HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 11/15/2010 - Reg Mins 11 15 10 (Migrated from Optiview)T
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 1 of 53
This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not the intent to
transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice. Public comments
are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and
invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings.
Official Meetings are audio recorded.
The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on November 15,
2010 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Chairman & Imam Tareef Saeb, Hamzah Islamic Center.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Interim City Clerk Gordon called the roll and made general announcements.
Council Members Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Bill Lusk,
Councilmember Burt Hewitt, Councilmember Joe Longoria, Councilmember Alan Tart.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey arrived late at 6:24 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Approval of Meeting Agenda (Agenda Item No. 10-1283)
Staff recommends the following changes to the meeting agenda:
1. Defer the proclamation recognizing Hunt Tosh under reports and
presentations to December 6, 2010 meeting.
2. Add an item to Reports and Presentations by Councilmember Lusk.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Meeting Agenda as amended by staff.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. (Councilmember
Zahner Bailey was absent for the vote.)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Lockwood read the rules for Public Comment.
• Public comment is a time for citizens to share information with the Mayor and City Council and
to provide input and opinions on any matter that is not scheduled for its own public hearing
during today's meeting.
• There is no discussion on items on the Consent Agenda or First Presentation from the public or
from Council.
• Each citizen who chooses to participate in public comment must complete a comment card and
submit it to the City Clerk.
• Please remember this is not a time to engage the Mayor or members of the City Council in
conversation.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 2 of 53
• When your name is called please step forward and speak into the microphone stating your name
and address for the record.
• You will have five minutes for remarks.
There was no public comment.
CONSENT AGENDA
City Clerk Gordon read the Consent Agenda items:
1. Approval of the October 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1284)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of the November 1, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1285)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Lusk
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. (Councilmember Zahner Bailey was absent
for the vote.)
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
Deferred by Motion and Vote.
1. A Proclamation Recognizing Hunt Tosh, Winner of Chronicle of the Horse/USHJA
International Hunter Derby.
(Presented by Councilmember Karen Thurman)
2. A Proclamation Recognizing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Day.
(Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood)
Mayor Lockwood read a Proclamation Recognizing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Day.
Added by Motion and Vote
3. Presentation by Councilmember Bill Lusk.
Councilmember Bill Lusk presented Communications Director, Jason Wright, with an
award for the 2010 Memorial Day "Remember to Remember" Essays for the Georgia Parks
and Recreation and Park Association Annual Visibility and Marketing Award.
FIRST PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC HEARING
Presentation of the City of Milton's Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan: The
Community Agenda.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1286)
(Previously Introduced at November 1, 2010 Special Called Work Session)
(Presented by Michele McIntosh -Ross, City Planner)
i
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
I Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
j Page 3 of 53
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the First Presentation Item, Agenda Item
Number 10-1286. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-
0.
Michele McIntosh -Ross:
• The state of Georgia requires all municipalities to have a local comprehensive plan that describes
the vision for the future and states policies for the realistic growth and development that may
occur over a 20 year period.
• According to the state, there are three components to the comprehensive plan.
• First, community assessment that documents existing conditions.
• Second, community participation plan to plan for community involvement.
• Third, community agenda which is the actual comprehensive plan document.
• In 2006 the North Fulton county comprehensive plan, Focus Fulton 2025, was adopted as an
interim comprehensive plan.
• In 2007 the preparation of the city's first comprehensive plan was initiated.
• The committee assessment and the community participation sections were completed in 2008
and sent to ARC and DCA for review and comment with approval.
• Milton was authorized to proceed with the agenda.
• A partial plan updated was done by advice of the state to replace the county's Focus Fulton 2025
plan.
• CPAC and staff worked on this community agenda.
• Today, a draft of the community agenda is ready for public review and public.
• George Ragsdale from CPAC is here to present the agenda.
George Ragsdale:
• This is a repeat of the presentation we made on November I"
• The purpose is to give everyone an understanding of what is in the agenda.
• The executive summary outlines the overview of the process that Michelle went through.
• We have a statement of the vision for the City of Milton and the planning goals and objectives.
• We have a description of the issues and opportunities.
• We tried to identify things that we thought needed to be improved.
• We have a future development map which is intended to illustrate the implementation of the
those policies that we have recommended for the city.
• In the future development map we define and identify areas that require special attention.
• We identify community facilities such as schools, equestrian areas, churches and natural features
of the city.
• We identified eight distinct character areas in Milton.
• The character area map will indicate where those areas are.
• We have described what we believe is the characteristics of each geographical areas and what we
would like them to become over time.
• The future land use map goes into a parcel based description describes what Milton will look like
in the future.
• This plan looks out as far as to 2030 to identify how Milton will develop over that time.
• We have specific policies that are recommendations from the community.
• We tried to identify specific implementation measures for each character area.
• We classified these into short and long term areas.
• Short term identifies the projects that we would like to accomplish within the next five years.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 4 of 53
• There is an appendix included in the document.
• We have attached the Crabapple, Birmingham Plan, Rural Preservation Plan, Milton
Transportation plan, and Milton trail plan all of which we feel are relevant to the way we feel the
City will be developed going forward.
• Since the beginning of the process, we wanted to develop a financial model that would reflect the
City's ability to be able to fund the comprehensive plan, growth, and change as we identified it.
• When we started the financial model we were looking at the 2008-2009 and projecting from
there.
• Since we have moved forward we have been able to put in 2011 budget as the base.
• The model is constructed with capital spending outside of the model.
• The city doesn't have a longer term capital spending plan.
• We have tried to keep capital spending out of the model.
• Capital spending can continue at the same inflation and adjusted rate for the budget this year
until 2012.
• We were asked to develop a financial model that mirrored the comprehensive plan.
• In 2013 expenses begin to exceed revenues.
• In 2011 there is a deficit on the capital side if the capital expense stays the same.
• The dynamic model is based on the comprehensive plan.
• The land use plan that is part of the comprehensive plan is targeted to match the population
growth and come as close as we can to make it balanced.
• We recommend that the city make a long term capital spending plan so that there is a better
understanding of what the financing needs are going forward.
• I believe the city may want to invest in having the plan updated to make changes to reflect the
conditions of the city now rather than when the model was first formed.
• Nothing has changed as far as dates for the plan.
• It is posted on the website and we are looking for comments from the public and Council by the
24th of November.
• We will be back in front of you on December 201h for a recommendation to send it on for
approval to DCA and ARC.
Councilmember Tart:
• Do you have any idea what kind of changes we would need to make to have this plan reflect the
conditions of the city?
George Ragsdale:
• Structural changes in the way the model is constructed.
• The model is constructed based on land use designations and zoning classifications that were part
of the old plan.
• For the new plan, we have recommended changes in some of those things but we do not have the
ability to change the underlying structure of the model.
• For those in the community that want to submit comments, you can submit them to Michelle
electronically.
FIRST PRESENTATION
1. Approval of a Text Amendment to Chapter 54, Telecommunications of the City of
Milton Code of Ordinances, Sections 54-4.(3), 54-7.(b), 54-11, and 54-21.(1).
(Agenda Item No. 10-1287)
(Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paize 5 of 53
2. Approval of a Text Amendment to Replace in its entirety Appendix A, Fees and
Other Charges of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1288)
(Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the First Presentation Items.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0.
ZONING AGENDA
(Zoning items typed verbatim)
City Clerk Gordon read the zoning rules and agenda items.
RZ10-05/U10-O1/VC10-03 — Deerfield Parkway (West Side) by Alpharetta Land
Partners to rezone from C-1 (Community Business) and O -I (Office -Institutional) to
C-1 (Community Business) with a Use Permit to construct a Special School for a
transitions vocational school for adult students at least eighteen years of age with
autism and an assisted living facility for autistic adults with 72 studios. The
applicant is also requesting a concurrent variance to:
1) Allow the exterior wall materials of all non-residential buildings and townhouse,
duplex and multifamily buildings to consist of a minimum of 65 percent in lieu of
75 percent (per vertical wall plane) of the following: brick or natural stone
[Section 64-1095(p)] for the assisted living facility;
2) Allow accent building materials for all non-residential buildings and also
townhouse, duplex and multifamily units to be limited to a maximum of 35
percent in lieu of 25 percent brick, tile, non -reflective glass, natural stone and
weathered, polished or fluted face, with fluted, split -face, broken face finish,
Portland cement plaster and lath systems, architectural (either precast or tilt -up)
concrete (fluted or with exposed finish) or Hardi-Plank [Section 64-1095(q)] for
the assisted living facility;
3) Allow the following exterior siding colors as produced by Cabot Solid
stains to be permitted: Napa Vine, Newport Blue, Brickstone, Colonial
Yellow, [Section 64-1095(t)] for the assisted living facility.
(Agenda Item No. 1.0-1279)
ORDINANCE NO. 10-1.1-81
(First Presentation on November 1, 2010)
(Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Lynn Tully:
Good evening. This site is a 12.87 acre site and is located at Deerfield Parkway and is approved for
retail, service, commercial, and/or office at a maximum density of 15,610.22 sq. ft per acre. Zoned of a
total of 165,000sq. ft and pursuant to Z99-11, approved for retail, service, commercial and/or office and
accessory uses at a maximum density of 19,191 sq ft. per acre for a total of 223,000 sq. ft, whichever is
less. In addition, you should note that both of the zoning parcels were approved for a height limit to no
more than 6 stories, pursuant to UOO-25 and U99-08. The request is for Cl community business zoning
and O -I institutional to C1 community business with the use permit for a special school. The special
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paye 6 of 53
school is to develop in addition to a residential assisted living facility for adults with autism and a total
of 72 studios. The recommended conditions are consistent with the provisions of the zoning ordinance.
Secondly, the applicant asked to develop a 23,000 sq.ft two story transitions vocational school for
autistic adults of at least 18 years old. The site plan analysis is included in your report and it appears
that the proposed development does meet all of the required standards for development according to the
state route 9 overlay district except for the concurrent variances as requested. I will quickly go through
the standards of review for the zoning. Whether or not the proposal will permit a use that is suitable in
view of the use of development of adjacent and nearby property. The original zoning for this site was
approved C 1 for a six story, 165,000 sq ft. office building with an overall density of 15,610.22 sq ft per
acre. In addition, a small southern portion of the subject site is currently zoned O -I and U99-08 for a six
story 223,000 sq. ft office building. Staff does note that pursuant to ZM10-03, a site plan modification
was approved for Z93-11 to develop a 40,500sq.ft data center, and that is the item that you all recently
heard, on eight and a half acres of the site. The remainder of the property is within the legal description
of the subject site. Number two, whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or the
usability of adjacent or nearby property and the proposed development does not adversely affect these
uses if developed with the recommended conditions. Number three, whether the property to be affected
by the proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. The property does have a reasonably
economic use as currently zoned as it is zoned Cl, community business. Number four, whether or not
the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive burden of use of existing street
transportations facilities, utilities, or schools. The proposed use however is not expected to significantly
increase the amount of vehicular traffic as demonstrated by the traffic study attached but significantly
less if it were developed under the existing zoning conditions and site plan. Any impact should be
mitigated according to the recommended conditions. Number five, whether the proposal is in
conformity of the policies and tend to the land use plan. The proposed C 1 zoning is consistent with the
policies of the city of Milton Partial Plan Update. The subject property is located along Deerfield
Parkway, south of Webb Road, which the Partial Plan Update discusses this as being appropriate for
retail and service uses. Number six, whether there are other existing or changed conditions affecting the
use and the development of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or
disapproval of the proposal. There are existing zonings of community business on the subject site to the
west and to the north. Office and institutional around as well as additional Cl districts. Lastly, the
adopted land use policy supports this request to develop the assisted living invocational school. Number
seven, whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered environmentally adverse
to the natural resources, environment, and citizens of Milton. Staff notes that the proposed rezoning will
not have a negative effect on the environment and natural resources based on the fact that the site plan
does indicate compliance with the required stream buffer and non impervious setback. The site plan
indicates that many of the specimen trees will be persevered as one of the open spaces that will be
provided along the eastern property line in the area between the school and the assisted living facility.
Per section 64-1831 of the ordinance, Special schools are required to have a use permit so therefore the
applicant is also requesting a use permit to allow a special school specifically a transitional vocational
school for adults with autism. The school is proposed to be a total of 23,000 sq ft. and two stories in
height. There are additional factors to consider for a special use permit, most of which are the same as
those to consider for the zoning. I will add the condition of whether the proposed use may violate local
state and/or federal statues, ordinances, or regulations governing land development and the proposed use
does not violate any statues, ordinances, or regulations as proposed as the affect of the proposed use on
traffic flow, vehicular and pedestrian circulation along adjoining streets. The proposed use is not
expected to significantly increase the amount of vehicular traffic. The location and number of off street
parking spaces, the proposal has provided the required number of parking spaces and meets those
regulations. The amount and location of open space, again the site plan does indicate that one quarter of
the eastern portion of the site is undisturbed with the spring head. There are approximately 12 mature
i
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paee 7 of 53
sized trees located in the preserved area. There are other open spaces within the site and along Deerfield
Parkway and in the center of the site. Therefore, it does meet the requirements. On protective
screening, the site plan does meet the required landscape strips for the entire parcel and in addition, the s
stream bank and its setbacks allow for additional screening. The hours and manner of operation, the
applicant indicates that the school will be used between lam and 6pm with occasional use during
evening and weekends for special programming. Site lighting will comply with outdoor lighting
requirements and access and curb cut have been provided opposite of the Verizon Wireless offices and
are adequate for the site. With note, the site plan complies with all of these requirements for the
standards of a special school. In conclusion, I would remind you that the planning commission did hear
this request on October 26th and recommended approval conditional for the rezoning 10-05, approval
conditional for use permit 10-01, and approval conditional for the variance VC 10-03, all three parts
with the change that the planning commission recommended that the variance be approved specifically
for the front facade, that it should be articulated with 65% brick or natural stone up through the gables.
