the applicant to come in and have a discussion.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he did not believe so.
Councilmember Thurman asked what happens when they do come back before the Council, whenever that might be,
they do require inter-parcel access. Is there anyway for him to change his parking around so that he can have…she likes
the idea of the inter-parcel access in the back, especially for fire. Is there a way to change the configuration of the parking
around so that they could have that, if they are not having to use the front. She that she was talking about in the back if
they required inter-parcel access.
John Oliver stated that if they had access they could get rid of a lot of the pavement, they could put plantings in it. They
could put a cul-de-sac or something in the middle. There are a couple of different things that they could do. One of the
issues in the back here is they would probably have to come out this way, just from an elevation difference. But, they
really do not know what the elevation is going to be. So, it is hard for him to plan for that.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she just wanted to make sure they were not going to be messing him up if they
required inter-parcel access.
John Oliver stated that they could find a way.
Councilmember Lusk asked how many more trees the applicant would have to eliminate if he did have that periphery.
John Oliver stated not many. On the survey it shows that there are very few trees in that area. Once they get away from
the majority of this, the trees are really down in this area.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that one consideration that the Council talked about in their Monday review
session that staff was receptive to at the time, and she would like the Council to consider would be to ask the applicant as
part of a condition of zoning to reduce the parking by six spaces. In particular, the six spaces that are encroaching into
that, what should be an undisturbed buffer? Because the applicant is six over, it would not be any less than what would be
required. She would ask for the Council to consider the condition of zoning with reduction of six spaces specifically
within that area that encroaches into the parking. She asked Tom Wilson to comment as to his opinion about that.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it does appear that if they eliminated the six spaces that intruded
into the 50-foot buffer one would still be at the minimum required and they would have no intrusion into the buffer. He
asked if the applicant could accommodate that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 46 of 72
John Oliver stated that to say no intrusion into the buffer, it would be less than what they are asking for. In his
calculations he is taking the curb line and has offset it several feet because they just do not build in one location. They are
going to grade the top side of that area and that buffer has to do with grading. He needs some area to balance that out a
little bit. When one sees the 675 square footage it is not just the pavement that they are….he is assuming that there is
going to be some grading outside of that and that is the amount of the disturbance that he is asking for.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he does understand that. He thinks the question to Oliver is can
he eliminate those six spaces and intrude into the buffer less? What is the depth of the intrusion into the buffer? 20 feet?
John Oliver stated that it was about 10 feet.
Councilmember Lusk asked if suppose they could put parallel parking in those six spaces.
John Oliver stated that they would get rid of probably…they could probably put three parallel spaces there and reduce the
effect. One of the things that he wanted to make sure of is that it is not going totally away. Even by putting that off and
having parallel places, he would reduce it.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she understood that and her suggestion was still that they consider the
reduction of those six specifics that go into that buffer in particular because of the environmental sensitivity, which she
thinks is in keeping with what the applicant is attempting to do. She recognizes that the elimination of those six would not
completely eliminate the need for a portion of that variance but she would ask the pleasure of this Council, that they at
least consider that. Staff, at least in their review sessions, felt that that was commensurate with the intent of trying not to
impede on the undisturbed buffers.
Mayor Lockwood stated that his question to the applicant would be eliminating six parking spots or three.
John Oliver stated that he could do parallel and it would preclude a lot of things. This is very preliminary. He knows that
code says one thing, he is asking for more because he has been doing this for 24 years and he always loses one or two. He
does not want to come back because he lost one or two. He stated that he meets code and he is showing more than what he
needs. But how the tractor-trailers fit over here, some of things….but once they get out into the field and they ask where
things are located, they may have to rearrange some things to maybe save a tree. Instead of having these two
here…pulling them over. He stated he had a conversation earlier with the arborist about possibly making some changes to
the plan to possibly be able to have a better chance of saving some of these trees.
Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey stated that that would be consistent too, with the Design Review Board. She would
still ask that they reduce it by the six to bring it in line with what staff has recommended. She thinks it does still give one
that flexibility from the site planning perspective. Her goal is just to eliminate as much of the encroachment into that
buffer as possible especially given their current environment. She just thinks that the less that they can impede on those
buffers the better. She is trying to accommodate the applicant’s design without impacting the density. Another way to go
would be obviously to impact the density of the building, which would…..because they could argue hardship. And rather
than debate hardship she wondered if the applicant would be receptive to having the standard parking amount. If that
would be a hardship to him.
John Oliver stated that they would be willing to accommodate that. He thinks they can do that.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Lusk moved to call the question. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that they do not have a motion on the floor.
Motion: Councilmember D’Aversa moved to approve RZ07-019, U07-010 and VC07-011 Charter Mobile, Inc.
conditional based on the staff conditions with a reduction in the six parking spaces to reduce to the minimum 69 spaces
per zoning ordinance, to make sure that the specimen trees are undisturbed, and 4-B2 to be re-worded to say “overlay”
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 47 of 72
and strike being for full width of the south bound lane of the intersection of True Drive with Deerfield and 50-feet each
side as approved by the transportation engineer from Milton.
Discussion on the Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked that they clarify that the reduction of those six parking
spots in particular as reflected on the site plan where it would be the encroachment into the buffer.
Second: Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion.
City Clerk Marchiafava asked John Oliver if he wanted to state something for the record before the vote.
John Oliver stated that he understands that the Council is asking for all of the staff recommendations except for that one
change. There were two other issues regarding the staff recommendations. During the recess, he had a conversation with
the staff. One was the entrance meeting ASCO standards. Basically, what he would like to state is that this is a temporary
drive that today will meet ASCO standards and that when their neighbor comes and develops, they will change this drive
in such a way that it will still meet ASCO standards.
Councilmember Lusk asked Dan Drake if that agrees in concept with his wording?
Public Works Director Drake stated that there was one additional item that they think he would be talking about paying
for. His improvement to that as well as the first 25 feet in the northern property owners’ portion of that access point.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey clarified that the City would not be paying for any of that.
Public Works Director Drake stated that the applicant would be paying for providing that permanent drive way over
wherever it is located plus the first 25 feet of the permanent drive way to the northern property owners’ site.
John Oliver stated that the property owners have a side yard setback so basically he is assuming that that extra 25 feet
would get them to wherever their drive is.
Public Works Director Drake stated that the second item was regarding detention. The requirements referenced 75
percent. This is part of the Deerfield hydrology and Robyn MacDonald did bring that up earlier. This is part of an overall
system which drains into Lake Deerfield and what they would to do is use that. Basically, Lake Deerfield is based on the
water quality being handled on site but the water quantity or the 75 percent over peak flow is handled by all of the
different lakes. He would like to have it stricken that it will meet the pre-development flows. Staff was okay with that
condition. The applicant has been addressed water quality on site and overall detention is addressed in the overall master
plan of this development. If the applicant provides the staff with substantial proof of that then they are okay with it.
Mayor Lockwood asked if the Council wanted to clarify this motion that Council member D’Aversa has. Do they want
to have Dan Drake add the wording? They would need to amend this motion.
Councilmember O’Brien asked Dan Drake to stipulate that they meet ASCO standards and when it is transitions from
temporary to permanent that they would accept some responsibility for the first 25 feet of the northern neighbor.
Public Works Director Drake stated that actually would like to reword (g) on here if possible because as (g) is written it
contradicting that so he would like to reword it.
Councilmember O’Brien asked Dan Drake to state it for the record and he will accept that as the amendment.
Public Works Director Drake stated that it would be reworded to say “connection to shared driveway shown on the
November 13 site plan is not acceptable as it does not meet design guidelines. But it is acceptable on a temporary basis
until the property to the north is developed. At such time of development applicant agrees to the following: 1) Will stay the
same; 2) Final determination of inter-parcel drive relocation will be approved by the director of public works; and 3)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 48 of 72
applicant agrees to pay for inter-parcel access improvements on his property plus improvements in the 25-foot buffer of
the property to the north."
Councilmember O’Brien asked Dan Drake to go further as to summarize the detention issue for Lake Deerfield.
Public Works Director Drake stated that under 6a the first 75 percent of will be stricken.
Motion to Amend: Councilmember O’Brien made a motion to approve the previous motion as stated by Dan Drake:
connection to shared driveway shown on the November 13 site plan is not acceptable as it does not meet design
guidelines. But it is acceptable on a temporary basis until the property to the north is developed. At such time of
development applicant agrees to the following: 1) Will stay the same; 2) Final determination of inter-parcel drive
relocation will be approved by the director of public works; and 3) applicant agrees to pay for inter-parcel access
improvements on his property plus improvements in the 25-foot buffer of the property to the north."
Second: Councilmember Lusk seconded the amendment to the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Dan Drake on the word temporary, just given that they are not sure of the time
frame. Is Drake okay that temporary could be, sounds like, years?
Public Works Director Drake stated that he wanted one to know that it was not the permit.
Vote on Motion to Amend: There being no further Council discussion. The amendment passed unanimously.
Mayor Lockwood stated that Tina D’Aversa made the original motion and Bill Lusk seconded that.
Vote on Original Motion: The motion was approved unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-440.
U07-006/VC07-013 - To request a Use Permit (Article 19.4.27) for a 1,890 square foot existing building for a landscape
business and a three-part Concurrent Variance to 1) Reduce the 50-foot setback to 40 feet along the east property line
(Article 5.1.3.D); 2) Reduce the 50-foot buffer and 10-foot improvement setback to a 10-foot landscape strip planted to
buffer standards along the east property line (Article 12.H.C.1); and (3) Reduce the 50-foot buffer and 10-foot
improvement setback to a 15-foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards along the south property Line (Article
12.H.C.1)
Community Development Director Wilson stated that staff recommendation is for approval conditional of use permit
07-006, approval conditional of the concurrent variance VC07-013 part I, and denial of VC07-013 parts II and III. Robyn
MacDonald will provide some details about this application.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that this development is developed in accordance with staff’s recommended
conditions and the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The proposed landscaping business is expected to be compatible
with other land uses in the surrounding area. Previously, staff had observed the construction debris, curbing concrete, etc.
on the site. Since that point in time when the Planning Commission met, the applicant has buried the concrete for a
driveway, which is accessible per the books. The building official stated that has been taken care of properly. Article
18.2.1 requires the applicant to provide a minimum of five parking spaces. The applicant’s site plan indicates three
parking spaces which do not meet the requirements but it appears that there is sufficient room to locate two additional
parking spaces. The applicant indicates that landscaping business activities relate simply to the storage of two landscaping
trucks and associated equipment within a general existing Quonset garage location. The applicant indicates two
landscaping trucks will leave the site at 8 a.m. and return to property at around 5 p.m. Minimal disturbance will occur to
operational activities associated with the proposed use permit. A total of two crews with two employees per crew are
currently employed for the operation with no plans for occupational expansion. The use permit for a landscaping business
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 49 of 72
requires all use area structure other than parking and pedestrian walkways to be located at least 50 feet from adjacent AG
1 or residential zoning districts. Along the eastern property line labeled L-6, the garage encroaches into the 50-foot
setback. The applicant is requesting a concurrent variance to allow this encroachment. The staff maintains that because of
the configuration of the lot and that the base on the minor subdivision plat that this line is recognized as the minimum 25
foot building setback and that Part I of the concurrent variance should be approved. Regarding the landscape strips and
buffers, the Northwest Overlay District requires a 50-foot wide undisturbed buffer with the 10-foot improvement setback
shall be located adjacent to all AG-1 zoning districts and all properties zoned or developed for residential uses. The
applicant is requesting a reduction from the 50-foot buffer and 10-foot improvement setback to a 10-foot buffer along the
eastern property line. Secondly, his request being a variance to a 15-foot buffer along the south property line. Staff
recommends maintaining a 50-foot buffer along the southern property line adjacent to the garage and removing the
existing boulders placed near the property line to help ensure new plant material growth and stability. The entrance
driveway into the development should be configured to provide ingress-egress access into the garage via the northern side
of the garage area. It is the staff’s opinion that the proposed reduction would have a negative impact on adjacent property
and would not provide adequate protection. Therefore, staff recommends denial of parts II and III of the concurrent
variance. In conclusion the proposed landscaping business is consistent with Council and plan policies and compatible
with surrounding areas if developed in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and staff’s
recommendation conditions. Therefore, staff recommends approval conditional that the use permit for a landscaping
business and approval conditional of Part I or VC07-013, to reduce the 50-foot setback to 40 feet and recommends denial
of Parts II and III of VC07-013 since the proposed reductions and buffers would not provide adequate protection for
adjacent properties to the east and the south.
Mike Cravasi, 270 Brewton Way, Sandy Springs, GA
Presented the application. Stated that the subject property was purchased by the applicant from their eventual retirement
home. He is 63 years old. Fulton County led him to believe that his son-in-law could park his landscape trucks in the
garage as built and no one bothered to tell the applicant that he needed a use permit to do that until they got in trouble a
few months ago and discovered that they needed a use permit. He respectfully requested the following changes to the
petitions as outlined. The subject use permit is needed to allow his son-in-law to park his landscape trucks in the garage
that exists on the subject property, which is adjacent to his home. The existing garage does not provide adequate room for
a 50-foot landscape buffer to the east or the south lot lines. All of the lots in the Max Thomas subdivision are all flagged
lots. And the property adjacent to the east property is a 20-foot wide driveway. That is the way it is platted and then on the
other side of that is a 160-foot wide driveway for lot 3. Both of those lots are owned by Ms. Elaine Thompson. Ms.
Thompson does not have any problem with approving a 10-foot buffer on the east property line abutting her lot no. 1 nor
does she object to the 15-foot buffer on the south property line, which abuts her lot 2. He has a written statement from
Thompson stating that. He stated that the neighbors to the west, south and east are all in support of the request. The
applicant has letters from neighbors, about 13 letters of support, that basically run along the east, west and south property
lines. There are some objections from the north side. He stated he has tried to meet with the neighbors on the north side.
He is going to refer to them as his Northfield’s to discuss the following concessions that they are more than happy to do
and that they believe will benefit those neighbors. The use permit would be delimited by the City of Milton. They are
afraid that once the applicant got a use permit that he can sell the property and someone else will put a big landscaping
business there. He has been told City Attorney that one can limit the use so that when the applicant disposes of the
property, should he dispose of the property, that the use permit would end at that time and he is more than willing to have
that happen. They would commit that they would not be burning any of the landscape debris or dumping any landscape
debris and they would maintain the entrance way. They also will be happy to cover the garage with shade cloth. It is a
Quonset hut and some of the neighbors on the north side complained that it is too shiny, which it is. The applicant would
also install a 50-foot buffer, which was not mentioned but is required by the City of Milton on the north side as well as on
the south and the east sides. They have not been successful in reaching their north field neighbors. Several of them hold
strong opposition and they have not returned the applicant’s calls. He stated that he does have some problems with the
petition itself. Pages 13 and 14, paragraph 1, Landscape Strips and Buffers, the staff’s recommendation changing the
entrance to the garage to the north side is not feasible as the structure would be unstable. It is not engineered to have an
opening on the side, only from the front and the rear. If the Council will not allow that 10-foot buffer on the east side,
which is up against two roadways, the applicant will be forced to use the rear garage entrance, which they do have the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 50 of 72
ability to use and would lose one of the garages, which would be permanently lost to him. He could live with that if he
had to but he prefers not living with it.
The applicant presented a picture of the property from Hopewell Road.
Mike Cravasi stated you cannot see the structure at all from Hopewell Road. It is way back, almost 600 feet back. He
presented a picture of what the Quonset hut looks like from the front and he has two garage bays. One that he plans to
park his cars and one that his son-in-law plans to park his trucks in. He presented a picture of the way the property looks
from the side. One can see the shiny Quonset hut design that frankly he didn’t know it was going to look like that when he
put it up. Had he known he probably would not have put it up but he did not know. He has planted Leyland Cypress all
along the side and in a few years they will cover it up. Meanwhile, the applicant is more than happy to put the shadow
cloth that Mark Law recommended.
The applicant showed the north property.
Mike Cravasi stated one cannot even see the houses through the trees. They are there and they can see the Quonset hut
and he understands that he needs to ground buffer and he is more than happy to do that. There is another problem in that
on the parking requirements, they do not need the parking but if it is required, certainly he is more than happy to put it. He
is not going to have any customers there so they do not need any parking. The applicant stated he could live with the 50
foot buffer to the south but if he does then he will have to pull the trucks in around the north side, which is going to
interfere with the neighbors to the north, much more than if he drives around to the south side where the neighbors there
say they do not care. The nearest house is several hundred feet away and it is one big lot and they do not intend to build
anymore houses near the applicant. It is a giant lot. Lastly, the applicant stated that he does have a problem with page 17,
1B in the recommended conditions. It says that they cannot build more than 1890 square feet on the property. That is the
garage. When it was originally approved they had plan to build a garage and a house. Obviously, the applicant cannot
live with that so he respectfully asked that that be removed. The applicant stated that he would like to reserve the rest of
his time for rebuttal.
Mike Cravasi stated they did have 13 letters of support from Hopewell Road neighbors, 14770, 14790, the Thompson's
and the McMillan's are all in favor of it. And the Stratford Drive property, which is on the west side, he has strong support
in there. He has 700, 750, 760, 770, 790, 765, 775, 785 and 795 Stratford Drive all in support of what the applicant is
doing. With that the applicant reserves the rest of his time.
He presented letters to the Council. He also attached the signature letter on what he just read. He stated some of the
signatures are missing.
City Clerk Marchiafava asked the applicant if he was stating that the people that filled out, she has six public comment
cards from people that would like to speak in support, that he would still like to reserve the rest of his time and allowed
them to speak at this time.
Mike Cravasi stated that he would like to speak in his rebuttal time.
James Caveli, 420 North Field, Milton, GA
James Caveli stated that he would like to give the Council an idea of the location. It is near the corner of Francis and
Hopewell so it is well back into the residential area of Milton. Throughout this evening, he has heard the Council talk
pretty extensively about building heights, building aesthetics, building features so that they blend in with the community.
He thinks if one takes a look at those pictures he will see that that building would be hard pressed to bring into an
industrial park. The community has a lot of concerns about that building there without the proper buffers and things in
place. Also, a landscape business running between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., he thinks that is quite unusual. Landscape businesses
used in the summer time will run from 6 a.m. until 9 or 10 p.m. Also, the burning that the applicant briefly touched on has
stopped, but he thinks that is because of the drought and the conditions that they have now. Also the painting that the
applicant mentioned that they would cover it up with some type of cloth or covering. They have been having these types
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 51 of 72
of conversations for two years now. It has not gotten to this point because the City of Milton has asked them what they are
doing here and has asked them to meet those guidelines and standards. One of the concerns also planting the buffer. The
building itself is raised probably on the lot of six or eight feet. If one plants things on the buffer back towards North Field,
the trees would have to be 15 feet tall or 20 feet tall to truly buffer the building where it cannot be seen. That would take
quite a few years for some very large trees. Based on all of these facts, he cannot speak for the whole community; there
are others who have letters from the community. But he would like for the Council to consider what the Planning
Commission recommended to deny. The use permit and the variances based on the negative impact to their community.