Those recommended conditions are included in your packet and I would be happy to read those if you
all so choose.
Mayor Lockwood:
Now, are there any questions from Council to staff?
Councilmember Bill Lusk:
Back on your last statement, as far as the DRB recommendations, was that superseded by a letter to
make note of back here on October 13th
.
Lynn Tully:
The DRB is October 5t". On page 21?
Councilmember Lusk:
Right, was there a subsequent proposal made by the applicant?
Lynn Tully:
The applicant has tried to comply with those. They do know that it is specifically their colors. Those
comments, the DRB was in favor of them having a different color than what is actually allowed in the
Highway 9 Overlay district. As far as the brick and stone requirements, they gave them suggestions in
order to allow them to try and meet that 75% and they are close right now. Again, the planning
commission requested in their zoning conditions, an amendment that would require about 65% by
running that brick and stone up the front gables or what is considered a "pop out" on the front of the
buildings. They haven't showed that on these latest elevations, but that was one of the conditions of the
planning commission.
Councilmember Lusk:
Is there a census there between DRB, Planning Commission, and the applicant to vary from the
Deerfield or Highway 9 overlay color selections?
Lynn Tully:
On the color? Absolutely, Sir. In fact, they have asked us to go back and look at the color pallet and see
if we can't update that a little bit.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 8 of 53
Mayor Lockwood:
Before I open up to comments, I want to share with everyone here that I have to say that initially when
this project was submitted, and I can speak for myself and probably quite a lot of other people in our
staff or Council and whatnot, that this seemed like a very good project. It is a great location, great
looking project, and also we were excited that there would be a facility that may fill the need for some of
our citizens that have autism. With that being said, as we have moved along I have certainly heard from
both sides and there isn't always a rosier side, and I'm sure everyone else here has heard both sides.
I've heard people who are for this application and opposed to it. I can certainly see both sides. What I
feel like I need to clarify is the fact that myself and my council, we have to base our decisions on this as
a zoning case and it is based on our ordinances and zoning laws. It isn't based on the operation of it or
the interior layout and things like that. Since this is a private operation, we have to base it on it being a
zoning case. When sitting down with our staff, we pulled all of the facts of what we have to look at
tonight. By all means, I want to hear from everyone that is here tonight and I'm sure the council does
too, but I just want to let everyone know and I'd like to ask the City Attorney to chime in, these are the
facts that we had to look at this project from. I know there is some emotion in this, but by our zoning
code the rezoning request for an autistic care center and special school may only be considered in light
of the following criteria:
1. The planning commission must have a recommendation.
2. The use is suitable in view of the development of adjacent and nearby properties.
3. The proposal will not adversely affect the existing use of adjacent or nearby properties.
4. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economic
use as currently zoned.
5. The proposal will not cause an excessive use of existing streets, transportation facilities,
utilities, or schools.
6. The proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan or an
approved economic development revitalization plan.
7. Whether the area is a transitioning area i.e. Changing from agricultural to commercial.
8. Whether the proposal can be considered environmentally adverse to the natural resources.
9. Whether the proposal may violate local state or federal statutes, ordinances, or
regulations and governing land development.
10. Other potential land development issues involving traffic, parking, open space, lighting,
access, etc.
At this time, I would like to, if our City Attorney could guide us through this, if he would like to make
any comments on what it is that the council that we need to look at to base our decisions.
City Attorney Jarrard:
Mayor and members of the Council, I am certainly aware of this dialogue. It has been ongoing and I
have looked at the statements as been prepared by staff. You have heard Mrs. Tully discuss with you
what the Milton zoning code requirements are, you have looked at the planning recommendations which
have closely tracked the code itself, and I am in agreement. This council has adopted rules and
regulations that have guided your decision making on this issue and although certainly, with respect to
public hearing, we want to hear every comment and want you to take the full measure of public and
stakeholder sentiment on this issue, but with respect to what the council can consider, I believe, Mr.
Mayor, you have done an effective job with going over the material and I am in support of that.
Mayor Lockwood:
First, I would like to open this up for all of those speaking in support of this application.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Pate 9 of 53
Nathan Hendricks, 6085 Lake Forrest Drive, Sandy Springs, GA:
Just to reiterate, this is a zoning land use matter that is in front of you, but staff has done a very fine job
of articulating as far as far as the development standards of concern on pages 10-12 on compliance as far
as the rezoning standards where the meeting to be in the affirmative or needing to be in the negative
compliance pages 12-17, use permit standards, pages 18-20 but design review board very interestingly
came in front of them, the only concurrent variances we were asking for were the percentages of
maximum and minimum of interior and exterior relief and they asked us to narrow that gap, which we
have done. There are only 10% points difference on each of those requests. What also came out of that
meeting was a statement that, technically you're in the highway 9 overlay, but the look, feel, and sense
of it is that you are Deerfield and you are subject to Deerfield governance and there is no requirement
for light brown, mid brown, and dark brown. We think that the pallet you put in front of us is a lot better
and encouraged us to file what is your third concurrent variance in front of you, and that is to allow the
colors that are specified for utilization in the construction of the building. Staff actually goes on to page
12 to say that although the request of a three part concurrent variance may produce a more aesthetically
pleasing development, it is consistent with the applicants vision, they were concerned about technical
compliance with your standards which I feel that the fourth prong standards are in compliance. At this
point in time, I would like Mr. Rick Swanson to step up with the applicant and he is not only a principal,
but he is also the architect to give you a brief walk through of the sense, look, and feel of what he is
proposing.
Rick Swanson, 1930 Amber Lake Court, Lake Forrest, IL:
I am going to skip through the project summary other than to say that it is a 13 acre parcel on Deerfield
Parkway. It is in the highway 9 overlay district. We do have 24 specimen trees, three will be removed
but 22 will be protected. Two of the 22 will have road way encroachments within the drip line but do
not justify removal. We developed a campus of up to 72 assisted living units for adults with autism with
a separate 23,000sq. ft vocational training center. We are also requesting a rezoning of the property
from 01 and C1 to C1 only and to obtain a use permit with concurrent variances. Requesting a
consideration of a variance to allow the use of architecturally and historically appropriate exterior colors
for the water colors building and we are requesting consideration of a variance to allow 65% of the
water colors exterior in lieu of the 75% current requirement. The city of Milton DRC offered
encouragement and support for the proposed exterior colors and interior massing. We are familiar with
where the site is. Basically, the southwest portion of the property will be the vocational centers
transitions and the northeast portion of the property will be the residential component of the water
colors. A primary access will line up with Verizon on Deerfield Parkway. The growing group of
developmentally disabled children and young adults will need housing that allows them to live away
from their families but still provide the medical, therapeutic, and vocational support that they need.
During the next 15 years, one of the 500,000 children with autism related disorders will become adults.
Many will be cared for by aging parents that will likely not outlive them. Adults with autism currently
have few options for housing apart from their families. Watercolors will offer eight separate
neighborhoods of six units each and three story towers which will be the first phase. A fourth tower
may be constructed in the second phase at a later date. Each unit will be a one bedroom studio with
bathroom and surround a common community area with dining, serving, kitchen, and great room. Given
the lack of design standards for this population, we determined the program requirements will have to be
created. We organized a focus group of vested caregivers and professionals to get a diverse prospective
of the perceived requirements. What we heard was, to ensure safety and security, maximize familiarity
and stability and clarity, minimize sensory overload, allow opportunities for controlling social
interaction and privacy, to provide adequate choice in personal independence, foster health and wellness,
enhance ones dignity, ensure durability, ensure accessibility, inclusion, and support in the community.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 10 of 53
In addition, we obtain corrective associates to conduct a thorough study if this market which confirmed
our initial findings and provided more specific insight. Basically what the DRB saw and the planning
commission concurred with is the following:
The buildings are three stories.
We do have a mixture of shingle, stone, and brick.
There is a standing seen metal roof.
This is a craftsman style of architecture which is consistent with the architectural vocabulary of
the area.
This is a rendering of what that building would look like if you were looking through the trees from
Deerfield Parkway. The reality is, you won't be able to see much of the building from Deerfield
Parkway. This is the view of the building looking east at the main entrance. After the age of 21, all
publically offered educational services end for autism. Transitions will provide day programs and
vocational training for adults based on ability and need. This will not be a daycare and only available to
those who seek occupational, psychological, and educational advancement. If job opportunities are
available on campus, they would be offered to residents based on ability and would offer wages for that
task. The proposed building will be 23,000sq ft. and two stories and utilize sustainable materials and
technology. Some portion of the campus will be included in an area for planting a small organic garden.
This is essentially the fagade of the transitions building. Again, the standing seen roof masonry, stucco,
with a chocolate brown stain. This is a rendering of what the building will look like from the southwest.
Services offered:
• Life training to foster and independence.
• Occupational workshop to train candidates and job proficiencies based on ability and
aptitude.
• Computer lab
• Horticultural training with greenhouse and community garden.
• Indoor pool for therapeutic and recreational use.
• Men and women locker rooms with showers.
• Exercise rooms with aerobic and weight training equipment.
• Lunch room.
• Service kitchen for preparation of daily meal and training purposes.
• Job placement services.
• And a gift shop.
This concludes my presentation, thank you.
Nathan Hendricks:
There are a number of people from the community that have contacted you in support and I would like
Craig Derene to step up and just speak briefly on behalf of the community folks that support the
application.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Mayor, I've got comment cards that are in support of this application and we indicated that we would
hear them in the order that the cards were received, so I have the next name.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, we will go in the order if you're okay with that Mr. Hendricks.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 11 of 53
Darryl Smith, 523 Highland Park Trail, Roswell, GA:
Prior to my current residence, I lived out here in Alpharetta for 20 something years and I simply want to
say that I am very much in favor of the proposed Watercolors Vocational facility and assisted living
facility for those who suffer from autistic disorders.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to state that I had one turned in and for the record I wanted to say that Joseph
Moore turned in a speaker card but did not wish to speak and he does wish to have his comments read
into the record, but there are no comments on this card. For the record, I don't know if Mr. Moore is
still here or not.
Joseph Moore, Milton, GA:
The card is in support, but I do not wish to speak at this time.
Jim Chandlee, 13540 Bethany Rd., Alpharetta, GA:
I am a resident of Milton. I know you folks are trying to lead our young city. I am not an expert in
autism, but I do know two things. I know the man that is behind this and I know the years of research.
Diligent research that he has spent with autism societies, individuals with adult autism children, and I
also know the kind of heart this man has. As an architect, he just wants to leave the world a little bit
better place, to make life better for this segment of the population. These are a forgotten group. Once
they turned 22, there is very little for adult autistic individuals. He saw this need and it was brought to
him. He studied it for three years. I heard a lot of what he did. I know who he talked to. I said, God,
what an order. If you can do this, you are really making a difference. This is Milton, we are a young
city. Everything that we can do to enhance this city's image and its character and what we provide to our
community, this would truly be an asset. But do you know what else it is? It's a dream for those people
who want a place to live like this. This is a dream for them. There is nothing else out there. There are
people crying to get into a place like this. Search your heart, search your soul. That's what this place is
for. For those people who are longing to have a place like this. Thank you.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Mayor, just to give us a status check. We have 36 seconds left in the 10 minute requirement.
Craig Derene, 640 Glen National Dr., Milton, GA:
Good evening Mr. Mayor and Council. I have been a resident of Milton since its inception several years
ago. I simply wanted to state my 100% approval in agreement with this project although I do not have
any family afflicted with autism, I do personally have certain friends and business associates and I have
spoken to them at length about a project like this and they 100% support the project and feel that it will
be a tremendous asset to those individuals, to the community, as I do being a citizen of Milton. Thank
you very much.
Mayor Lockwood:
We are out of our 10 minutes, but I certainly would like to allow our last speaker. If it is okay with
council, I would like to add two more minutes and we can add them to both sides and then we will see
where we are. I that alright?
City Attorney Jarrard:
The rules anticipate a formal motion and vote on an extension of time.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 12 of 53
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to extend two minutes to both the support and
opposition for RZ 10-05. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously 7-0.
Michael McAlpin, 2380 Saddle Springs Dr., Milton, GA:
I am actually here to hear the comprehensive plan. Incidentally, I own the property at 1018 Whitshire
which is directly across the street from this proposed development and I wasn't even aware that this was
on the agenda, but I believe it to be an ideal use of the property and I just wanted to go on the record for
that. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
I will open it up to those who are here to speak in opposition.