Anna Fraker, 430 Northwest Pass, Milton, GA
Anna Fraker stated that she has a letter singed by 15 neighbors. There are 20 families that live in North Field, the others
were on vacation. She also wanted to present a picture of this thing from her backyard and how shiny and ghastly it is.
The undersigned property owners in the North Field subdivision oppose the issuance of a land use permit for JDF
Landscaping located south and east of North Field subdivision due to the lack of buffering, the unsightly metal structure
and the potentially heavy equipment, noise and traffic. During the past two years JDF has been using this property to
conduct business they have experienced relentless burning, dumping, littering and loitering on the property. They have
cleaned trash and debris from the entrance of their neighborhood that originated from this business. This adversely affects
their property values and safety of the residents and their families. The applicant has shown no concern for the adjacent
property owners in North Field until the City of Milton made this an issue. Therefore, we asked the Council to deny the
land use permit based on the facts above. Her fence is eight feet tall and as one can see, this structure is built up so it way
above her fence line. An eight foot tall fence is really high. As far as buffering, she just does not know how that would
work with trees planted at her fence level because they did cut all the way back to her fence. There are no trees. She
stated that on the south and east side where the applicant is applying for the variances, those people can not see this thing,
it is much wooded. Staff recommends a north entrance into the structure. Fraker stated that was completely unacceptable.
That is where they are. They have talked with the neighbors. They have called them and they have talked with Mike
Cravasi, who is a very nice guy. He has talked with the neighbors and again, everyone has a real bad taste in their mouth
from all of the past experiences with the burning and being yelled at and complete disregard for their neighborhood. To
build a structure like that and saying that…at first it was a dream house garage, but now it is a business. So everyone has
that bad taste in their mouth. She presented the Council with the letter.
Ed Parsons, 2950 Serenade Court, Milton, GA
Ed Parsons stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Avensong homeowners' association. They recommend that the
Mayor and City Council accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny U07-006 and VC07-013 parts I-III,
partially abuts residential property and is located within the agricultural, forestry and mining land use designation on the
Focus Fulton 2025 comprehensive land use plan.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that the next several people want their comments read into the record.
Gloria Luca, 8505 Northfield Pass, Milton, GA
Stated that as the property abuts the subdivision of North Field, I respectfully ask that:
1. The use permit be denied as the Cravasi and Versailles have been operating a business for two years without
applying for necessary permits.
2. The property has been clear cut to the north border removing any vegetative barrier or screening for
homeowners to block the view of the 42x45 foot aluminum Quonset. They have been reluctant to block view
of the building.
3. No toilet facilities exist for workers. They are littering on property abutting the North Field community with
trash and woods.
4. Fires have been a repeated occurrence even during ban periods.
5. Cravasi and Versailles have exemplified their activity, lack of regard for neighbor’s property to be bad
neighbors.
She said that only now has there been contact and an appeal to grant compliance to neighbors’ requests. Unfortunately,
due to past experience and action they do not feel that Cravasi and Versailles will adhere to any guidelines.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 52 of 72
Tia Crawford, 490 Northfield Pass, Milton, GA
As a board member of Northfield homeowners' association the board is not supportive of approving the applicant’s
request, the view of the building and the possible business practices clearly negatively impact the value of the homes in
Northfield subdivision. The subdivision is most impacted of surrounding neighborhoods due to view and proximity. The
applicant’s driveway is directly adjacent to ours. Again I ask that the use permit be denied.
Ann Festa, 540 Champion Hills Drive, Milton, GA
The variance for use in this landscaping business does not meet the zoning requirements.
Roger Festa, 540 Champion Hills Drive, Milton, GA
This is not a conformance with the law on intended use and would set a precedent for commercial zoning.
Robert Johnson, 520 Champion Hills Drive, Milton, GA
The variance for use for the landscaping business does not meet the zoning requirements and would constitute a
commercial use. For the record, City Clerk Jeanette Marchiafava called Leon Mr. Cole. He is no longer present. She asked
the applicant to present his rebuttal.
Jeff Hertsy, 785 Stratford Drive, Milton, GA
Jeff Hertsy stated that he wanted to address the concerns because he is a concerned neighbor. The letter that they are
talking about, if one is there at four-way, which is from the passers by. It is stacked up to Northfield and the workers loiter
at dangerous streets. The applicant had told Mr. Fraker that they would put in some Lelands and he seemed happy about
that. As far as the removal of the pine trees, Hertsy has pictures showing the pine beetle infestation. This is on the
applicant’s property. If one looks at the picture there are only three residents that are really impacted in Northfield. All of
the people in the far back and he has several people, there are two neighbors that live to the left of him and two members
that live to the right of him. They have seen this and they are here in support. The president of the homeowners'
association, Robert Lusden is here and the applicant stated that he really just wants to support his family and live behind
this facility and do what he needs to do. He will be more than happy to put the shade cloth on their like they did at Webb
Road and Freemanville on those four enormous green houses. He wants to do the right thing.
City Clerk Marchiafava asked if anyone else wanted to speak on behalf of the applicant.
Rob Weston, 700 Stratford Drive, Milton, GA
As president of the Stratford Estates homeowners' association and on behalf of the majority of the homeowners he would
like to voice their support for the use permit for the landscape business at 14792 Hopewell Road. They have had only
positive interactions with Mr. Versailles and his landscaping business, JBS Landscaping. In fact, JBS has serviced their
neighborhood entrance and several homes in the subdivision exceptionally well with a keen eye on aesthetic appeal. JBS
has demonstrated repeatedly that they are environmentally conscientious and respectful of surrounding homes and
neighborhoods. As for the property and the building at 14792 Hopewell Road it is their opinion that the structure is not
easy to see from the road year round. It is set back significantly far from the road and is blocked by pine trees and many
other trees both evergreen and deciduous. Weston is extremely confident that Versailles will do everything in his power to
ensure that the neighbors that the neighbors surrounding the property are appeased in this process as he and his staff have
a very high level of customer satisfaction with all their work. They all know Jeff Versailles personally and they have no
doubt that he will do what is in the best interest of Milton, neighbors, neighboring subdivisions and North Fulton in a very
respectful way. As a result Weston respectfully requested that the Council grant Jeff and JBS Landscaping the use permit
that use permit that he is seeking.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there were 10 seconds left if anyone would like to provide comment.
Jack Notcholencia, 775 Stratford Drive, Milton, GA
Jack Notcholencia stated that he was right next to JBS and he has one of the best views of the Quonset hut. In the summer
and fall one can barely see it. He knows Jeff very well.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 53 of 72
Mayor Lockwood asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Christian Veo, 415 Northfield Path, Milton, GA
Christina Veo stated that his only comment is that it is only adjacent to a couple of homes in Northfield. Obviously it is a
small community so it adversely impacts the value of all of the homes in the community. Hopefully, the Council will take
that into consideration as they take a look at the pictures. It clearly is an eyesore.
Mayor Lockwood made a motion to close the public hearing. He asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Councilmember Mohrig asked when that structure was built. The applicants had stated that it was completed in
December of 2005 and after he put it up he realized that it didn’t look like what he thought it was going to look like. So in
2006 he added a fake front and a fake rear to make it look nice in the front and rear. There was nothing they could do
about the sides. At the time the manufacturer told him that they had to wait two years before they could paint because they
put an oil finish on it and would take about two years for it to slightly oxidize and for the oil finish to wear off. He did not
know about the shade cloth until last week when he found out from the arborist that something like that existed.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he believes the applicant had mentioned that he was willing to put shade cloth and plant
more buffer material. The applicant stated that he was willing to plant whatever the arborist requires on the northern
buffer area. One thing they agree with the Northfield neighbors is that it is the wrong thing to do to put the entrance on the
north side. Right now the Leyland Cypresses will grow. They grow three or four feet a year and in a few years they will
hide that north side of the building. Eventually when the applicant builds his house there that will further hide the
building. He does not plan to see the building either. The shade cloth as he understands it will make the building
practically invisible or at least that is the way Mark Law explained it to him. The applicant is sure that Law can elaborate
on that. Mayor Lockwood stated that it sounds like they have a couple of issues. Obviously, the applicant is coming to the
Council wishing for variances and use permits, but then they also have neighbors here that he certainly understands and
respects if they have a problem or not looking at something very appealing. This may be an opportunity to work together
with them and come up with something that might…the applicant stated that he would be more than happy to do that. But
basically if he does not get the use permit, his son-in-law moves out and they just leave the structure sitting there for the
next three or four years until he builds or should he decide to sell the property, which he does not plan to do at this time.
The best way for the neighbors he believes is for the Council to give him the use permit. He will plant the buffer zone, 50
feet of trees is a lot of trees, and put the shade cloth on the building or paint the building. He does not care whether he
paints it or puts the shade cloth on it. That should solve their problem. The alternative is just to leave it the way that it is.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the special use permit has development standards and those development
standards are supposed to be met. It seems to her that the development standards are not met in this case. They have
development standards for a reason. The fact that a piece of property may not meet those standards does not create a
hardship. The fact that this was built back in 2005 and a special use permit was not pursued until code enforcement
identified this as a concern highlights that perhaps the intent to meet these standards was not always the intent. She is
always very consistent in her application of the land use policies and she has said in other similar cases that if a parcel
does not meet the development standards for a use permit, she does not believe that that use permit should be allowable.
They have heard that there is an impact to neighbors and she thinks that that impact is not for the Council to discount.