Ann Coggins, 950 Pleasant Hollow Trail, Milton, GA:
I wanted to take thank all of you for taking the time to talk to us and listen to our opinions on this. I am
here tonight speaking to you as a mother of two children with disabilities. Mostly, I am speaking to you
as the chair of the Milton Disability Awareness Committee and also as our involvement with the GCDD
Real Communities initiative. I am speaking in opposition of this congregate housing facility for people
with autism. As you know, the mission of the Milton Disability Awareness Committee is to promote the
inclusion of individuals of all abilities in our community through education and advocacy and influence
to public policy. Throughout the time steps for the time that we have worked together many times we
have had resolutions and proclamations where we all have agreed that we wanted to create a community
that was both welcoming and accessible and inclusive for all citizens. Inclusive meaning that our
citizens, work, live, play, and worship together in a community. We want to embrace all of our citizens.
What I really want to say to you is whether or not this meets the zoning requirements, I also want to
appeal to you to stand firm on your commitment to have a city that does include all citizens and when
we build segregated housing and special schools that only allow people with autism is not considered
inclusive because that eliminates their opportunity to be involved and have real relationship and real
homes and careers in the community. It also eliminates their opportunities to contribute their gifts to the
community. I ask that you consider what is the vision that we have stated that we have for our city? Is
this, since we know from legislation that we have presented to you, this is not the direction that we are
going in the united states for serving the needs of our citizens. As an example to the state and the United
States with how we want to do our city, and how we want to build an inclusive community, we are going
in the opposite direction with this. I ask that you please consider your position, your vision for this city,
and deny zoning for this. But at the very least, defer it to give us the opportunity to talk further about
this and consider ways that we can do this better and everyone can win in this. Because there are ways
and options and is this what you want for your city? Is it the vision that we have agreed that we want?
That is my statement, please consider what you want for our city before you do this. I thank you all for
your time and I thank everyone in the room for coming out tonight.
Rita Young, 13300 Morris Rd., Milton, GA:
Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you tonight Mayor Lockwood and members of the
city Council. I have lived in this area for about 10 years and I grew up in North Fulton, so I have been
here most of my life. I am also the mother of two teenage sons that have autism. The public policy
director that is all about developmental disabilities in Atlanta and I am here to reject this rezoning
proposal for this particular facility. I am not here to talk about pallets but I am here to talk about people.
I love people with autism and work very diligently, both personally and professionally, to ensure people
are accepted in everyday life. I have visited Central State hospital in Milledgeville and Grace Wood in
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Pate 13 of 53
Augusta and firmly believe that placing 72 people with autism in a residential facility of this kind or any
kind is a terrible idea from many view points. I know that you said this is a land use issue, but I want
you to know what you could potentially be getting the city into. First of all, the department of justice
recently settled the lawsuit with the state of Georgia just last month that would stop all admissions of
people with developmental disabilities like autism into our state hospital institutional settings as of July
2011 and would move the people who currently live there out into the community by 2015. So public
institutions are not closing so that private businesses like Water Colors will be needed, but because
people with Autism need to be served one at a time. One family at a time, not in large group settings. In
response to this statement, Georgia is moving to individualized services, I would also be concerned that
Water Colors would not be able to obtain the proper license to even operate this kind of facility.
Secondly and most importantly, for the residence for the individuals that have autism, aggregating large
groups of people with autism will create a high stress environment. When you group people together
who have behavioral issues, there is a high likely hood that there will be an altercation that residents
could get hurt. We know that historically, housing large groups of people with disabilities together leads
to neglect and abuse. Lastly, I believe, and I know that you all have no control over this, there is a high
probability that the business will fail down the road when private funds are exhausted, families will have
to reconsider government support under Medicaid. Because of regulations under Medicaid, public funds
cannot be used for these types of residential facilities. In the consequences if this business fails, it's not
like the Taco Bell in the neighborhood that closes. There are lives of vulnerable people at stake. Milton
is a great place to live and to raise a family. Please do not let a business take our city back to the 18th
century by allowing this rezoning to pass. I am adamantly against this project being built in our city. At
the very least, with all of the community concerns that you will hear tonight, I would ask for a deferral
of this decision and suggest that Mayor Lockwood call a meeting with MDAC, the management
company that will provide the services for the residents, and a representative from our state
developmental disability office. This meeting should focus on exploring whether this project is even
viable for the city. Thank you so much for your time.
Randy Grayson, 1217 Whitshire Way, Milton, GA:
My name is Randy Grayson and I first heard about this when I received a flyer in the mail and started
asking people in the community what was going on and I have a child with autism. I volunteer for a lot
of groups in Georgia and Autism Speaks, Autism in Society, MDAC, Georgia Council, AADD, I asked
them all about this development and none of them have been contacted or talked to about what this
development would look like. None of them have really been talked to about what was going to go on.
That troubles me. That our local experts and our local people in the community haven't been talked to.
One of the questions that I heard was does this adversely affect the adjacent use of property? I think it
does. If my daughter wants to grow up and be a member of the Villages of Devonshire, if she wants to
be a part of that community, what is she going to say to the person that says to her "there is a facility
down the street for you." How is she going to live in the community when there is a segregated living
facility right down the road. I recognize that there are a lot of issues here but I would want to know that
my government before it approved a zoning requirement based solely on what it looks like, requires the
business to meet with local experts and local officials and really make a plan that is going to effectively
meet the needs of the community and the people that they serve. I do believe that the folks I have talked
to a couple of times are willing to do that. They will do that in the future if you require them to meet
with MDAC and defer this and given them an opportunity to create an appointment that will actually
work for people with autism in our community. Thanks.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 14 of 53
Eric Jacobson, 2 Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA:
Good evening Mr. Mayor and Council. I am the executive director of the Georgia Council on
Developmental Disabilities. I want to take just a minute to talk about the issues that you brought up
earlier when you were discussing the comprehensive plan. When you look at the comprehensive plan
and the policies and the procedures that this board and council have adopted over the past few years, I
think that what you will see is that the proposed development is actually in opposition to which you have
already discussed. I think before that, we need to understand that this is a complex issue. It is a complex
issue that cannot be explained easily. There are assumptions about what people with disabilities can and
cannot do and over the last 35 to 40 years, it has been proven time and time again that people with
disabilities can and should live in communities that are inclusive of all people. Otherwise, people
should not be segregated, set aside in other places, and support it in a way in which they are not allowed
or able to participate in their community. I want to talk about some of the policies within your land use
plan that you have adopted and started to work on this evening. First of all, under the issues and
opportunities section, one of the things that we talked about was the importance of accessibility in
universal design that benefits all citizens. The idea behind accessibility and universal design is that
everything we do is open to all people so that anyone can visit and anyone can come. Current
development patterns, and in fact this is a part of your plan, do not reflex the comprehensive awareness
of accessibility and universal design. I would suggest to you that if you allow for the continuation of
this development, that there could be a condition placed on it that all buildings are designed with
universal design and visit ability as a part of it. Under policies and economic developments, this is 1.5,
we will consider employment needs and skill levels of our existing population and making decisions on
proposed development projects. Again, one of the things that I would ask is that you put a condition on
this that you must require the developer to hire an entity that has experience in getting people with
autism jobs in the community. It is very difficult and very important that if they are really going to get
people jobs in the community, that they have folks involved that really understand and are able to do
that at the same time. Next under housing, we will accommodate our diverse population. I want to repeat
what Rita said earlier, and that is that in housing, the United States Department of Justice is recently
settled a lawsuit with the state of Georgia that basically says that people with disabilities should not be
in institutions and it is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by putting people in
institutional kinds of settings. One of the things that you have done repeatedly over the past four years is
pass proclamations supporting the ideas behind the ADA and this would be in violation of that piece.
Finally, if I understand this correctly, the zoning for the special school which is defined in section 64-1
of your code defines school specially meaning an educational use to vote....
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Mayor, I apologize for interrupting but the time is up.
Mayor Lockwood:
Would the council be willing to make a motion to add an additional two minutes to each side?
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to extend three minutes to both the support
and opposition for RZ 10-05. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously 7-0.
Randy Grayson:
I am just about finished. Again, your code states that a special school means an educational use devoted
to special education including the training of gifted, learning disabled, for mentally and physically
disabled people but not operated by the Fulton County Board of Education. I would suggest to you is
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 15 of 53
that this is not a school that is being developed. In fact, if you look at what is being proposed, there are
no curriculums that are being offered as a part of the facility and the transitions facility that is being
proposed. I am not sure that this will fit your definition of what a special school is. Finally, again I just
want to remind you of some of the proclamations that you passed in July of 2009 that people should live
independently in the community, that it is the intent that the City of Milton to include all people
including persons with disabilities in every aspect of community life. I just want to conclude by saying
the Georgia Council and Developmental Disabilities has had a really great opportunity to work here in
Milton over the past year. In fact, you as a council has appropriated funds in order to create real
communities right here in your area and we appreciate the special relationship that has been developed
between the council and the City of Milton and in light of that as a part of what we are trying to do with
real communities, the proposal falls into direct opposition with what we are trying to create.
Debbie Dobbs, 6550, Stapleford Lane, Johns Creek, GA:
Hello mayor and Council. I run the North Fulton Autism Support Group. Our group has never been
contacted by the developer. We have not heard from anybody. We have hundreds of families in our
group and no one has been asked. Our children's voices have been lost yet again. They did not speak
with us. We have serious concerns about this plant. I am a parent of a child who happens to be on the
autism spectrum. Not afflicted, not suffering, but a child. What I heard tonight in the description from
the people that are proposing this plan turned my stomach. This is not how I want my child be viewed
and I am offended.
Mark Baker, 126 Wild Horse Cove, Cleveland, GA:
I am the director of advocacy for the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities.
I work with advocacy communities, community based organizations all over the state for the last three
years. Those organizations have been in support of an action to make sure that the state does not create
entities like this ever again. The department of justice agreement that has been reached just in the last
month will ensure that people needing disability services will be able to receive residential services in a
humane, dignified, and communities all over Georgia which I work with have worked these last three
years to make sure that institutions of this size and shape do not happen again and the homestead
decision that was handed down 10 years ago reinforces that and I urge you to please take careful
consideration of the impact of this consideration tonight. Thank you.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Mayor, I'm sorry to interrupt again, but time is up again...
Mayor Lockwood:
Can we get 2 more minutes out of council?
Councilmember Thurman:
As long as it is even on both sides.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to extend two minutes to both the support and
opposition for RZ 10-05. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously 7-0.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 16 of 53
Scott Bales, P.O. Box 161351, Atlanta, GA:
I am an individual with autism and this particular facility would be targeted towards people like me. I
have worked very hard in my life to be successfully included and I hold down a job and play in the
orchestra in my church and I am in graduate school at Georgia State. I am also the first and only
appointee to the State Advisory Panel on Special Education by the government as an individual with
autism and I'm on the steering community for the autism research division. The Centers for Disease
Control considers me to be an expert of actual experience and has involved me in training of an
Epidemiologist and national field staff as well as Pediatricians. I am also on the Georgia Council for
Developmental Disabilities. There are a lot of issues in regards to this new housing. First of all,
facilities like this have a very bad track record even from an educational stand point. When you
congregate kids and youth with autism you have an infamous history of picking up bad behaviors that
make it even more difficult to successfully be included and integrated into a greater society. It tends to
be a breeding ground and people pick up bad stuff from each other. They don't learn to get along with
the neuro -typical world which we have to survive in and even possibly thrive. You were talking about
having a cafeteria fix food, a lot of people with autism are extremely picky eaters and have enormous
number of food allergies to glutton, soy, peanuts, corn, and the list is very long and I pretty much have
all of them to one degree or another and most people don't know about that and we have to take care of
our own diets and there is no kitchen in these rooms. Also, we tend to have a very strong allergy to any
type of fluorescent, halogen, or LED lighting. In my home, I have only incandescent lights pretty much
and everything is on a dimmer switch so I can dim it to dim lighting and any facility like this would
need to be completely free of fluorescent, halogen, and LED lighting and have incandescent and natural
lighting only. There are enormous noise issues and I have had to put extra insulation in the walls of my
bedroom and the ceiling just to muffle sounds just so I can sleep at night because I have sound
hypersensitivity. There are so many allergies to all kinds of dust and chemicals and the building
materials would have to be hypoallergenic and have no carpet because it might accumulate dust and
everything. It is very hard to find people that are sensitive to people with autism as far as staffing and I
wouldn't live in a facility like this and I don't know any adult who would voluntarily live in a facility
like this. We want to be a part of the greater community, we don't want to be segregated like we're some
unwanted leper. Do you have any questions? Okay, Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
It looks like we are done with opposition but we still have some time left for approval if they would like
to speak.
Nathan Hendricks:
Thank you. A vast majority of the comments you heard were about the institutionalization of this whole
subject and particularly the view of the litigation, it was that very subject of that litigation and the abuses
that stems from state government institutionalized efforts that try and deal with this issue that is given
rise to what is in front of you this evening which is unique in the spectrum and scheme of this whole
issue of autism and taking a private sector, private pay, totally voluntary development that weds
residential and small community pockets with a transition for vocational school. It is cutting edge, it has
not been done. With that, I would like Rick to step up and speak to other particular comments that were
in opposition.
Rick Swanson:
Mr. Mayor and members of the City council, I want to thank the folks that have spoken tonight and I
have spoken with a number of them and I appreciate the opportunity to get their input. I want to start by
saying we are not an institution. This is a home and it's by choice. If it doesn't fit ones needs, then they
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paee 17 of 53
have the choice not to live there. We are not pushing anyone to live there. Our goal is to provide
inclusion within the community by creating an actual place that caters to and is sensitive to the needs of
those with autism. Autism by nature is a spectrum disorder and it can range and everyone is different.