That impact is why they have development standards. As an example, the Planning Commission recommended both
denial of those variances as well as the denial of the use permit but did so based on the fact that this was not
commensurate with the residential community that this abuts. Not every parcel is necessarily entitled or vested by law to
allow for every use that is contemplated. Again, when a use permit cannot meet those development standards…With
regards to this building, separate from the fact that this land use and this parcel cannot meet those development standards,
this building is absolutely not in keeping with the northwest Fulton overlay. She would be remiss if she didn’t say that. A
use that does not meet the standards put forward by Fulton County, it does not meet the use or the buffers or the building
standards as put forth and adopted by the City of Milton. She supports the Planning Commission’s recommendation to
deny the use permit and to deny the variances for all of the legal reasons that a use permit is supposed to meet those buffer
standards.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 54 of 72
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that she would like to add a couple of comments to Councilmember Zahner Bailey’s.
The use permit or the code enforcement for the City found this violation because a citizen reported it. So, apparently there
were challenges with the trucks entering early in the morning when the first Northfield complaints were made and then
code enforcement found it. It was not just happenstance that code enforcement found the fact that this business was being
back there.
Mike Cravasi stated that was not what they were told. What he was told was that there was a berm out on Hopewell Road
and the officer was there to inspect the berm and while he was there he decided to inspect the property.
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that she actually knows exactly how it happened. She knows first hand exactly how it
happened. It seems like there is an overwhelming number of homeowners and she has been out there and has seen the
proximity of the Northfield community as well as the Stratford community but in the back of the building it is a little
different the way the subdivision is offset. Also, one can see the building from Hopewell Road. So, fairly clearly with the
photos that this gentleman presented to us tonight compared to photos that the applicant presented and as Councilmember
Zahner Bailey mentioned, the fact that it was built without following or looking into what the requirements may be for a
use permit does not create a hardship for the City to then create a variance around. Her opinion is that the Council should
support what the Planning Commission has said as well with regard to the use of this building and deny the Use Permit
and the variance.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there were any differing points of view on this case.
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that she would like to make a motion to that effect.
Motion and Second: Councilmember D'Aversa moved to deny U07-006 VC07-013 Use Permit and the variances for the
landscaping business, JBS. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Mayor Joe Lockwood asked about the partial approval by Staff.
Community Development Director Wilson clarified that the existing garage intrudes into the setback, so staff
recommended approval of a variance because it is an existing building and beginning to move it over, the jury’s out. The
other variance is to reduce the buffers. Staff did not recommend that because that provides protection to the adjacent
neighbors. It is his understanding that the applicant can still plant those buffers, if he can meet those standards. It is
possible for him to meet the standards of a use permit although he has asked for variances tonight because of standards.
Staff did not recommend approval of those variances because they think he meet those standards.
Mayor Lockwood asked about the use permit.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the use permit is a permitted use in an agricultural zoning district
provided one meets the standards. This is why staff recommended approval because they feel that he can meet those
standards and that it is consistent with the policies and the agricultural district.
Councilmember Lusk stated that one of the conditions they talked about here, if they were to approve the use permit and
retain the existing building, is that it would be camouflaged in some sort.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they could certainly make that a condition of zoning that it could
be camouflaged. Were the Council to consider approval of this, he also wanted to add that in condition 1B that future
construction of a single family home on this property shall not be included in the maximum density stated in condition 1B.
That would allow the applicant to build a home.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 55 of 72
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that basically what they have is they have a variance that if they allow the use permit
than they have to entertain the variance. If they do not allow the use permit the denial of the variance is a moot point. That
is why she was recommending denial.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he understood that. It sounds like staff went the reverse way. If the applicant brought it up
to standards then they would recommend it for permit use.
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that they really cannot bring it up to standard unless they get the variance. Tom Wilson
is saying that they can. They have asked to reduce these buffers to 10 feet but there is room to plant the buffers. So if they
planted the buffers then they would meet the standards and it would reduce the appearance of that building. This is the
staff’s perspective on this.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they could meet all of the standards except that the existing
garage intrusive to the building setback. They can still plant all of the buffers; there is room to plant all of the buffers so
that they meet all of the standards of the use permit.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he still was not clear. Were there conditions that the applicant can meet so that they follow
the guidelines for a use permit?
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that she respectfully disagrees that the building itself would not meet the City’s
standards from a perspective the Council had approved something like this building.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that it almost seems that there are a couple of issues, he thinks Lockwood has alluded to
that he thinks the neighbors who spoke in opposition are legitimately concerned with the appearance. He thinks almost
anyone would say that the picture that was passed around, it was not attractive. He does not think that Quonset Huts were
designed to be attractive. On the other hand, they have some comments that are very favorable toward the applicant and
business as members of the community. It seems to him that whether the Council approves or denies the use permit, it
does not really solve the underlying problem. It almost seems that the only leverage they have to try and fix the problem,
unless the applicant can help him with some ideas, is to use the hook of the use permit. He has not gotten the sense that
there is any objection to the activity at the level that it is. His understanding is if this is denied the building stays there and
is still an eyesore and still troubling to the neighbors.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that denial of this use permit will not remove that building.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that conversely approval of a use permit means that it would be used more readily
than what it is being used today. She would asked if it be the pleasure of the Mayor, that at some point she would like to
ask the residents that are most directly impacted to answer the question as to whether they have a concern with the use
beyond just the building. Whenever that is appropriate, she stated that she would like to ask that question of those that
stated their concerns.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he will allow that because what he heard was mainly it was visual.
City Attorney Scott stated that it was certainly up to Mayor Lockwood as to whether or not to allow the question.
Mayor Lockwood stated that it was okay.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that her question to those who have spoken in opposition would be if they could
speak to the concerns.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he knows they cannot speak as a group but after one says something if those that agree
could perhaps could raise their hand afterwards rather than have everybody come up.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 56 of 72
Anna Fraker stated that she was one of the neighbors that spoke in opposition and stated that once the building was
erected on the property it was used for business purposes immediately. At the Planning Commission meeting, there was a
neighbor that spoke about finding hundred and hundreds of cigarette butts on the back side of this property meaning there
is loitering. There is loitering going on, on the property. They see lots of people in and out of there and they do hang out
there. That was a major concern. As to the burning, they have made fires that are so high that embers were falling into the
neighbor’s pool. They could not go outside. They could not even have their garage door open because the smoke would
just go in there. They have major issues with burning. Now the applicant said that he was not going to burn anymore. As
to littering, they are bringing all of the debris from the landscape jobs and these are all major, major issues that the
neighbors have. As far as the building goes, the Council has seen the picture. She has an eight-foot tall fence. If` the
building stays there it will the neighbor’s responsibility to plant their own buffer. At least they will not have the trucks
going in and out. They are concerned about heavy equipment. The applicant says that he is not going to have heavy
equipment and they say a lot of things, but the neighbors have had very bad experiences with the ongoings over there.
Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey stated that she hears that to mean that the neighbors are not just concerned with the
building but they are concerned with the activity that is occurring as to the underlying business.
Anna Fraker stated that was correct and she has heard from the applicant that if the neighbors go against him they are
going to be stuck with this building. She feels that they are already stuck with this building. It has been there for two
years. There were woods and when the builder just came in, the neighbor thought that it was a house. Then they thought it
was an airplane hanger. Someone had referred to it as a “mother ship”. It is just horrible. So, they have had the building.
A landscape business in that area does not fit.
Councilmember Thurman asked if the building was properly permitted as an accessory structure, or how was it
permitted through Fulton County.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he assumed it was just permitted as an accessory structure.
Councilmember Thurman asked if they know for sure that it ever received the proper permits as it is.
Senior Planner Robyn MacDonald stated that they did get a building permit for a garage but as a garage it would not be
under the northwest overlay district standard. It was a residential garage permitted by Fulton County.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it should not have been permitted as an accessory garage as one
cannot permit a secondary use prior to a primary use.
Councilmember Thurman stated that what she is saying is, is the building legal the way it is currently constructed since
there is no house there and it was permitted as a garage to go along with the house.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he thinks probably it is permitted legally.
Mayor Lockwood asked if it was sitting over the buffer, the setback line.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was over a setback line apparently.
Senior Planner MacDonald stated that it was correct for a building setback for the AG-1 district.
Councilmember Thurman stated that if it does not need a use permit then it is fine the way it is.
Senior Planner MacDonald stated that was correct. It does not meet the standards of the use permit but it meets the
standards of an AG-1 building setback.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 57 of 72
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the difference in what she heard Councilmember Thurman asking though was
that because there is not a primary structure, it is questionable that one could have an accessory structure, then he does not
have the primary structure to define the accessory use. She is perplexed that there is an accessory structure with no
primary use. In other words, there is no home that is built, which implies that perhaps the intent was always to operate a
business without the appropriate and legally required use permits.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he may have misstated that. It can be a primary use as a garage on
and agricultural property. So it has established itself as a garage as a primary use on this property. They are talking about
it as though it is a secondary use or an accessory use.
Councilmember Thurman clarified that that is how it was permitted originally.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he cannot say that.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if they had evidence of the original permit.
Senior Planner MacDonald stated that staff had the permit.
Mayor Lockwood asked staff if it is properly permitted as a garage, as it sits there now and is AG-1-5-3, knowing the use
that the applicant uses it for now, or would like to use it, what is the applicant allowed to legally do with this garage
sitting on AG-1 property?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he was allowed to use it as a garage. He is allowed to park his
landscape trucks in there. That does meet the required use permit. It is only whenever he starts utilizing the property for a
landscape business that he is required the use permit.
Mayor Lockwood asked the applicant if this was something he used just to park his trucks.
Jeff Hertsey stated that he has not had an illegal fire there. He did have a few fires before but now he has a Dumpster on
that he puts all of his debris in so there will be no more debris put there. He wants to do the right thing, he would like to
help them out but they do not sound like they want to work with him. He does not know what to do. He believes that since
he has been a resident it has been behind there for three-and-a-half years, he wants it to sell and everything to be nice. He
wants to maintain his share. He is just trying to support his family. He has four daughters and beautiful property and he
does realize that they need a big buffer. He has drawn up a plan; he has four rows of 27 evergreens he is willing to plant.
They need to be five feet but if they are wiling to make them seven feet, he is willing to work with these people. He has
attempted to reach Jim Caveli three or four times. He would not answer his calls. He left him a note, he would not call
him. The applicant stated that he does not know what else to do.
Mayor Lockwood clarified legally and with staff that if the applicant is using it as a garage, just parking trucks there, he
is legal and does not need a permit. He asked staff if that was correct
Community Development Director Wilson stated that was correct. He does not require a use permit to park a truck in a
garage out of sight.
Mayor Lockwood stated that when he mentioned having a Dumpster there….
Jeff Hertsey stated that it was not there, it is on SR 9 at another place. There will not be anymore debris and he has never
had an illegal fire there. He apologized for worrying the Planning Commission about those fires. He has told the neighbor
that he would never do that again and he means that. They are welcome to come over there any time they want, including
all of his close neighbors. He even invited Councilmember Zahner Bailey to come by there the day he called her about 11
or 12 today.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 58 of 72
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she did get a call today and would have not been appropriate for her to come
with a Council session this evening. She got the message at 4:30 p.m.; she had to be here today.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he may be thinking outside of the box but is he correct in thinking that possibly the
applicant, if that is the use that he is using does not need a variance and does not need a use permit.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he thinks the applicant is operating a landscape business there
and he needs this use permit. One could park an airplane in that garage and not be an airport as long as it is out of sight it
is just storage.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the reality is that this is being used as a business and that is why code
enforcement has been out there. It is why the applicant has neighbors that have voiced their concern, not just with the
structure but with the use. She is going to go back to the definition of use permit. If the use permit does not meet the
development standard it perhaps is not the right parcel for the use. It does not mean that there aren’t other agriculture
parcels that can meet standards, but a use permit is not by right applicable to every agricultural piece of land. The very
nature of the variances that are being requested that cannot be met indicate that this parcel does not fit with the use that is
being proposed. She stated that to the Mayor’s question about could the garage be used for parking trucks, she thinks that
the answer is yes. She thinks that that is not what is being requested. What is being requested is a use permit to operate a
business next to a residential community that says that it impacts their quality of life. They did not anticipate this use next
to them because it cannot meet the standards.
Mike Cravasi stated that all he wanted to do was park the trucks there. My son-in-law, Jeff, got sloppy and the applicant
fussed at him before the building inspector came out. He told him that he wanted it cleaned up. Jeff was so busy that he
was not taking the stuff to the dump like he had committed to the applicant that he would. It was never intended to be
anything other than a place to park his trucks. And that is all they really want. The only reason they have gone through
this painful exercise is because the applicant was told that he had to have a use permit to park the trucks there. Fulton
County told him he did not back when got the original plans and everything. He was shocked when he was told that they
needed a use permit.
Mayor Lockwood asked the applicant to clarify exactly what he wants to use that structure for. The applicant stated it
was just to park the trucks. That is all.
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that the reason why the code enforcement officer required that he have a use permit to
operate a landscape business is because he deemed in his professional opinion that the applicant is operating a landscape
business, not just parking his trucks. That is the whole point of this request for a use permit.
Mike Cravasi stated that he is happy to decease any activities other the parking the trucks there if that is what the City
requires. That is what his intention is anyhow.
Mayor Lockwood stated if that is the case.
Community Development Director Wilson asked the applicant if he operates a landscape business anywhere. Is he a
landscaper?
The Applicant Jeff stated that he operates from his truck.
Community Development Director Wilson asked where his base of operation to operate a landscape business?
The Applicant Jeff stated that his house is where he and his wife do all of the billing, right behind the building.
Community Development Director Wilson asked if it was on the same property.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 59 of 72
The Applicant Jeff stated that it was not, it was in his house behind this.
Community Development Director Wilson asked where the applicant’s workers come to when they come to work?
The Applicant Jeff stated that they pull up to the barn, to the motor shed.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he thinks the applicant is operating a landscape business on this
property.
Councilmember Mohrig asked Tom Wilson if he reads staff’s recommendation, they are saying that the applicant could
qualify for a valid use permit, but they are going to have to meet the required variances, is that correct.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he thinks they can meet all of the standards of the use permit if
the variances are denied. They have asked for variances for their convenience. He thinks there is room to meet all of the
standards of a use permit but the applicant would have to plan all of those variances. The only thing he cannot meet is that
40-foot setback. But that is a setback, not a buffer and that is because the existing building is already there. A setback is
not a standard of the use permit, that setback is a standard of the zoning district.
Senior Planner MacDonald stated that the setback for zoning is the use permit.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated it is a development standard for the use permit.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the 50-foot is also a standard of the use permit that the applicant
cannot meet without moving that building. So to answer your question, he cannot meet all of the standards of the use
permit without moving that building.
Mayor Lockwood stated that they have a motion and a seconded on the floor.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey made a motion to call the previous question. Vote was taken and the motion failed.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the Council was still in discussion.
A member of the audience stated that since the opposition got to speak on the impact to the neighborhood.
City Clerk Marchiafava asked the speaker if he had filled out a card. He stated that he has. She asked the speaker if he
was opposed or in support?
The speaker stated that he was in support.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that those supporting the application were out of time.
Mayor Lockwood stated that public comment was closed.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that it seems as though that either two parties are unhappy out of this or there could be
some happiness. He is not sure what the path to happiness is but it seems as though the folks who have legitimate
concerns are not going to get anything different done with a denial. But the petitioners seem willing and the City certainly
has the ability to enforce conditions that might improve this situation. He asked staff if there is an ability…he has not
heard any real complaints about the operation. He has not heard anything about noise or that sort of thing. If one had a
smoker that lived next door to him there would be cigarette butts. That is a matter of courtesy that can be worked out
between neighbors even though it is a legitimate concern. He is still a little confused when Robyn MacDonald and Tom
Wilson talked about the standards. He is not sure if this situation can be brought into compliance in a way that perhaps
would please the neighbors that have concerns now, perhaps improve the appearance and maybe the neighbors can work
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 60 of 72
together a little bit here. He does not think it is offense in the occasions that the Council step into the role as mediators. He
does not think they are that far apart right now.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he had asked that question and he thinks that they get some response that it was. At first he
thought it was just visual but there is some concern…he goes back to if the applicant is just wanting to park his trucks
there. He thinks he is legal parking his trucks, but then it goes back to the question of is he running a business out of
there? It sounds like he may be running the business out of there. If the applicant just wants to park his trucks there does
he have an issue with that?
Jeff Hertsey stated that he is willing to do whatever it takes to make the Council and the neighbors happy. If he needs to
have them park somewhere else and go pick them up, that is fine. He will plant the trees, he will do….he wants to make it
look nice. We have spent a lot of money on this barn. Jeff feels like he owes him the $70,000 or $80,000 and it is going to
be awfully hard for him to pay the rent down the road and try to pay back his father-in-law.
Mayor Lockwood asked the Council if the applicant agrees to abide by the legal use that he has for this property, just to
park his trucks, not run a business, not have his employees gather there and what not. And if he is willing to possibly
improve the buffer for the sake of the neighbors, is that a reasonable solution to this?
Jeff Hertsey stated that he cannot afford to pay his guys to loiter. The only litter that he has seen is out there on the main
road, Hopewell.
Mayor Lockwood sated that he thinks the technicality is if the applicant has employees that show up there, and meet
there in the mornings and then drive the trucks off that would be considered a business.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that was correct but he would also like to asked if there are any kind
of materials stored there, any kind of mulching or equipment or whatever? Is it just the trucks sitting there?
Jeff Hertsey stated that he did not have any Bobcats, or any earth moving equipment. The debris that was there, the
builder told him to put that there for the foundation around the basin that he is eventually going to have there.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he thinks the applicant is operating a landscape business from all
that he could hear.
James Cravasi asked the Council if they could tell him what he would need to do to just be parking his trucks there and
not be running a landscape business because he is willing to do whatever he has to do.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he thinks he just has to park his trucks there.
Mike Cravasi stated that he has to be able to get in them and drive them out, too.
Mayor Joe Lockwood stated that he would and that technically if he has employees arrive there and maybe park their
cars and then get in the trucks and go, then it would be a business.
Mike Cravasi clarified that if he does not have employees arrive there and rather he has someone go in, pick up the truck
and drive it out, then he is not running a business. They talked about renting a bay somewhere and that is all that they are
going to do there is park the trucks in the bay. That is what the applicant thought he was providing was a bay.
Mayor Joe Lockwood stated that he is not an expert in this but it sounds to him like if he just parked his trucks there and
went over in the morning and took the truck or trucks out and met his employees somewhere else and they went to work,
he would not be running a business there.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 61 of 72
Community Development Director Wilson stated that was correct but his question is, can he drive two trucks out at one
time?
Councilmember O’Brien stated that the other issue seems to be just to cease the operation but while he is here, have an
expressed willingness and having identified a bit of a problem in the community….if he does get back over the gray side
of the line, do not operate his business. In other words have his operating crews report there. Having indicated that the
applicant operates the paper end of the business out of his home that could mitigate some of the problems that have been
noted. And further, having had a fairly exhausted discussion of the eyesore, which no one seems to dispute, perhaps as a
gesture of good will he could do some planting and camouflage either through paint or some cover the Quonset hut.
Maybe that would be a positive move for all concerned. Keep in mind that this Council tends to look very closely at
landscape businesses, so they have reviewed this very thoroughly.