The gentleman who just spoke, his opinion is that he wouldn't live here. He has that right and in fact we
would be the first ones to step up and help someone be placed in a home in a community if they feel that
it is a more appropriate environment for them. Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, that's not reality
for everyone. There are many people in this country that don't that luxury or that option and they're not
being served. My clients have been those people. I may not have talked to every single person in the
state of Georgia as it relates to this, but I have talked to a number of people and I can give you my
resources. One of the key people that I have talked to is the adults with autism themselves. They have
been my real source. I have been introduced by Have Dreams at Park Ridge which is one of many
organizations from Park Ridge, Illinois and it is one of many organizations in the country who have been
proactive with us in helping us to understand this. We have met with parents who have no place to go
and they have a fear of not knowing what they are going to do when they are no longer here. While it's
wonderful to say that we have all of these wonderful plans for these adults, the reality is the country
cannot serve them. That is the reality. So, what I have said from the beginning and I will continue to say,
as long as we are able to do this, we will keep our doors open and our minds open but we are not going
to take a one sided approach to this. We will provide a choice for these adults and we will continue to
move forward. We are very proud of what we are doing and we appreciate the opportunity to do this.
My clients are the people that are invested in autism and I have listened to them for three years and our
design and our plan is the result of that input. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
I will now close the public hearing and open up to questions from staff or if the Council have questions
for the applicant.
Councilmember Tart:
Thank you, Mayor. There was a comment made by one of the people that this proposed development
would be in violation of the ADA? Could you speak to that, Mr. Jarrard?
City Attorney Jarrard:
Well, to the extent that the proposal is in violation of any law it may affect the ability, I think there was
one person who talked about license renewal, it may result in some sort of enforcement action. Let me
just say this from the city of Milton's perspective, right now I am unaware of the proposal being in
violation of any law. It may be offensive of certain sections of public policy, but as far as being in
violation of the law I am unaware of it. If it is in violation of the law, it will obviously have to be
prevented. I am not aware at this present time nor has staff made me aware nor have my discussions
with members of the community that have spoken here tonight place me on notice that there is a legal
prohibition on what is being proposed this evening.
Councilmember Longoria:
Lynn, I was going to ask you, there seems to be a disconnect between what the design review board
talked about in terms of the variance and what the staff recommends. Are you saying that you are not in
agreement and staff is not in agreement of what the DRB had looked at to be considered?
Lynn Tully:
What we gave you was the technical recommendation based on the letter of the law requirements. We
do realize, however, the options for DRB color pallet are pretty much as Mr. Hendricks stated, light
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 18 of 53
brown, dark brown, and medium brown. We understand that it may be appropriate for some areas but
potentially Deerfield is not necessarily one of those in light of some of the other developments that are
along Deerfield Parkway.
Councilmember Hewitt:
I guess this would perhaps be for you also, Lynn. I believe Mr. Jacobson spoke that there may be a
possibility that special school, in this case, doesn't meet our definition of a special school, can you speak
to that?
Lynn Tully:
In that definition, it does read as Mr. Jacobson quoted. I will say, however, that it is not necessarily
crafted as a term of art for planning. It may be within their professions but to our interpretation of that
definition it meets the requirements.
Councilmember Hewitt:
Okay, Second question but I'm not sure who this is to. What additional type of license would be
required for this development outside of the city of Milton's typical building permits and that sort of
thing? Is there an additional type of license that is required for this?
Lynn Tully:
There is a state license that is also required but I will ask the applicant to speak more to that if you all so
wish. 11 1 r
Rick Swanson:
Any license that we are required we will seek with the state if needed.
..��ure➢irrierr5�tr-r i,arrrr'r'�ni�rv:
First I want to thank everyone for their comments and for being here and showing an interest in what
goes on in the places that you live and work and I appreciate both perspectives. As it relates to the legal
question at hand, I believe that I heard you say that to your knowledge there are no negative
implementations relative to the ADA, can you also speak to the court case that was mentioned in terms
of a finding within the past four weeks just to be specific?
City Attorney Jarrard:
Yes, I believe the decision they are talking about pertained to, more or less, a settlement between the
Department of Justice and the state of Georgia. I will simply say that whatever it may or may not
forecast with respect to the direction of the state of Georgia, it's not going to have implications with
respect to land use on the City of Milton. Obviously, Milton was not a party to the case and quite frankly
it wasn't even legal even though it may have been moralized and sanctioned by the court, it was a
settlement and it was a negotiated agreement. With respect to zoning issues I have no facts or
information before me that suggests that it is an issue for the City.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Just another legal question, based on the sanctions that we have before us, can you speak what we are
required by law to evaluate with regards to what is before us?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 19 of 53
City Attorney Jarrard:
Yes, in fact I believe the Mayor spoke to that and I believe Mrs. Tully spoke to it and I will repeat that.
We have a zoning code that contains elements that this council has adopted and is ratified by previous
action that sets the criteria for which you have to review this matter and that's it. That are the things that
I know staff has tried to put together and provide to you, that is what you're dealing with now. A lot of
the things that were stated during the public comments, while terribly compelling, and I don't mean to
diminish that in any respect, things about license and about the state with respect to professional
sanction of this sort of activity with respect to the economic viability of this sort of activity. Those are
not issues that can control your decision if your business comes to Milton and it simply has no customer
base, it will fail. The market will control that and the users will control that but it is not what can control
your decision in this sort of incidents. You have to look at the elements in your code and you have to
comply with your land use map and the comprehensive plan as best you can and make a decision and
then allow the market and the potential clients of the service or facility provided to decide if it will stand
the test of the market.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
With regards to the license requirements, I think I heard the applicant say that they would have to abide
by those, Mrs. Tully could you please speak to the timing of land disturbance versus license
requirements should this proceed? Would those requirements have to be met before there was any land
disturbance that would be permitted by the city of Milton.
Lynn Tully:
Typically it is in the reverse. The building is typically constructed prior to the issuance of the business
license and the business license would be contingent on any other requirements particularly if there were
a state license involved.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Mr. Jarrard, can you please comment on that? In this case, would there be any license or requirements or
beyond what we are typically accustomed to with the process that Mrs. Tully just outlined?
City Attorney Jarrard:
Probably not. Once again, this is a product of the developers due diligence. They need to be the ones
before they expend money and resources to make sure they can get whatever they need to have the
appropriate license is with the state. There are a host of developments that have to do that very thing
and the burden is on those developers to make sure they can get the license they need to do whatever it
is that they are attempting to do. The city of Milton will handle this like any other development and will
issue business license and do inspections and CO and issues with respect to any state license will be
between the developer and the state and I'm not trying to minimize it, but that will be their issue and not
necessarily Milton's.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
In terms of requirements, I know that we heard from a lot of citizens if they could have the opportunity
to be part of that entity whether it be MDAC and/or an extension of MDAC and some of those that
represent children of autism, etc. but also the broad community throughout the state of Georgia, are you
aware of, Mr. Jarrard, of any opportunities for us to make that as a part of the condition and/or would
that be something the applicant will be willing to have as a part of our assessment this evening as to
whether or not you would be willing to have a formal group or entity put together as if you were maybe
in an advisory sort of group and or entity to work directly with the organizations before us this evening.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 20 of 53
Nathan Hendricks:
In order to tie it down correctly, the parties that have the records at interest that are pulled to the table, I
can comment on behalf of the applicant that post this hearing the applicant will be happy to put together
a committee working with staff to have included on that committee folks from the community that have
an interest in the ongoing nature of this proposed development.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
The site plan was language within the analysis that there were three specimen trees that would be taken
out and I realize that there would also be some saved. Could staff just speak to that? I don't know that
Mark Law is available, but could someone speak to whether or not there was any alternative approach
that was viewed with regards to the actual site plan? I thought that was one of the things that was before
US.
Lynn Tully:
It appears, yes you are correct Mark Law, our city arborist would be the one to give more specifics on
that, however, it does appear that the building itself is in the drip line of a red oak which is also a
diseased red oak that the vocational school in the back portion, the drive around portion of the very rear
if that there are two specimen trees that are both poplar trees that will be removed. There needs to be
accessibility by the fire department to three sides of that building. Cutting it off, I'm not sure that it's
possible but it might be something they could consider in shifting the site plan and the other that is
scheduled for removal according to their plan is a 24 in red oak which is pretty much in the center of a
parking area and a drive isle.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I appreciate that input. My question as it relates to that as it would any other site plan that we would
review as a matter of course because we have a tree ordinance that emphasizes the importance of saving
specimen trees. I believe that one of the things that we speak about is whether or not there has been
ample attempt to save those particular specimen trees and whether or not there could still be
consideration to that. Short of having those alternative plans, that is the basis if that question. I'm not
sure that there is any alternative pursued.
Rick Swanson:
The answer to your question is yes. We did go through probably two or three different renditions of the
drawing. The engineering and forestry staff was very diligent and in fact their design was modified a
number of times to accommodate that. There are two trees that while area characterized and being
affected, there really is no justification in removing those trees, it just means that the road does encroach
someone into the drip line area. That is not suggested that they may not die at a later date, but it doesn't
justify them just cutting down. We will meet the tree ordinance in terms of replacement trees. I guess
the point I'm trying to make is that we did everything we could to come up with the best possible plan
given the circumstances.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Just to clarify, is it two of those three that would not be removed initially and/or those are two additional
trees beyond the three that are sited as specimen trees?
Rick Swanson:
I don't have the plan in front of me.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 21 of 53
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
It just wasn't articulated in the analysis and that's the reason for the question.
Rick Swanson:
I stand corrected, at one point we did have the roadway working around them, but I stand corrected.
That was a previous plan that didn't work because we were require to provide fire access around the
building so it was a life safety issue. I thought at one point those trees were protected to the extent that
we did have the driveway running through it, but because of the configuration of the green house, the
shifting of the building and so forth, it wasn't possible to preserve those trees.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
As we consider this case if we consider whether or not staff and again, depending on the direction of
this, these are some of the things that we do by law have to cover tonight because we have a site plan
before us. I would ask that at least, depending on how this is considered, as a land use issue is that we
evaluate whether or not there are some options there. Another question I had had to do with the fourth
tower. It was mentioned early on that the fourth tower would not initially be proposed and so my
question for staff and/or the applicant is that if that fourth third story building is not pursued with land
disturbance to be installed on that until such time as it was decided that it was actually necessary.
Lynn Tully:
I'm looking at the topography map here and it appears that the area where the fourth phase here actually
again the roadway has to run around the full section of the building and therefore the drive isle goes all
the way around what would be all four sections including that future section. So there will be some
disturbance back there but it may not be to the degree to totally patting out that area for the building, but
there will be disturbance back there already from the drive isle so I can't say that there won't be
disturbance for that fourth phase, however, I don't know that it is complete patting out.
Mayor Lockwood:
What it be safe to say that from staff s perspective that the applicant will meet the tree ordinance by
recommended time?
Lynn Tully:
Yes sir. He will not be issued until he does.
Mayor Lockwood:
I'm going to go ahead and say that this is probably one of the toughest cases that we have had. My head
says one thing and follows the legalities and has one decision and my heart has a different decision too
so it's a really tough one. I see both sides, I do realize that this is a private business but it is up to them
to do their due diligence and it's not up to the city or the community to make sure that they are
successful. On the flip side, I'm sure they want to be successful. That is not our decision to make right
now. What I do see and hear on both sides are that while there is probably no way to pull everything
together, but there is probably some middle ground. What I hear from the opposition is there is a
concern on the design and maybe the operations of this facility which we are not making that decision
tonight, but, if I were the applicant and it were my business and I had my financial stake and risk
involved, I would want to be open to the community to not only make this successful but also have
people that would recommend the facility. Again, I certainly understand and I have heard people talk, it
is not a facility that everyone wants their child or their loved one to be in. I can say that in Milton there
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 22 of 53
are apartments and town homes and single family homes and cabins in the woods and just because
someone chooses to live in one doesn't mean that everyone wants to live there. As the applicant has
said, if a family member or a person with autism chooses their facility, they have the ability to walk too.
If they are not happy living there then they're not. Personally, I wish there was some way that we could
take some of the opposition and use that in a positive way to help the owners of this property tweak it to
make this more palpable and maybe come up with some compromises on the actual operation and layout
in the business model of it. I don't think, and I'll ask the city attorney, but I don't know, other than what
was stated by councilmember Zahner Bailey, but maybe have a stakeholder group. Our options right
now are to defer, deny, or approve this. I think from the legal standpoint we are probably more in favor
of approving it but from the heart standpoint it may push you to deny it. Is there any legal way to have
someone sit down at a table and help each other out for it to be more palpable to both sides?
City Attorney Jarrard:
Mr. Mayor that is always challenging in zonings and land use decisions that are like this with passionate
positions on both sides. No government that I have ever worked for has been able to make people
compromise and that is no reflection on any individuals that are here, I don't know any of them, but I'm
just saying it is difficult to do that. Certainly, a deferral can be used as a basis to try and get both sides
to sit down, I have certainly see that a number of times. It may be that the applicant wants to do that,
however, it may also be that the applicant feels that they have tried to do that. I think the most
productive use of time is to ask the applicant if they feel they have exhausted efforts and compromise
and if they say that they have, I think the applicant is entitled to a vote, yes or no, on the application. If
the applicant believes that there is some utility to a referral, then that may be the way to try and reach a
consensus but I think that will rest in the experience of the applicant and whether they think there is any
benefit to additional time.