James Cravasi stated that they have no problem if he can continue to run out of there then they have no problem parking
his trucks there and covering up the building and planting some trees. Whatever the Council wants them to do. He is
already committed that he will plant the trees and he will either paint the building, which he preferred not doing. He
would prefer probably the shade cloth because eventually the paint will start peeling, where the shade cloth will not.
Mayor Lockwood stated that it sounds like to him that policy-wise and technically the applicant does not meet the
requirements for a use permit without a variance. It sounds like if he just wanted to park his trucks there and not work out
there and not have employees come there he could do that, legally. As far as planting the buffers or fixing it, that would be
goodwill with the neighbors, but he is still not sure what they, as a Council…it sounds like the applicant may not need
them for any decisions if that were the case. If the applicant were to just park his trucks there and that is a legal use for
the property.
Mike Cravasi stated that he does not just work out of there. He really honestly wants to make the neighbors happy. He
knows that they all hate him right now, but the fact of the matter is he really does want to help their eyesore out. He will
be glad to give all of the Council his business card. They can call him and come look at the property anytime they want.
Someone from the audience asked the Mayor if she could speak.
Mayor Lockwood stated that they closed the public hearing and he already asked the other gentleman not to.
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that she will withdraw her motion and make a motion to defer this two allow the two to
work something out.
Mayor Lockwood asked if they could set up a meeting and have staff present and try to come up with solutions.
Councilmember Thurman added if the applicant is open to that.
From the Audience: A neighbor stated that they have talked with the applicant and they are very easy to talk to. This is
not a personal thing. They keep going back and forth because they have talked to Mike Cravasi and he has promised that
they are never going to burn, they are never going to have employees loitering, and they are never going to litter. It all
sounds great but the neighbors are concerned that she does not know how this could appease them. She really does not
because of the fact that all of this stuff did go on in the past and it was not until it was made an issue that now the
applicant is saying that they will not do it. That is the neighbors’ only problem. She does not know how to fix that. She
really, really does not.
City Attorney Scott stated that if it happens again the neighbors should call code enforcement.
Mayor Lockwood stated that the other option is if nothing is decided here and they do not do anything, if there is any of
that activity code enforcement is aware of it and the neighbor should call code enforcement.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 62 of 72
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that the applicant does not have a permit at this time to operate a landscape business. If
the neighbors and the applicant are going to come together, the Council is going to defer this and they are going to work it
out and come back before the Council. He cannot operate a landscape business.
Councilmember Thurman stated that if he sets his application before them he can continue to operate until….
Senior Planner MacDonald stated that he was illegally operating a landscaping business.
Councilmember Thurman thought that if he applied for a use permit they had to let him...the neighbor stated that there
have also been things brought up about how the land use permit goes with the person and not with the land.
From the Audience: Neighbor stated they are concerned because the applicant is a real estate investor. It could be to
lease…they feel like there is something else going on. Her house is directly impact by this as was shown in the pictures.
When she went to the community with all their promises they were very positive about what they were willing to do.
Every single person there said no, there is no way. The Council is putting them in a very tough situation and she really
does not know how this is going to play out.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that he wanted to emphasize that now that Milton is its own City, he assured the
neighbor that community development, code enforcement will not tolerate nuisance activities. They have a total burn ban
now. It has been pointed out that one cannot operate without the use permit even in the fashion that has been described.
He would reassure the neighbors that although the frustrations that they mentioned during the Fulton era are relevant, they
are applicable to what is going on in Milton now.
From the Audience: Neighbor asked how one covers up a building.
City Attorney Scott stated that they have a motion and they need to close the public comments.
Mayor Lockwood agreed that they need to do something. Bottom line is if they deny everything, the applicant can park
his trucks there legally and he does not really have anything that he has do buffer-wise or whatever for the neighbors.
He stated there is a motion on the floor from Councilmember D’Aversa to defer.
City Attorney Scott stated that Councilmember D’Aversa has asked to withdraw her motion. The Council needs…there
either needs to be a motion or the Council can give unanimous consent.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Councilmember D’Aversa if it was still her pleasure to withdraw. Councilmember
D’Aversa stated that this has turned into a little bit of a debacle.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Councilmember D’Aversa what the intent of her motion was. Is she asking for
withdrawal or does her initial motion to deny stand?
Councilmember D’Aversa stated that the parties are amiable to getting together and trying to work this out. It sounds
like the rest of the Council seems to want to support that. She certainly wants to support it if things can be worked out. If
they are not willing to, then they are deferring it for no reason.
City Attorney Scott stated the motion has actually been on the floor and seconded. It was never approved. Mr. Scott
stated that Councilmember D’Aversa requested a withdrawal.
Councilmember D'Aversa stated that they would just leave that on the table.
Mayor Lockwood stated that there was a motion on the floor from Councilmember D’Aversa to deny the application,
seconded by Councilmember Zahner Bailey.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 63 of 72
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed 5-2, with Councilmember Lusk and Councilmember
Mohrig voting in opposition.
City Clerk Marchiafava read agenda Item No. 07-442
ZM07-007 - To modify Condition 3a (03Z-159) to reduce the perimeter building setback along the north property line for
Lot 33, Phase 4-Unit 1 of Triple Crown Subdivision from 50 feet to 36 feet.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that staff recommendation is approval for conditions. Robyn
MacDonald will provide a little background.
Senior Planner MacDonald stated that this request was to modify condition 3a to reduce the perimeter building setback
along the north property line from 50 to 36 feet for lot 33 of Triple Crown Subdivision. Basically staff recommends
approval. It is based on staff being of the opinion that the reduction of the perimeter setback of this lot from 50 to 36 feet
would be consistent with the intent of the overall plan for the subdivision. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed
modification would have minimal adverse effect on the adjacent properties if the additional 25-foot landscape strip,
planted to buffer standards was required. Therefore, staff recommends approval conditional. So basically, if the Council
chooses to approve this modification it would read…On Lot 33, Phase 4 it would be buffered by a 25-foot landscape strip
planted to buffer standards along the north property line adjacent to Sycamore Farm, marked at the beginning of land lot
773 and continuing for approximately 250 feet. Condition 3A would read, perimeter building setback to lot 33 phase 4
unit 1 would be 36 feet.
There has been no opposition for this request.
David Neal, 2925 Lee’s Garden Lane, Johns Creek, GA
Presented the application and stated he is the builder of the home. He built the home and set the plans to where the house
is supposed to go. Apparently in their investigation as to why this home this home would go over the side setback lines,
Apparently on the job site when they were putting the footings in he discovered that the house would not fit where they
had it staked and they arbitrarily moved it over 12 feet. Without their knowledge, with no input of theirs, they violated the
codes on the house and they did the survey and it showed…..the homeowners that are purchasing the home did agree to
purchase the home provided that Neal would get the permits and do the modification on this. That is what he is requesting.
He is willing to go along with the recommendations. One problem they have here is the septic tank and fields go from the
left end of the house towards the front of the land line. A few plants, anything other than grass in the septic field would
cause a lot of problems. From the back of the septic tank back to a point there is really no runoff so that literally planting
trees, etc. in the septic area is just asking for problems.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any opposition.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there was no opposition.
David Neal stated that the adjacent land owner is fine with this he has no qualms.
Councilmember Lusk asked if they had a statement from the adjacent land owner.
David Neal stated that he did. The adjacent land owner is Tom O’Rourke. He owns the adjacent 31 acres to the property.
Mayor Lockwood closed the public hearing.
He asked if there were any questions for the applicant from the Council. Mayor Lockwood stated that he knows there was
a recommendation for 25-foot buffer, a 25-foot planting strip. How much of that is impacted? With the issue of the septic
tank, how much of that is impacted. The septic field actually goes all the way to the property line. It is within four feet of
the property line. So there is really no over planting of anything other than grass, which they already have there in that
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 64 of 72
area. The adjacent homeowner does not have a problem with the way it is and the homeowners that own the home, they
would be fine with having the grass there where it is.
Councilmember Thurman asked Tom Wilson what the Council should do with regard to this. Do they just approve the
encroachment?
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he thinks that any efforts to mitigate that encroachment by
planting has been…it will not work because of the placement of the septic tank drain field. He does not know of any other
way to mitigate.
City Attorney Scott asked how far away is the next house.
David Neal stated that it was about 300 feet. It is a 31-acre tract about 300 feet around it is not developed yet. There is
one home on that piece of property.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if the 31 acres fronts on Freemanville. She is trying to understand the layout
Triple Crown. The applicant stated that it does not. It connects to a road that goes over to Freemanville.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that the reason for her question was trying to anticipate that if O’Rourke at some
point attempted to develop that and try to think forward to what would be a way to mitigate the setback for the
homeowner that is not yet there.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it was already a subdivision
Councilmember Zahner Bailey clarified that the 31 acres is within the subdivision.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that was correct. He stated that Robyn MacDonald had mentioned
that they have spoken with the Triple Crown homeowners' association president.
Senior Planner MacDonald stated that was correct. She did speak to him and they were totally fine with it. Also she did
personally speak…there is a lot that is just to the northwest of it, it is not really impacted but she did speak to that
homeowner and they are not in opposition to it. They have the letter from the large landowner to the back.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked David Neal for the record if he has had any similar circumstances where he has
had to request a variance like this for a similar situation.
David Neal stated that he had not. He has built over 260 homes in North Fulton and never had a problem before.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey clarified that he had not had to go to any other jurisdictions to ask for a similar situation.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman stated that she would like to make a motion that the Council approve the
condition 2003B-1959 and she would like to condition it to the building as currently constructed. Councilmember O’Brien
seconded the motion.
Councilmember Lusk stated he wanted an amendment to that since staff is recommending a planted buffer in there…to
delete any buffer requirement.