Mayor Lockwood:
I think it is one of those things that the applicant would be willing to work with the community in order
to have something that they feel is more positive about this facility, but I think you're right. With that,
I'd like to ask the applicant if they feel they have exhausted all of your due diligence in that being a
private business you feel comfortable moving on or is there a way to work with some of our community
members that are very passionate and have experience here that you would be open to sitting down with
them and taking their input very seriously?
Rick Swanson:
Mr. Mayor, I think we have exhausted our due diligence through this process but I would also like to
point out that it's the city's job to pull both sides together. What I have said from the beginning and
what I will continue to say, and you have my word, I will continue to work with and listen. I don't
necessarily have to agree. I think what you have realized is that there are two sides to this and I am more
than willing to continue to work and be proactive and improve and make this a project that works for the
entire community, but what I have learned in the last few weeks is that there are definitely very definite
opinions on how one should live in a community with the definition inclusion being very different in
many peoples' minds. You have my word that I will remain proactive and I will work with them but I
don't feel that it is fair that we postpone this action. If the decision of this board is to deny us, then of
course we will have to deal with that. If the decision is to approve us, I want you to know that it is my
solemn promise to continue to work with all of those that are invested in the autism and mental
disabilities community.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 23 of 53
Councilmember Thurman:
First of all, I want to thank all of you who have come out to speak tonight. I know that this is a very
emotional topic for a lot of people but I really appreciate what our Milton Disability Awareness
Community has done and they have definitely done a lone to make Milton unique and a wonder way to
the disabled community, but this is a zoning issue that is before us and I think we have to understand
that. Second of all, I am struggling with this. I have spoken to a lot of people who have children and
young adults that are autistic and the ones I have spoken to have all said they would love to have this
type of facility in their community. And it's not an institution where people are put away, but it is a
vocational school and a place for them to go and get a training so that they can be included in a
community to do so much more than they might be able to do so otherwise if they did not live in an area
close to it that would have this kind of training. I know that it's not for everyone. The spectrum of
autism is so broad that you couldn't begin to find a facility or school that would help everyone in all of
the spectrum of it but at the same time I feel that there are a lot of people and a lot of young adults that
would like to live in a home. When my teenagers got to be a certain age they were ready to be out on
their own. There was a step to become independent and it's not going straight from living with mom and
dad to living all by themselves. They went through the dorm years where they at least had some
supervision, but I really believe that part of our responsibility as parents is to help our kids to become
independent. I believe that a facility like this, if done properly, it can really help a lot of young people
become more independent, get the type of training that they need, and like I said I know it's not for
everyone but I do believe it can help certain young adults to achieve during their life to become
independent. With that being said, I know there are a lot of people that don't agree with my view but
this is a zoning decision and I believe when it comes down to it, I hope that you will all work together. I
think the people in this audience have a tremendous of wealth and knowledge , much more so than any
of us have on the subject, and I hope that you will sit down and talk but when we look at it we have to
look at it as a zoning decision and I think that is really what is before us not, not a business decision.
Councilmember Lusk:
I have pretty much kept silent during this discussion and I have listened to each and every one of you
and I am really encouraged to see this type of participation in our city and I'd like to see participation
like this in everything we do. I have probably, more than everyone else here on council, have a greater
interest. I have been involved in citizen advocacy in the last 15 years. I understand the principals that
you are talking about. I have lived them and I've preached them. I say again that this is a zoning issue
not a special permit issue. I see this as an opportunity for people with this particular disability to be
mainstreamed into our society and our culture. It is an option and an alternative and totally voluntary.
From what I have seen with the tuition involved with this facility, I see it on a par with Emory
University. What family out there would not support of this type and the personal and financial
commitment involved here is tremendous. I would do it for one of my children if this opportunity were
available and they had this particular disability. This is heart wrenching from your part here because if
what you believe in, but I think if we are not being an inclusive community, I think we need to consider
all options and progressive options. There are new ideas out here on how to help people with particular
disabilities. I see this as somewhat of a landmark use for the city of Milton and I think it would put us
on the map whether you believe in it or not. This is not a dumping ground, this is not a brook run. This
is a voluntary facility here to help put people back into society as contributing members of our society.
Councilmember Longoria:
This whole thing came about in an interesting way because originally it just looked like a zoning case
and then we started looking deeper and I started having conversations with people in MDAC and
f
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 24 of 53
obviously it is a little deeper than just zoning. The challenge I see is when you have two sides that are
as passionate as we have here and I'm just trying to understand where the disconnect is with why one
side is so far over here and the other side is so far over there. Most of the time that comes down to
communication and most of the time that comes down to communication and comes down to knowing
everything that you need to know to make a decision and so the challenge that I would have is why
didn't the applicant come in sooner and try to make connections with MDAC with the folks that are part
of the community here. It's not very hard to find them. We are a city that has a committee that is
devoted to this and it would have been easy for you to make contact here and contact sooner would have
meant more information and more understanding and possibly could have kept some folks from
speaking in opposition. At the same time, here we are. We are a city that has a committee that is
devoted to this and I don't think this was on their radar screen until a week or two ago. The challenge
have is for the city staff is why didn't we make functioning committees within the city aware that this
was something that was coming and maybe it would allow them to reach out sooner to the applicant and
maybe build a bridge where they could understand exactly what this meant and exactly what was going
on, because I don't think it's as black and white as either side is trying to make it seem and that is really
where the challenge is. I don't really want to really categorize this as just a zoning issue because it is
more than that, but at the same time it was a missed opportunity for communication and a missed
opportunity for us to get these groups together and understand what was going on.
Councilmember Tart:
I would just like to thank everyone who came tonight, both people that are in support or opposition.
This is a very difficult issue and I had no idea that it would be this difficult as the Mayor said when the
issue was first brought to our attention, however, I don't begin to even know what it would be like to
have a child with a disability and all of the things that you all go through on a day to day basis so I am
glad that you all came to help us understand this type of thing. One of the hard or the difficult thing
about this job is that we have to make decisions that are in the best interest of the tax payers and the
health and welfare of all citizens but also good use of funds and taxpayer money and the decisions we
make could very well end up in court challenged and that might be with your taxpayers money would
have to be used to defend those lawsuits. That is the reason that we keep going back to the fact that this
is a zoning decision and it's not to say that there aren't definitely human aspects to help with this
decision because there are, but we are bound by the law in making our decision and in light of that I will
echo the sentiments of my colleagues and hope that these two groups can get together and I agree with
you, Mr. Longoria, I think there were some missed opportunity for communication here and from what I
hear the applicant say that this division of this community is very different than what I am hearing the
opposition think as the vision of this particular development. I am hoping the two of them can get
together and hopefully come to a meeting of the minds with regards to this development.
Mayor Lockwood:
I would like to open this up to motions and say that again, obviously if this is approved or denied there is
still time even if it is approved to talk and for the applicant and our community to get together. By the
time the facility is built and whatnot, that will be quite a while and there I a lot of processes so it's not
that were at the end of the road right now. There is still time and they're still in the design phase and
this is still just the zoning and there is still time for discussion and maybe questions and for people to get
more information. Another thing, I know Councilmember Tart made the comment about what other
people have to go through with if they have a child with a disability and one thing I do know, everyone
that I know that have a child or family member that has a disability but it's not a disability to those
people it's a blessing. I think we need to try and do the best we can and hopefully this applicant will do
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 25 of 53
that to make this a place that people will want to come if that is what suits them. I kind of look at it as
my child going off to college. Living in the dorm and there isn't a kitchen and it's a congregate group
and at some point he will move on and it's the same thing this facility can do. I will now open it up for a
motion.
Councilmember Tart:
Before we open it for a motion, can staff verify conditional use permit for a special school section 64-
1820. Could you verify that that is the correct citation of our ordinance for a special school?
Lynn Tully:
It's actually 64-1831 school private or special.
Councilmember Hewitt:
I have some confusion about planning commission/DRB/Staff Recommendations on the percentages and
the color pallet. If you could clarify that, it seems like there are perhaps 3 recommendations but at the
end we all agree.
Lynn Tully:
It does seem that way. The DRB gives their commentary. They asked for additional brick and stone on
the pop outs and the same that's the same thing the planning commission asked for to try and bring that
percentage up. They also liked the colors that were presented. Again, they are not a fully recommended
body but they did give commentary as a courteously review. The community development department
as staff, we also recommended approval conditional for the rezoning and use permit with denial of the
variance request which were for the brick and stone as we discussed as well as the colors. The planning
commission recommended approval on all three parts including the three part variance. The planning
commission did also recommend that the plans be approved and specifically that the front and the side
be articulated with 65% brick or natural stone up through those gables.
Councilmember Thurman:
Do you support what the planning commission has recommended?
Lynn Tully:
Yes ma'am, we don't have any other disagreement with them.
Councilmember Lusk:
I sense that I am not the only one that is confused. On page two in the box at the top of the page, does
that capture all of the terms and conditions that have been mutually agreed upon with the applicant?
Lynn Tully:
It does with the exception of part one of the variance condition requiring that the brick or natural stone
be brought up through those gables at the front of the buildings.
Councilmember Lusk:
So that is the only variation from what is here in the box that would constitute all of the terms that have
been talked about.
Lynn Tully:
Yes sir, that is the only addition.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 26 of 53
Councilmember Longoria:
Are we voting on each section separately or are we grouping all of them together?
Mayor Lockwood:
You can group them together and make them amendments.
Motion: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve RZ10-05/U10-Ol/VC10-03 with the following
conditions as recommended by staff-
1)
taff
1) To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a) Assisted Living Facility with no more than 72 beds, at a maximum density of 4,972.8
gross floor area per acre zoned or a total gross floor area of 72,000 square feet, whichever
is less.
b) Limit the height of the assisted living facility to no more than 50 feet
as measured from average grade, and four (4) stories.
c) Special School at a maximum density of 1,787.1 gross floor area per
acre zoned or a total floor area of 23,000 square feet, whichever is
less. (U 10-01)
d) Limit the height of the special school to no more than 40 feet as
measured from average grade, and two (2) stories.
2) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a) To the revised site plan received by the Community Development Department on
October 26, 2010. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, all other applicable City ordinances and these
conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. In the event the
Recommended Conditions of Zoning cause the approved site plan to be substantially
different, the applicant shall be required to complete the concept review procedure prior
to application for a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted herein, compliance
with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy.
3) To the owner's agreement to the following site development
considerations:
a) Allow the exterior wall materials of all non-residential buildings and townhouse, duplex and
multifamily buildings to consist of a minimum of 65 percent (per vertical wall plane) of the
following: brick or natural stone (Section 64-1095(p)) for the assisted living facility. The
front fagade shall be articulated with 65 percent brick or natural stone up through the gables.
(VC 10-03, Part 1)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Pase 27 of 53
b) Allow accent building materials for all non-residential buildings and also townhouse, duplex
and multifamily units to be limited to a maximum of 35 percent brick, tile, non -reflective
glass, natural stone and weathered, polished or fluted face, with fluted, split -face, or broken
face finish, Portland cement plaster and lath systems, architectural (either precast or tilt -up)
concrete (fluted or with exposed finish) or Hardi-Plank (Section 64-1095(q)) for the assisted
living facility. (VC 10-03, Part 2)
c) Allow the following exterior siding colors as produced by Cabot Solid stains to be permitted:
Napa Vine, Newport Blue, Brickstone, Colonial Yellow, (Section 64-1095(t)) for the assisted
living facility. (VC 10-03, Part 3)
4) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication and improvements:
a) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton prior to the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy,
sufficient land as necessary to provide the following:
i. Provide at least 12 feet of right-of-way from the back of curb of all abutting road
improvements or 1 foot from the back of sidewalk, whichever is greater, along the entire
property frontage, as well as allow the necessary construction easements while right-of-
way is being improved.
ii. Installation/modification of the following transportation infrastructure to be installed in
accordance with Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the City of
Milton Code of Ordinances:
a) SB Right Turn Lane on Deerfield Pkwy at site driveway
1. Any existing sidewalk or utilities in conflict with new turn lane location
shall be relocated
b) Any new required entrances shall meet the City of Milton Code of Ordinances and AASHTO
guidelines as approved by Milton Public Works and shall conform to the following:
The Deerfield Pkwy driveway shall provide a minimum of 100 feet or the 95% queue
length, whichever is greater, of uninterrupted access. This distance shall be measured
from the edge of the thru lane on Deerfield Pkwy to the edge of any interior drive aisle or
parking space.
5) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
a) The storm water management facilities shall utilize earthen embankments, where possible.
Walled structures are not encouraged. If walled structures are proposed, they must meet the
acceptable design standards of the Department of Community Development.
i. Where side slopes for storm water management facility are steeper than 4:1 the
facility shall have a six foot high, black five -board equestrian style fence with two
inch by four inch welded wire constructed around it.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 28 of 53
Second and Vote: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
7-0.
Mayor Lockwood:
I think we should take a five minute break before we get back into the next subject.