Mayor Lockwood stated he thought the motion was just to allow the encroachment.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she conditioned this to the existing structure so that no one could not put anything
else within the setback.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 65 of 72
Senior Planner MacDonald clarified that they were to approve part 3A, the perimeter building set back from Lot 33;
phase 4-unit 1 is 36 feet and then delete 3e.
Councilmember Thurman stated that would take care of making sure that it is just for the existing.
There being no further Council discussion.
Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda Item No. 07-448.
Consideration and approval of the January 2008 Meeting and Work Session Schedule (January 10, 2008-Regular
meeting, January 17, 2008-Work Session and January 24, 2008-Regular Meeting).
Interim City Manager Lagerbloom stated that this is just to confirm the meetings scheduled for the month of January.
In January, they will bring forward a schedule for the remainder of the year. He asked that the Council approve this
tonight.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman made a motion to approve the January 2008 Meeting and Work Session
schedule. Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Approval to Authorize the Mayor to Execute a North Fulton Municipal Association (NFMA) Resolution to declare
their opposition to House Resolution 900.
Interim City Manager Chris Lagerbloom stated that he would introduce the resolution and then let the Mayor confirm
his support of it. He attended the North Fulton Mayors’ Meeting this morning. This is a letter that jointly would be
signed if it passes all of the Councils by the six cities of North Fulton County in opposition to HR 900. He is simply
asking tonight that the Council would allow the Mayor to sign that letter. It went out by email earlier today.
Mayor Joe Lockwood asked if everyone was clear on HR 900 and the position of why they would be supporting that
position. There was no Council discussion.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the authorization for the Mayor to Executive a North
Fulton Municipal Association resolution to declare their opposition to House Resolution 900. Councilmember D’Aversa
seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that Councilmember O’Brien has presented the following item:
A Resolution for Milton Property Tax Freeze Referendum.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that considerable discussion has gone on about this issue and he is encouraged by the
outcomes of their property tax revenues and so forth. He thinks that many in the City would like to have an opportunity to
weigh-in on this. It was his desire to discuss creating a referendum for this. It would be a property tax freeze resolution
that he read for the record:
Whereas, there is broad and deep interest in property tax limits in the City of Milton; and
Whereas, the majority of the residential property in Milton was reassessed in 2007 resulting in an average 18%
increase; and
Whereas, property tax exceeds estimates by nearly $1 million this year; and
Whereas, other unanticipated revenue combine to exceed estimates by approximately $500,000; and
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 66 of 72
Whereas, the anticipated budget needs are at or below revenue availability; and
Whereas, Fulton County holds approximately $5 million in SSD funds slated for use in Milton at their
discretion; and
Whereas a healthy government is one in which there is constant awareness and respect for tax revenue in the
finite phase from the taxpayers; and
Whereas, the City of Sandy Springs implemented a very successful property tax freeze based upon authority
provided by Georgia Senate Bill 610, and
Whereas, it is anticipated that the vast majority of Milton property owners would appreciate the opportunity to
study such a policy and vote on the merits of its implementation the referendum in calendar year 2008.
Now, therefore, we the Mayor and City Council of Milton, Georgia hereby resolve and direct the staff of the
City of Milton to prepare a Milton Property Tax Freeze Plan, which mirrors the effect and intent of the three
percent or CPI cap provided in their neighbor city, Sandy Springs, and be offered as a referendum item to
registered voters in the City of Milton in 2008 for policy determination and implementation if desired by the
majority of the voters.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she was very, very concerned about their finances and about their ability to
provide the services to the citizens that they expect them to provide. As wonderful as this idea sounds, she is not willing to
go down this avenue until she feels a little more comfortable with the financial situation or until after the audits are all
done. She knows that this year they put $1 million aside for public works and she thinks that Dan Drake felt like they
needed $3 million just to keep them on course, not even to get them ahead but just to keep them from falling further
behind. Until they can get a better handle on things so that they can put money in reserve, she is not ready to commit to
this. She thinks their citizens expect services that the City cannot provide with the dollars that they do have. She thinks it
is a great thing that hopefully they will be able to do in the future.
Councilmember D'Aversa agreed and also suggested that they probably need a little more time to evaluate this issue.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he thinks that they need staff to look at it too.
Councilmember Mohrig asked the Council if they would be willing to move this to a future work session where they
could actually look at it and discuss it.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she thinks it is something they ought to look at it, but thinks they ought to look at
after their audit is complete, which will be February or March 2008.
Councilmember O’Brien inquired if they should move to defer this to a work session to see how much leverage that they
have? Maybe beyond the spring work session or a retreat.
Interim City Manager Lagerbloom stated that is what the pleasure of the majority of Council is, that is fine with staff.
Motion and Second: Councilmember O’Brien moved that this concept as described in a resolution that was prepared be
offered for a work session agenda no later than April of 2008, to be discussed on its merits. Councilmember Lusk
seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Thurman asked to amend the motion to say June as to give them a little more leeway and instead of a
work session they may want to have it on a retreat agenda or something like that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 67 of 72
Motion Withdrawn: Councilmember O’Brien stated that he would like to withdraw his motion.
Motion and Second: Councilmember O’Brien restated the previous motion to reflect the described resolution be brought
forward for discussion in June. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Mayor Joe Lockwood stated no later than June, which would give them the opportunity in a work session or to get more
information on their budget to address this and work with staff on it.
Councilmember Lusk stated that perhaps the City Manager can make some sense of this. On a referendum do they just
come up in July or do could this be on the November ballot during the general election?
Interim City Manager Lagerbloom stated that it could if it became a referendum. At this point, they do not have any
reason to fund an election in 2008 except if this item came forward.
City Attorney Scott stated they would still have to pay for that portion of whatever Fulton County election board would
put on the ballot.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey clarified that the motion that Councilmember Thurman suggested that it would come
back at the retreat for discussion.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Lockwood suggested that unless there is something really pressing, he would like to defer Mayor and City
Council reports and staff reports.
City Attorney Scott stated that if the Council wanted to move to amend the agenda, they could move to amend the
agenda.
Councilmember D’Aversa stated that at this time she would have to leave the meeting.
Councilmember Lusk stated that he wanted to add an item to the agenda.
City Clerk Marchiafava asked Councilmember Lusk if he wanted to state the item or did he just want approval to amend
the agenda?
Councilmember Lusk stated both.
City Attorney Scott stated the best way to handle this is move to amend the agenda to do whatever it is you want to do.
Motion to Amend the Agenda: Councilmember Lusk made a Motion to Amend the Agenda to add an item to discuss
the conduct of the citizens, and our commission and board members in the City of Milton. Councilmember O’Brien
seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Lusk stated that what the Council saw here tonight was a demonstration by one of their committee
members in violation of the code of conduct that has been established in these chambers. This has been a repeat violation
of the conduct code by this one person. Not only in these chambers or in this Council session, but in other sessions of
Planning Committee, in the media, e-mail, and other forms of communication. The Council, as leaders in this community,
is charged with conducting themselves professionally, representing the City professionally and being leaders in the
community. Being a leader in the community demands this professional bearing. Based on the history that he has seen
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 68 of 72
by this one person, Paul Moore, he would suggest that and he would move that the Council remove Paul Moore from his
position on Planning Commission and preclude him from participating in any volunteer committee in the City.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she had actually sent an email to Chris Lagerbloom a little while ago and to City
Attorney Scott pertaining to this very thing. She was very, very embarrassed today. She stated that she would read
aloud her email from Friday.
Letter as follows:
Chris,
The behavior by Paul Moore at the Council meeting tonight was inexcusable and embarrassing for our entire City. It has
become apparent that we have volunteers who are more interested in promoting their own agendas than in promoting the
City of Milton. Their negative behavior at Council meetings and quotes in the paper are further evidence that whatever
benefits they provide to the City are insignificant when compared to the recurring detrimental behavior. This type of
embarrassing behavior should not be tolerated from any of their volunteers. We would never permit this type of behavior
from the staff and according to our volunteer policy, “The volunteers are to adhere to the same rules, regulations and
standards as paid staff.”
I would request that our volunteer policy be amended to reflect that in situations where the positives of a volunteer are
outweighed by the negative impact that they have on our City, including any impact they have on our staff, that they no
longer be allowed to serve the City in their volunteer capacity.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she is very, very concerned about this because the last thing they need is for
volunteers, and Paul Moore is a volunteer and chairman of a committee here to be acting that way. The way that he has
been acting the last few Council meetings is absolutely inexcusable. It is against their volunteer policy to have somebody
that acts that way and she really believes that as Mayor, Joe Lockwood, is the one who appointed him and he ought to be
appointing someone else that can better represent the City, unless he is representing Mayor Lockwood’s belief, then he
needs to be appointing someone else that more closely represents someone positive in the City.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he was not sure what Councilmember Thurman’s motion or email was. That is something
that they can move to the future. He had asked Paul Moore to leave, which he did, and he was certainly willing to
reprimand him for what he has done and he does not agree with it. He did stop Paul Moore once he realized that it was
going on. He can honestly say that is absolutely, 100 percent more than anybody else up here sitting on the Council has
done. Three times this has happened to him (referencing himself) this year. That is a whole lot more than anybody else
here did when one of their board appointees did the same thing to him. The Mayor stated that he appreciates
Councilmember Thurman seeing that now.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she does not have the right to stop…he is the one that leads the meeting.