2. U10-02NC10-04 —13120 Arnold Mill Road by Frank Schaffer, The Landscape
Group, Inc. for Use Permit for a Landscaping Business (Section 64-1820) and a 4 -
part concurrent variance in the existing buildings:
1) Beginning at a point on the west property line at the northwestern property
corner; to reduce a portion of the 50 -foot buffer and 10 -foot improvement setback
to 0 feet beginning at a point on the west property line at the northwestern
property corner for a total distance of 126 feet to a point on the west property line
located 126 feet south of the northwestern property corner (Section 64-1141.3.a);
2) Beginning at a point on the east property line located 40 feet south of the
northeastern property corner; to reduce a portion of the 50 -foot buffer and 10 -foot
improvement setback be reduced to a 30 -foot undisturbed buffer with a 10 -foot
improvement setback for a total distance of 98 feet to a point on the east property
line located 138 feet south of the northeastern property corner (Section 64-
1141.3.a);
3) To reduce the 50 -foot building setback to a 44.09 -foot setback for the warehouse
along the east property line [Section 64-1820(b)3];
4) To reduce the 50 -foot building setback to a 47.58 -foot setback for the warehouse
and a 28.25 -foot setback for the steps to the office deck along the west property
line [Section 64-1820(b)3].
(Agenda Item No. 10-1280)
ORDINANCE NO. 10-11-82
(First Presentation on November 1, 2010)
(Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Lynn Tully:
The subject site does include 1.7 acres, this acreage has some challenges. It has at least two streams on
the property, some topo issues, as well as the existing 800 sq.ft house which is used as an office, and a
two story 6,600 sq. ft warehouse. It is located within the agricultural forestry and mining land use
designation on the partial plan update. The request is for a special use permit and therefore the use
permit considerations have to be considered and reviewed. A. Whether the proposed use is consistent
with the land use or economic development plans adopted by the Mayor and City council. The
requested use permit is inconsistent with the intent of the city of Milton partial plan update and based on
the applicant's need for concurrent variances, it does not provide for an appropriate transition of uses.
B. compatibility with land uses and zoning districts in the vicinity of the property for which the use
permit is proposed. The proposed landscaping business is not compatible with land uses in the vicinity
based on the need for reduction of undisturbed buffers and required building setbacks for the use permit
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 29 of 53
that would provide for the necessary protection of the adjacent properties. Staff has noted that the
applicant made a similar request for a use permit on the subject site and was denied by the city of Milton
Mayor and City Council on December 17, 2009 with concurrent variances. Further, whether the
proposed use may violate local, state, and or federal statutes, ordinances, or regulations, governing land
development. Some disturbance has occurred within the 50ft undisturbed buffer area as well as some of
the 25ft state buffer. Action has been taken concerning the disturbance of the 25ft state buffer and has
been judicator in court. The 50ft buffer also needs additional revegitation to buffer standards. D. The
effect to the proposed use on traffic flow and vehicular and pedestrian along adjoining streets. The
proposed use does not anticipate generating a significant increase in traffic, however, If the petition is
approved we do recommend that only one entrance be utilized and the western side of the property
based on site distance requirements along Arnold Mill Rd. The location and number in off street
parking spaces, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of three parking spaces per 1,000 sq ft.
and one office space and one per 2,000 sq ft. of warehouse space. The applicant is also required to
locate his parking and storage of work vehicles outside the minimal 60ft front yard building set back.
The site plan does indicate seven parking spaces that meet the requirements for parking located outside
the 60ft front yard building setback and in addition the site plan indicates a handicapped space on a
concrete parking pad in front of the warehouse where a telephone for customer calls is to be installed.
The amount and location of open space, the applicant site plan indicates that approximately half of the
subject site is undeveloped, I would note that the open space is located behind the stream which bisects
the property approximately in the middle. In addition, there is another stream that runs north to south.
Sufficient open space will not be provided based on the applicants variance request to reduce the
buffers. Staff does note that the existing warehouse's location within the 25ft city stream buffer and the
25ft non impervious setback is grandfathered but it does eliminate possible open space to provide a more
consistent development with adjacent properties. Protective screening, the request for buffer variances
does not provide sufficient screening for the adjacent properties along portions of the east and west
property lines. Staff does note that the applicant intends to remove the concrete along the front near the
east property line and replant to buffer standards for distance of 40ft from the northeast corner of the
property. The applicant is also requesting a reduction in the undisturbed buffer along the western
property line to Oft for a distance of 126ft to allow the relocated entrance. It is staff's opinion that the
proposed use is too intense for this particular property based in part of the amount of equipment
described in section H in the apparent lack of screening. H, hours and manners of operation, the
applicant does state that the hours of operation. The applicant does state that the hours of operation are
from 7:30am to 6:00pm. The business is a full landscape maintenance and design company. Equipment
consists of mowers, leaf blowers, trimmers, etc. which are stored in box trucks and the business has two
such trucks for lawn maintenance, two landscape trucks, two midsize pick-up trucks for sales and
service, one bobcat and one boxed trailer. Streetscape lighting at the time of the issuance of a city of
Milton business license, the site shall be in compliance with the northwest Fulton overlay district
regarding outdoor lighting. The applicant currently does not have any additional plans for lighting on
the property. Ingress and egress to the property, the applicant site plan indicates that one curb cut on
Arnold Mill Road and staff notes that there are two existing entrances on the property and the applicant
proposes to close one of these entrances due to the high volume of traffic on Arnold Mill Road. If this
petition is approved, staff also has requested to require that the entrance on the east be closed to provide
ingress and egress on the most western portion of the property. Again, there is a site plan analysis
included in your report. I would move along to the variance request parts one and two, the first part is a
reduction of the buffer along the western property line. To reduce a portion of the 5Oft buffer and IOft
improvement set back to Oft for approximately 126ft and part two, along the eastern property line, the
reduce a portion of the 50ft buffer and 1 oft improvement setback to be reduced to a 30ft undisturbed
buffer with a l Oft improvement setback for a total distance of 98ft. It is staff's opinion that the proposed
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Pase 30 of 53
use on the subject site with the requested reduction buffers is too intense for the property adjacent to
agricultural and residential uses. As discussed within the used permit considerations. In addition, it is
staff's opinion that the need for the buffer reductions are caused by the applicants request to operate a
landscaping business and that does not comply with the zoning ordinance as well as not complying with
all of the variance considerations contained in sections 64-1883. VC10-04 parts three and four, reducing
the 50ft building setback to a 44.09ft setback for the warehouse on the eastern property line and part
four, reducing that 50ft building setback to a 47.58ft setback for the warehouse and a 28.25ft setback for
the steps to the office deck along the western property line. Although the two buildings that require
reduction setbacks are existing structures, by requesting the landscape business, the building is not in
compliance with the use permit standards. It further demonstrates that the proposed use is too intensive
for the property and does not provide adequate setbacks to adjacent AG1 properties. Again, staff is
recommending denial. This has been reviewed by all other city departments involved and has had a
public involvement plan. The planning commission heard this request on October 26, 2010 and did
recommend conditional approval to the use permit U10-02 and conditional approval to the variance parts
one through four, variance VC 10-04 and the recommended conditions are included in your packet and I
would be happy to read those if necessary. Are there any questions?
Councilmember Thurman:
I have one question. I know it states that both the house and the warehouse were both built prior to
Milton becoming a city, do we know if they were permitted in Fulton County and when exactly that
warehouse was built?
Lynn Tully:
We believe that the warehouse did receive a permit. We will look and find out when that permit was
issued. I believe it is in the file. Any other questions in the meantime?
Councilmember Thurman:
Was it in the stream buffer at the time it was....
Lynn Tully:
I would presume so. I don't know when it was final, but I assume it was final, obviously with being built
in 2002 before we became a city, and I assume they got a certificate of...
Councilmember Thurman:
I didn't know if there were any changes to the stream buffer requirements between the time that it was
originally built and when we became a city.
Lynn Tully:
The additional 50ft for the city would have been added by the city when we enacted our stream buffer
requirements but other than that it was in violation.
Councilmember Lusk:
The city fined the owner about a year ago for a lack of slope stabilization, can you tell me how that
progressed?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paee 31 of 53
Lynn Tully:
That was heard in court and he was issued a fine which has been paid, remediation to that 25ft buffer has
been done, however some of the vegetation has died and so there needs to be some additional planting.
In addition to that, our 50ft buffer needs some additional planning to meet our requirements.
Councilmember Lusk:
You said it is part of the conditions?
Lynn Tully:
Yes sir, it is in the conditions and that would be condition 31- provide a landscape plan including a
buffer mitigation plan for the areas of the stream buffer that has been disturbed.
Councilmember Lusk:
That includes those areas that the subject was fined?
Lynn Tully:
Yes sir.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Just since you are speaking about fines, could you also speak to the code enforcement issues at hand
with regards to the fact that this was denied by the same council?
Lynn Tully:
Yes ma'am. There was a citation issued as well for this site by code enforcement for continuing to
conduct the use. It went to the judge and the judge has basically stayed the decision until this is heard
and completed.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Was there any time during the following of the denial of this council that there was compliance?
Lynn Tully:
No ma'am, not to our knowledge. We believe that he has been in business at this location since the
denial.
Mayor Lockwood:
If there aren't any questions for staff, I would like to open up the public hearing and ask to hear from
those in support of this application.
City Manger Lagerbloom:
We have two comments both from the applicants.
Don Rolader,11660 Alpharetta Hwy., Roswell, GA:
Together with David Burre who is a principal in David Burre Engineers and Surveyors, I am here
tonight on behalf of Frank Shafer's property. Frank Shafer bought this property in May of 2007 and
paid $317K for it and started a landscaping business. He put everything he had into it and went to work.
What I want you to understand if you don't understand anything else, is that he has not touched one bit
of the structure on this property since the day that he bought it. The house was existing and the building
behind it was existing. His experience was that people stopped him along the street after he got in there
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paee 32 of 53
and thanked him for cleaning and shaping the property up so that he could proceed. It is an interesting
piece of property. The traffic there is terrible in the mornings inbound from Cherokee County and it
stacks past the bridge at the county line and the afternoon outbound stacks from Crabapple. The
structure is 800sq ft. where the house sits. What he is asking you to do is to permit him a permit for his
landscape business. Before it was permitted as a general contracting business and when he bought it,
that was the nature of the operational property. It sounds confusing to ask for four variances. I am going
to ask David Burre to explain those variances to you in a minute, but what those four variances do is
make this property legal as it sits. They make no additions to the structure. When Mr. Burre finally
analyzed this, he realized that all four corners were out of whack. These four variances are the
minimum requirements to make this work. We sat down and had excellent conversations with staff and
went over this from A to Z to determine what it would take to make this property function legally if you
choose to approve these variances and this use permit, that is how we got here. Make sure that we
weren't lost. We sent out 164 letters to nearby property owners, soliciting their input, and telling them
what we were going to do. We had a meeting here and no one came. We had one response by telephone
to the 164 letters and a fellow called my office and asked where this is and we told him and he said that it
surprised him because he lived on Cox Rd. for 13 years and I know a lot of people there. My friends
didn't even call me to ask what we were up to but that is the nature of this. The fact is that the property
is out of compliance with the standards that exist. We have gone through the procedures required by the
city to see if we can put it in compliance. What I would like to do before I summarize now, is to let Mr.
Burre take a moment with you and to an extent, you need it. Explain what those four variances are and if
you got it, then say you got it. Let me turn it over to David.
David Burre, 11660 Alpharetta Hwy., Roswell, GA:
What we have here is the city of Milton brought this property into the city when they inherited it from
Fulton County. Not with just one mistake but with about five mistakes. We have a building in the 25ft
state water stream buffer and I think I know that happened but Milton would not have known that when
they brought it in. We have a building house built in the front yard setback. We have a warehouse that is
built in the stream buffer as well as the corners of the house and the warehouse are within the confines
of the side yard setbacks required by AGI. In the package that we have submitted, on sheet one of three,
this is a boundary survey of the topography. You all heard this a year ago, the applicants drawings were
done by a surveyor only showed one creek on the property that moved from the east to the west. When I
came in and met with staff, I met with Robyn, Lynn, and Jimmy Sanders and we sat down and said that
we would have to come up with some rougher averages and my intention was to use the back of the
property to clear that for a stream buffer averaging but come to find out, when the field people did their
survey, they were was another creek on the property that no one knew about. That then took the average
buffer and it required its own stream buffer because it also has stream flows. If you look at the piece of
property and go to this left window detail, when you apply the front yard setback, the two side yard
setbacks required by zoning, and the rear yard setback only 22% of the property had a buildable area.
When you take that and hold those and freeze that layer of those setbacks from the rear to the front and
the two sides and you apply the stream buffer, this green box goes from this quality to this quality which
is a 3 '/2% site buildable area on a 1.7 acre plot. Why would a person buy 1.7acres if only 3 `/z% was
developable? It is hard to understand until you think about it. He hired some engineers and surveyors to
do his survey. They obviously did not inform him of these setbacks. Some attorney closed this and they
did not inform him of what he was buying. He is in the landscape business. He is not a lawyer, he is not
an engineer, and he is not a surveyor. He wasn't misinformed, he was uninformed. No one even told
him. When he brought this project to me and when I first looked at it and started applying the setbacks
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 33 of 53
and the buffers, I realized very quickly that this doesn't have an answer. What I tried to do on his behalf,
and staff worked with me very well on this is we didn't come in and ask for you all to forgive this entire
setback on the west boundary line. We have only isolated the distances on the two property lines as
reflected on this plat, on this side we started 40ft back. We are asking for a relief where the building is
already built which was permitted by Fulton County. We realized we need more area to do planting in
to mitigate this problem. Staff asked us and we agreed to move this circular driveway on the right side
so we have more area to plant on the property. In the future if any of the adjacent properties become
zoned anything other than AG -1, then the variances we are asking for tonight will be somewhat relieved.