Councilmember O’Brien called for a Point of Order. There is a motion and he thinks that this has digressed into a
discussion. He for one is concerned about the City as mentioned. He was not out of order, he believes there is a motion.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that there was not a motion. She asked Councilmember Lusk if he would like to move to
remove the volunteer.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Lusk moved to remove Paul Moore from his position on the Planning Committee
and preclude him from or deny him participation or membership on any other committee, commission or board in a
volunteer position in the City. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 69 of 72
Councilmember O'Brien stated that he did want to make a couple of comments that he is concerned about the statement
that Mayor Joe Lockwood just made. He asked if he wanted to air it out a little because….
Mayor Lockwood stated that they are not discussing that.
Councilmember O'Brien stated he wanted the Mayor to know that he respects his concern and wants to hear that.
Mayor Lockwood stated that in the past no one has seemed interested in protecting the Councilmember or Mayor.
Councilmember Thurman stated that they cannot accept this kind of behavior from anybody. This is continuing week
after week - negative behavior.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that he would like to say one or two things about this abomination….liability - liability.
He thinks it was touched on earlier when they began to talk about this. He thinks a great deal of Paul Moore and his
talent, but he has been stunned by some of the things that have gone on within his committee and tonight was remarkable.
He was very surprised, very disappointed, but also he recognized that they cannot have volunteers, staff or anyone else to
act in a way that is a liability to the City and is a poor reflection on our Mayor or this Council or the staff. He thinks that
when extremely inflammatory statements are made in the press, when people are singled out or rather egregious concerns
that are unfounded it also emboldens the type of behavior that they have seen where…the fundamental issue in public
meetings is no one will be singled out. It is just a simple matter of respect. No one will single out a member of the
Council or the Mayor. He said he thinks Paul Moore went grotesquely over the line tonight and he was amazed,
particularly because it pertained to him and other Councilmembers. There was a suggestion quoted in the press from
comments Mr. Moore made directly implying that there were secret meetings that took place about an issue that had come
before the City. First of all, it is completely untrue; there is no foundation for such a statement. But to impugn the
character of colleagues is stunning and unnecessary and it really diminishes the credibility and the efforts of people
whether they are professional staff or elected. He regrettably supports the motion that is before the Council because Paul
Moore has become an embarrassment. He has apparently lost his ability to lead his committee, but also to have such a
key role as a community leader in defining where the City or Milton will go in the future with their comprehensive plan
update. He cannot imagine anyone could objectively review Mr. Moore’s conduct and feel that it is appropriate for a
gentleman in their City and within their volunteer group.
Councilmember Thurman added that the volunteer policy states that volunteers are to adhere to the same rules,
regulations and standards of paid staff. There is no way they would allow their paid staff to act in a manner Paul Moore
has been acting in the last several months.
Councilmember Mohrig asked Mayor Lockwood to Call the Question.
City Attorney Scott stated that the previous question needed a second. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion to
call the question.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if the question they are calling is the motion.
Mayor Lockwood stated that they had a motion and were having discussion.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she strongly believes that people ought to be able to appoint their own volunteers.
The Council should not get involved with the volunteers that other people appoint. At the same time, if a volunteer is
exhibiting behavior that is detrimental to the City, she would hope that whoever appointed that person would recognize
the detrimental behavior and if they had the best interest of the City at heart, they would do the right thing. She does not
think it should be the Council that removes him. She believes it ought to be the person that appointed him that removes
any person with bad behavior. If she had somebody that was behaving badly, she would ask that the Council let her know
and she will remove them. She does not want any of her appointees to negatively impact their City. She will be the first to
remove them if they did.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 70 of 72
Mayor Lockwood stated that he looks to that as very honorable. Three appointees this year were not removed by
Council.
City Attorney Scott stated that he was going to reverse his suggestion on that last motion. There are six Councilmembers
present, four out of six vote that is two-thirds. That is what Robert’s Rules requires to call the question.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion failed 3-3, with Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember
Zahner Bailey, and Mayor Lockwood voted in opposition. (Councilmember D’Aversa was not present for the vote.)
Councilmember Thurman stated that she does not believe that the Council should take the position of removing
somebody. She has really thought about this a lot tonight because it is really, really bothering her. She does not believe
that she ought to interfere with other Councilmembers’ appointees, but at the same time she does feel very strongly that if
someone is behaving in a manner that is detrimental and they are one’s appointee, then he has to take the responsibility to
do something about it. She also believes that if he is not willing to do that then they need to find something else that they
can do. She does not know if there is a way to reprimand people. She does not know what they can do because this kind
of behavior cannot be tolerated by the City. It absolutely cannot be tolerated because of the negative impact it has on the
entire City, and each of the Councilmembers. It is embarrassing now to tell people that one is with the Milton City
Council. It is an absolutely embarrassing thing to tell people and that is not fun.
Councilmember O'Brien stated that it is a regular event that people come before the Council to say things like
abomination, a joke, a farce and things like that.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she hears that all of the time in the business community and the fact that they
would have their own volunteers promoting this kind of bad behavior is ridiculous. She does not know what they do
about it, but something has got to be done. This is getting to be something that is not a whole lot of fun.
Councilmember Mohrig added that it is also not healthy.
Councilmember Thurman agreed that it was not healthy for anything. It is not healthy for the City and it is not healthy
for the staff. But as she can tell the Council right now, there was not a staff person that looked forward to coming to this
meeting tonight. Not one and it should not be that way and it is not that way in other cities. Part of the reason they do not
look forward to it is number one, they know it is going to last until one or two o’clock in the morning and number two,
they know they have got to put up with people negatively criticizing the hard work that the Councilmembers do and that
they do. That is ridiculous that the Council allows this to continue on. They will have no staff left within the next few
months. She would like some suggestions on what they do.
Mayor Lockwood stated that maybe they ought to tighten up and look at statements and a volunteer policy. He asked for
City Attorney Scott’s opinion if they should leave it as it is now or tighten it up.
City Attorney Scott stated that they can amend the boards and commissions ordinances regarding their conduct.
Councilmember Thurman stated that it is her understanding that Johns Creek does not allow any of there appointed
volunteers to speak at Council meetings. She thought that was a problem with first amendment rights and all that other
stuff and she does not want to go there. She wants anyone who wants to be able to speak to be able to speak. But if one is
representing the City on a volunteer committee then he has got to understand that he is representing the City and that has
to come before all of one’s personal agendas and everything else. When people know that one is the chairman of the
Planning Commission and he stands up and behaves the way he did tonight it is absolutely inexcusable.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that he also thinks it is arrogant behavior.
Councilmember Thurman stated that it was extremely arrogant behavior.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Page 71 of 72
STAFF REPORTS
Interim City Manager Chris Lagerbloom stated that he has actual working drafts of the annual report that the City is
putting together. He would like to send that with each of the Council with a couple of ground rules. He stated it is not in
its final form and he does not want Council to think that this is a final form. He is more interested in the Council thumbing
through at this point and looking for obvious glaring errors and also to get their general feedback. What he asks is some
time before seven days from today, before next Friday, if there are any huge suggestions for changes, modifications, to let
him know. Thankfully, the Mayor has agreed to be the clearing house for those suggestions. If one gets their suggestions
back to him he can kind of put them back to him as to what the pleasure of the elected body is to do with this annual
report. This late, he is having a hard time putting a good sentence together but obviously the sooner they get the
comments back the sooner that this will be available to be distributed to the citizens. Lisa Maggart has done a great job. It
is a really good looking first annual report.
Mayor Lockwood clarified that they have professional staff that has worked on this. The intent is for Council to review it
as Chris Lagerbloom said. If there is anything glaring or if there is something factual wrong, bring it to his attention. It is
not an exercise to re-write or put what one wants to put in or whatever. It is just two things:
1. If there is a glaring error that one sees.
2. To make everyone aware what is in their information.
Interim City Manager Lagerbloom asked that the Council thumb to October. There is a picture on the actual page that
they will not be keeping in there. He will go to press with it as soon as Tuesday of next week. They will hold that for a
couple days. It has been a priority and it is ready to go.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that having it in a draft form gives the Council a sense of what it is. It does not
have to be final. She thanked Chris Lagerbloom.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that they did file the intervention last Monday and it was sent to the
judges.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she does not know if they ever finished their last discussion. She does not know if
they did. She did not vote in favor of Councilmember Lusk’s motion, but she is not happy letting this thing just ride.
Until they have a plan to prevent this from happening in the future, she is not willing to let it go.
Interim City Manager Lagerbloom made a suggestion that based on the hour, and he does not know if any of them are
thinking as straight as they would have 18 hours when they started working today. Would there be any opposition that he
would take a policy such as that and put in on the January 17th work session. He asked that the Council let him, as a staff
member clears his head overnight and come together with some of the staff tomorrow that are decision makers and let
them be able to bring some suggestions back to the Council. If the Council is comfortable with that, he would ask City
Clerk to add it to the January 17th workshop.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he agrees with that and asked Mark Scott to help them tighten things up so that they would
have stronger guidelines so that it is real cut and dry.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey added that she has confidence that Mayor Lockwood would have a discussion with his
appointments as necessary. She thinks that probably says everything that needs to be said. She trusts the Mayor to have
whatever discussions he feels are necessary.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that he would like to wish his successor the best of luck in his term in this seat and to
have a ball at it.
Councilmember Mohrig added that he wishes Alan Tart success and he appreciates the time serving this past 13 months.
He wants to specifically thank staff. They have been great. Together they have done a lot in a very short period of time
Regular Meeting of the Milton City CounciI
Thursday, December 13,2007
Page 72 of 72
and it was not the Council up here doing it. It was the staff really doing the work for them. Me just wanted to give his
heartfelt thanks to staff and also Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas.
ADJQURNrnrn
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to adjourn. Councilmember O'Brien seconded the motion. There was
no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
After no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1 :52 a.m.
Date Approved: March 3,2008
f-nejtk R.Marchiafava, City Clerk Joe Lockwood, rsfaybr