Depending on what it would be zoned. The grandfathering of this building came in through Fulton
County. We are not asking you for anything other than the minimum amount of relief to make these
buildings usable. Thank you.
Don Rolader: To briefly wrap this up, we accept all of the conditions proposed by staff should you
choose to approve this application. The response to the question what was done to bring the property
into compliance after the first hearing, nothing was done because he was not allowed to do that. When
he went to do the cleanup that Mr. Sanders asked him to do, he put his bobcat on the land to do so and
then got a citation for doing equipment in a stream buffer. The last point I have is if you approve this,
you eliminate a concrete driveway, a fence, and a sign, you enhance the landscaping and buffers, you
relocate a dumpster, and you install a handicap space and you keep six people in business. I don't think
it is a residential area and I don't believe this is a fitting out for someone should this not be approved. It
would have to be a rental house as it sits. It is the busiest two lane road in Milton. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
I would like to close the public hearing and I will open up the floor to questions to staff or to the
applicant. I will tell you that we have three options. We can deny it, we can defer it, and we can approve
it. I don't think we will gain anything by deferring it. If we approve this, I don't see anything negative
that will come of this. There won't be any more damage or encroachment and the positive side is that
some improvements will be made. It would continue to look better. I am going to open it up and say I
am in support of approving this with staff recommendations just because in the interest of the city that is
the best way to go.
Councilmember Thurman:
I agree with you in the fact that there is no need to defer it because there is no additional information
that we are missing in order to make a decision. If we deny it, I'm not sure what the property can be
used for aside from an 800sgft house with a huge warehouse that I'm not sure what you could do with. It
looks like we would never approve this to be built going forward, but right now it's already there and
it's not a great situation, but I think that's the best way to make it better for the city.
Councilmember Lusk:
This is an opportunity to improve an undesirable situation. In the interest in helping the city, I would
recommend it. I think we should try and make the best of this suggestion.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I think this is a difficult situation and I understand what is being presented and I understand the law and
the standards that were being put forward indicated that what was being requested of this parcel was
inconsistent with our land use policies which was inconsistent. I think staff did a thorough job them and
again this time. I think if we decide to ignore the land use policies that are put in place by this
community. I understand that there may have been misinformation, and as in before, fundamentally we
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 34 of 53
are sanctioned by law to make decisions on land use that has to do with development standards that are
in place. It doesn't meet our standards and it is inconsistent with the plans and the use permit and
requirements themselves. This land is AG -1 and earlier this evening we had our comprehensive planning
chairman look at our future land use plan. I believe as a council we have such numerous examples as to
where this does not meet our land use plan and it does not meet our policies and we would be making a
decision that is directly countered to those. I struggle with that. Are there any other viable businesses
that could be on this property? This would not preclude this from being utilized in other ways. The fact
that it was used illegally historically does not mean hat that illegal use can be grandfathered in. I'd like
to ask the city attorney to speak to that.
City Attorney Jarrard:
The general proposition is for a right to be vested and has to be legal in the first place. I'm giving the
general proposition.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I believe we set negative legal precedent when we ignore the policies that we have in place, including
those policies that apply to this particular parcel. I think it is incorrect to presume that a parcel next to
this in the future will be rezoned. Some of these variances are allowing for a zero lot line. No ten feet,
not twenty feet. Surely not the sixty feet that is required, but a zero lot line. I believe that even under
our commercial code we require more than a zero lot line. We are supposed to be buffering. We talk
about Arnold Mill still being a place that can have mixed use. It can have residences and agricultural
land but if we ignore the policies that we have put in place, I think it sets a negative precedent.
Councilmember Hewitt:
I agree with some of the comments that are being made. I wish we would have had the professional
representation a year ago when we looked at this. It would have made it a lot easier then. It seems like
we are in between a rock and a hard place as a city. Do we deny this and have something that will fall
and disrepair? I assume that the gentleman has sunk everything into this and if he goes out of business
he's not going to have money to fix this the way it needs to be. It will be a difficult sell. Looking at
some of Mr. Barry's drawings I see this as if we can try and mitigate what's there and get the best out of
it will be in the best interest of the city of Milton.
Councilmember Longoria:
I see this as two different issues. Obviously the condition of the property, the location of the buildings
and the setbacks that exist or don't exist, we didn't approve this. The applicant inherited these because
of a lack of knowledge. In terms of recognizing the current state of the property, I have a hard time
imaging what we could do to fix it. We can't require the property owner to do things that they don't
have the resources to do. The second issue being the licensing of the permit for operating landscaping
businesses. I can understand our concerns about intensive use, and a landscaping business for the most
part takes place off site. It's not like he is in business to take care of that piece of property, he is in
business to take care of other pieces of property. So really, it's just a place where equipment comes to sit
overnight and leaves in the morning. While that is certainly a foreseen type of business on AG -1, I think
it would be better for us to look at providing the applicant with the license or permit he needs to operate
this business. After all, that is what is going to enable him to fix the property as it was described only. I
am the only member that wasn't present when the first process took place, so I was glad that an
explanation was provided and it certainly made sense to me so thank you for that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 35 of 53
Councilmember Tart:
I am still on the fence on this. I came in here having reviewed all of this and having made a decision to
deny this before a year ago, and now I'm looking at the application and seeing that hardly anything has
changed and in fact there are additional variances being asked for. We didn't have this map that was
provided tonight a year ago. On the one hand, it's completely inconsistent with our land use policies and
is completely out of compliance with a land use permit conditions. I'm conflicted that this group has
denied other landscaping business in the past, and since the city has been a city any other landscaping
businesses that has been before us that asks for concurrent variances we have denied. We did approve
one as a staff packet that did not have any variances, but all other variances have been denied based on
the fact that the use permit has very specific considerations and if the applicant cannot meet those, it is
generally because the use is intense for that piece of property. Just in fairness to everyone that has been
denied up until this point who asked for variances and to everyone else who comes before us to ask for
landscaping variances, I want to be fair to everyone. On the flip side of this, I'm looking at this that was
provided by the applicant and I don't know, has staff really looked at this and commented on the
remaining land that would be available? As councilmember Thurman pointed out, what uses are
available on this property if we did not approve it for a landscaping business?
Lynn Tully:
Essentially, it would be limited to residential use. They would have to turn a house from an office back
into a home and it would have a very large garage and storage building.
Councilmember Tart:
If our land use plan is changed or early master plan turns this into commercial, given the buffers that
would exist, what kind of area would we be talking about that would developable?
Lynn Tully:
If the adjoining properties became Cl as well, then a lot more of the property would be developable.
Essentially most of the property that is north of the stream buffers with the exception of a 60ft front
setback. If this one were Cl was well it would be reduced. There could be some additional property
gain as well. It depends on what happens in that area. If it all were to remain residential in this one it
would need to be rezoned commercial but it would still have to have buffers. If the rest of the area went
commercial, they would have a lot more buildable area.
Mayor Lockwood:
For staff or the applicant, if this is approved there are some stipulations and some recommendations and
some mitigation to the stream buffers as well as some DOT doing the front entrance and approval fund.
Carter, what is the process with that? Is there a need to get approval from DOT or is that submitted to
the city?
Carter Lucas:
You would submit it directly to the state. The state would have review and approval of any
improvements within the right of way. GDOT will approve anything that is in compliance with their
regulations. Provided they submitted drawings, there is no reason to not be approved. It can take four to
six months.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Not all parcels were intended to be used for particular use. I would like to speak to the fact that if
something were to change to C 1 in the future then these buffers would go away. I think we need to be
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 36 of 53
mindful of what happens in the future. We don't know because we haven't had the master plan. If on the
one hand we don't have the master plan yet but we are going to assume that this is going to become all
linear commercial development, it is counterintuitive to what we as a body has said as recently as last
week when we took the draft to the comprehensive land use plan. I don't know for those who are
potentially considering approving this if you would consider future buffers if the adjacent properties
were to change and another property would become available. We heard that other property with this
would allow buffers. So again, I would just like to request that you just think a little more broadly about
those eventual buffers and for us to ignore that need now, I think it is undermining the opportunity for
Arnold mill to develop appropriately and as restated it should with regards to our comprehensive land
use plan.
Councilmember Thurman:
I would like to get clarification on that comment from staff. What could go there other than a residence
that would not require any variances based on where the buildings are currently?
Lynn 'fully:
I would have to check the use permits. For instance, a veterinary clinic or a kennel ... they would still
require the same variances.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
There are some uses that don't require a use permit. You can have a horticultural based business that is
less intense with less equipment that would be there that wouldn't require a use permit. Some of those
things are allowable by the very nature that it is AG -1, so the realities that our zoning code allows for
that, there are those examples. We talked about modifying our used to allow for produce related source
of businesses. Those don't require a special use permit. You can sell things, you can grow things, there
are businesses that are very viable that does that. Is it the existing business that is violation of our code?
No. Are there other viable uses economically? Yes. Part of the reason I believe it is important to have
that discussion is because this is not our only parcel. I think we have to tread carefully that we don't set
in motion for someone else to simply go buy a parcel that doesn't meet our code and then we have to
allow it to become a basis for allowing a use that is otherwise not allowed.
Mayor Lockwood:
I appreciate everyone's input, and I believe that everyone has had a chance to speak. I am going to open
up to motions, in fact if Councilmember Bailey or anyone else would like to make a motion? I'll open
up the floor.
Motion: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve U 10-02/V C 10-04 with the following
conditions as recommended by staff:
1) To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a) Landscape business within the existing house and warehouse at a density of 4,326.9 gross
floor area per acre zoned or a total gross floor area of 7,400 square feet, whichever is less.
2) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
b) To the revised site plan received by the Milton Community Development Department on
October 19, 2010. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 37 of 53
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these conditions prior to the issuance of a City
of Milton Business License. Unless otherwise noted herein, compliance with all
conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
3) To the owner's agreement to the following site development
considerations:
a) Remove portions of concrete pad on eastern side of property as depicted on the revised
site plan submitted on October 19, 2010 and replant to buffer standards as prescribed by
the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance and replanting shall be mature. Specimen pine tree
in this area shall require a bond.
b) Delete the 50 -foot undisturbed buffer and 10 -foot improvement setback for a total of 127
feet to a point on the west property line located 127 feet south of the northwestern
property corner to the revised site plan received October 19, 2010 for the purpose of
allowing the existing driveway only (VC 10-04, Part 1).
C) Provide a 30 -foot undisturbed buffer and 10 -foot improvement setback along the east
property line beginning at a point located 40 feet south of the northeastern property
corner for a distance of 98 feet to a point on the east property line located 138 feet south
of the northeastern property corner to the revised site plan received October 19, 2010.
(VC 10-04, Part 2)
d) Provide a 44.09 -foot building setback for the existing warehouse along the east property
line. (VC 10-04, Part 3)
e) Provide a 47.58 -foot building setback for the existing warehouse along the west property
line and a 28.25 -foot building setback along the west property line. (VC 10-04, Part 4)
f) Prior to the issuance of a City of Milton Business License, the applicant must obtain a
land disturbance permit and complete the requirements of said land disturbance permit.
g) The site and buildings must meet applicable accessibility codes.
h) Provide a landscape plan including the buffer mitigation plan for the areas of the stream
buffer that are disturbed within 45 days of approval complete installation by February,
2011.
4) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication and improvements:
a) Provide any turn lanes as may be required by GDOT.
b) Provide only one driveway location at the northwest end of the property based upon best
sight distance as approved by the Director of Public Works and GDOT.
i. Entrance shall meet the City of Milton Code of Ordinances and AASHTO
guidelines, or be reconstructed to meet such criteria, at the approval of the
Transportation Engineer for Milton and GDOT.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 38 of 53
C) Close additional driveway and remove concrete within the Right of Way located at the
southeast end of the property.
d) The applicant must have an approved Driveway Access Permit from the Georgia
Department of Transportation within six (6) months of approval or at the discretion of the
Public Works Director.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2 with
Councilmembers Zahner Bailey and Alan Tart in opposition.
3. Public Hearing for Possible Rescission and Reconsideration of Previous Council
Denial of Zoning Case RZ10-01 pursuant to Order of Remand.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1269)
ORDINANCE NO. 10-11-83
(Deferred at October 18, 2010 Council Meeting — Public Comment was Heard)
(Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Ken Jai—r—d:
Mayor and Council, I recommend given that this is two parts, it is a rescission and a reconsideration, I
believe that what needs to occur is that our community development director can make a presentation
with respect to the matter before you then I would ask that we hold the public hearing and then you can
make a motion with respect to the rescission because the rescission is in itself a zoning action. So we
will go ahead and make the rescission and after the rescission is completed, then you can take your next
action into consideration.
Mayor Lockwood:
What you are saying is that we need to take action on approving the rescission first, so I need a motion
and a second?
Ken Jarrard:
After Mrs. Tully makes her presentation to you, open up for a public hearing and the next action we
need to take is the motion to rescind.
Lynn Tully:
I promise I will make this short. I don't have a whole lot of new information on this particular item, but
the item remains a request to rezone to C1 community business from C1 and AGI, again I don't have a
lot of new information and the applicant has provided the additional information in regards to traffic and
turning movements and we have done an independent analysis on those turning movements, those are
included in your case as well. I believe that they are photocopied and there are red hash marks that you
can follow those turning movements. I will actually ask Mr. Lucas to go through those with you
because he understands them a lot better than I do. While he is setting up, we have again done all of our
reviews with the other city departments including the fire marshal and our transportation reviews. Again,
we have not found any additional issues other than what has been noted. I will review the fact that the
planning commission did recommend denial 6-0 on February 23rd. The planning commission discussion
at that time included:
1. The number of times a week that fuel would be delivered.
The number of employees per shift.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 39 of 53
The potential congestion conflicts that are on site.
The need economically for a fifth pump.
To design the site without the concurrent variance which they have done and
that some of the commissioners did express that the parks may be rezoned
commercial but the proposed use at that time was too intensive for the size
and shape of the property.
This parcel has been before you on March the 15th as well and was deferred to May and then this
continued to be discussed and deferred. The Planning commission's most recent recommendation at the
April 27th meeting was for denial, 4-2 with discussion of the service station exclusion and condition 2a
for the CVS development to the North and its effect on recommendations for the subject site.
2. Change from right in and right out only access on Bethany Bend to a full
access driveway on the current site plan.
3. How the site will accommodate the tanker truck deliveries.
4. The number of times of gas delivers, their size, type, dispensing holes, and
venting of the underground gas storage tank.
5. Hours of operation and delivery times.
6. Traffic counts and single timing for the intersection.
We are before you again tonight to hear your action on rescission of this item and them reconsideration.
Ken Jarrard:
Mr. Mayor, just as a further point of clarification with respect to process, as you know this matter was
and is the subject in the Fulton County Superior Court, we are here pursuant to a September 1St, 2010
order of remand by the court and that is the procedural posture that we are in dependent upon the route
that council takes this evening. This matter could be resolved or it may simply go back to court if there
is no satisfactory resolution. Again, I think the next action that Council needs to take is to open a public
hearing. When the public hearing starts, I believe that the people here to speak need to understand that
everyone that has a position on this issue needs to speak during this public hearing that we are about to
call. If they are in favor they need to speak and if they are in opposition they need to speak as
opponents. At that point after that is closed, then I think it would be appropriate for a motion if there is
an introspect council to rescind previous denial that will clear the decks and the matter will be before the
council.
Mayor Lockwood:
To clarify, we are moving forward with the public hearing as presented?
Ken Jarrard:
Yes Sir.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Mr. Mayor, before we do that could we just finish our staff presentation by going through it quickly?
Mayor Lockwood:
Sure, if there are any questions from staff before the public hearing, if you would please.
Carter Lucas:
What we were asked to do was to take a look at the turning movement that was originally submitted
with the first application. We have gone through and run that scenario to verify that regional truck
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paee 40 of 53
routing as well as routings of other vehicles on and through this site. The first slide you see and should
be in the first handout, is a full sized gas truck. What you see here in the hatched area would be the
inside wheels or the outside wheels or the area that the truck would take up as it moved through the site.
This first slide is a recreation basically of the original turning movement that was submitted in the first
application. One of the things that happens with this particular one that we had to do to recreate it, it is a
very slow movement of the truck through the site. Coming off of highway 9, this particular movement
is from the deceleration lane versus the through lane that it showed on the original application. That
truck movement has a few turns from stop movements, which is kind of the kinks that you see, that were
in question at the original meeting. It is a valid turn as far as the program is concerned and probably in
real life. What we wanted to do was if, completely independent of everything else, we ran a separate
routing that is a more continuous movement of the fuel truck as it enters the site. That would be the
second slide that you have. You can see that as it enters the site on the right hand side of the entrance
there is a little bit of run up on the curb. That can probably be cured by some minor modifications to
that entrance configuration. The green block that you see is the actual location of the tanker without the
cab in a position that we would think it would stop to try and fuel in a location where those fuel tanks
are shown. You would have the green truck as well as the cab in a separate position that would probably
turn off to the right as it made that maneuver and then to reverse itself through the site. That was a full
size gas truck. There was an option presented by the applicant of a smaller gas truck providing
particular deliveries to the site so we went ahead and routed the smaller gas truck through the property
and that is what you see here. The difference, you are looking at 45 '/2ft. vehicle with a full size truck to
a little bit larger than 33ft vehicle going through the site. The next slide would demonstrate the routing
of the delivery truck. This would be your standard box 30ft delivery truck coming off of highway 9
working its way through the site and exiting out on Bethany Bend. Then we routed a vehicle, a standard
19ft long vehicle through the site. Here it is, it would come off of Highway 9, route itself around the
pumps and back out highway 9. We did the same thing with a vehicle coming in and out on Bethany
Bend. This particular vehicle would come in off of Bethany Bend. This particular vehicle had come in
off of the Bethany Bend deceleration lane and go all the way to the furthest pump and come back out
through the site and back out exiting on Bethany Bend. The same thing could happen if you go out on
Highway 9, similar to the vehicle we just saw on the previous slide. We also looked at a vehicle with a
trailer. About the only move this can make is coming in off highway 9 at the first set of gas pumps and
exit out onto Bethany Bend making a right or left onto Bethany Bend.
Councilmember Tart:
If we limited the size of gas delivery and other delivery vehicles to 33ft or less, other than the car with
the trailer on it, it would meet all of the turn specifications in this application?
Carter Lucas:
It would. If the truck is careful, a lame field truck could make it through this site too.
Councilmember Tart:
But they would have to back up?
Carter Lucas:
They wouldn't have to back up.
Councilmember Thurman:
They would just have to go very slowly and they would be taking the whole site, there is no doubt about
that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paee 41 of 53
Mayor Lockwood:
Carter, where it shows the truck hitting the curb, who is responsible for maintaining those curbs a
delivery or gas truck damages those curbs?
Carter Lucas:
Where this is hitting, it would be within the right of way, technically where the state DOT would be.
The state DOT would be responsible for permitting any configuration of the entrance coming in off of
highway 9.
Mayor Lockwood:
They will probably look at this very hard if they are responsible for the right of way.
Carter Lucas:
I assume they would. But again, they will be looking for it to be within conformance with their
regulations. Typically, I don't know that they would go through the steps of requesting anything to be
submitted.
Mayor Lockwood:
If there is no more presentation from staff, I would like to open it up to the public hearing.
Chris Lagerbloom:
Mayor, I would like to start with those speaking in support.
Councilmember Thurman:
This is just on the rescission, for whether or not to rehear it, correct?
Councilmember Tart:
So the comments need to be pertinent to that or not?
City Attorney Jarrard:
I believe the rescission and the reconsideration are all linked for purposes of this matter, that is why I
was asking the Mayor if they need to speak to the entirety of the application.
Pete Hendricks, 60851 Forrest Drive, Atlanta, GA:
What we have been butting up against is the conflict and the inability to be able to come out to an area
that has full access signalization, the accommodation as far as highway 9 is concerned, you have the
going home traffic, and this is the significant flow of traffic. With Bethany Bend you have an even split
between going to work and on the way home. You have a very unusual situation in the benefit of traffic
coming to a peak at this piece of property. In addition to that, it does constitute a corner lot which is
critical in the industry as opposed to a mid block location which has issues of accessibility and visibility.
With all of that, our analysis in the relative area came up short, let alone the extreme likelihood that
where we would find another track, we would have to go through rezoning and probably have the same
issues that have been presented to you. With that said, I think we need to go to the most recent staff
review of that analysis. Pages 11 through 15, they speak to the standards of the review and form a
complete compliance where appropriate. Particularly on page three, there are planned policies and
encouraged development. I would like save the remaining time for rebuttal.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 42 of 53
City Manager Lagerbloom:
I have four more cards listed in support of this. They may or may not represent the applicant. Okay, all
four of them are for the applicant.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, we will open it up to those in opposition.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
We have two people in opposition.
Phil Joseph, 13800 Oakmeade Trace, Milton, GA:
I am not sure there is a lot to add tonight. We have been over this lot. It is a bad corner, we have a new
high school going in and there will be a lot of intensive use. It is unwelcomed from the community.
There is no transition between the properties. The driveways don't line up. There are alternative uses
that we have suggested and I'm afraid if this is approved, there will be a gas station, CVS on the other
corner, and the future growth and the widening of route 9 is going to cut off the landscaping that is
going to be put in. All that aside, I was talking to the city attorney in the meeting I had with you, Mr.
Mayor. I asked him don't other municipalities have ordinances that insure some separation of gas
stations and residences. He said yes, they do. I asked why that was and he said presumably, it is for
safety. I don't know if safety is the reason or not, and I'm not holding him responsible for knowing the
answer to that question either, but I do want to say that other communities have those ordinances and
they certainly hold up in court. It seems to me that if you go back to the judge and you say we denied it
because it is too close to residences, I just can't see the judge saying it doesn't make sense. He may ask
if you have an ordinance that specifies how far a gas station is from residences, but we don't. We are
working on one, and there is one in process. Alternatively, it seems like you are going to have a
homeowner suffer if he says it has to be granted. As a homeowner that is across the street from this one
and directly abutting the CVS property, I don't see how you can say yes to this but no to the CVS
property. I am simply asking you to say no, the gas station is too close to residences. It seems to me on
the face of it to be a rational decision. We as a community are asking you, the representatives, to do
that. As you know there are hundreds of people that support this. They aren't all here tonight, but you
know they are there. That is our position to deny this. Please do this in a way that the court would
accept. Thank you.
Diane Palmer, 3300 Bethany Bend, Milton, GA:
I just wanted to say thank you mayor and Council for listening to me and for all of the hard work I know
all of you have done on this issue. It is deeply appreciated by me and others. As I listen tonight, the
first thing that comes to mind is that I walk by this site every day. I walk with my neighbors, I walk my
golden retrievers. I am personally am very concerned about the real world truck, situation, and driver. I
do just want to mention that I know you all have the information that the citizens are deeply concerned
about and obviously those of us who are diehards are here tonight at the end of a long meeting. I remain
very concerned and so do a lot of the Bethany community residents remain very concerned about the gas
station. I also very much appreciate the applicant. I appreciate that he is interested in investing in
Milton. One of the issues that we talked about in the past is that Fulton County had conditioned the lots
around this lot not to have a service station. It is my understanding that currently, the condition that they
did put on it is for a convenience station or gas station. The intent was to protect residences from uses
that are highly intense. Again, I was here at the work session when you all discussed buffers between
residences and gas stations and I was encouraged to see such agreement amongst you that it is important
to the residences to protect us from being directly across or next to gas stations. In this case, I believe it
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 43 of 53
is 25 feet, between the proposed gas station property line and Mr. Joseph's property across the street. I
am concerned about intensity of use and about hazardous materials. High school students will be
walking there. I know that you will all do what is best for Milton. I want to express appreciation to you.
This kind of issue is why we have a city and why you all were elected. I appreciate your hard work and
you listening and taking the community into consideration.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Those are all of the comments I have, Mayor. Both sides still have time.
Pete Hendricks:
We do know that as far as the edge of the applicant's property line to Mr. Joseph's home, it is 375 feet.
Because it is critical, I would like to go back again and specify to staff review and comment. Whether
or not the proposal use is suitable for review of the use of the development to adjacent and nearby
property. They found it suitable. Whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing usability
of adjacent or nearby property. It will not adversely affect existing use or usability of nearby properties
if it is developed in the required development statements of the Highway 9 overlay district which they
have seen fit in their review and analysis. Whether the property will be affected by the proposal as a
reasonable economic use as currently zoned. Whether it could cause an excessive or burden of use of
existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools, there is no significant impact. Whether the
proposal is conformity, the policy is content of the land use plan. The subject site is a prominent corner
in the City of Milton. This will provide a more pedestrian friendly area with the addition of sidewalks
and beauty strips along both frontages. The revised site plan meets the development standards of the
Highway 9 district requirements and the intersection is transitional. The proposed gas station associated
with gas pumps are consistent with planned policies. The site is small and located within an acute
triangle and two road frontages. The revised site plan that was submitted April 20, 2010, meets the
development standards required by the City of Milton zoning ordinance which does not create potential
negative impacts on nearby or residential uses. We think this application is appropriate for approval.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we need to have a motion on rescission?
City Attorney Jarrard:
To rescind the council's prior denial of this zoning item.
Phil Joseph:
I just wanted to say that when Pete says that there are 375 feet between their property and our house,
what he is saying is that my land became our transition space. I don't believe that is the intention of the
idea of the transition. I just wanted to make that point, thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, we will now close the public hearing. I will open the floor up for a motion of rescission.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to rescind the previous council denial of zoning
case RZ10-01 pursuant to Order of Remand, Agenda Item Number 10-1269. Councilmember Hewitt
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Paee 44 of 53
Lynn Tully:
I did forget to include one small change in the conditions in my staff presentation. If you will look at
recommended conditions 4a and 4b, we have replaced that condition. It currently reads Northbound
right turn lane on Highway 9 at Bethany Bend and it should read Eastbound right turn lane on Bethany
Bend at new access drive.
Mayor Lockwood:
At this point, if there are any questions of staff or the applicant we can do that now. I have a question
for staff, and I know it was asked a few minutes ago. The proximity of this convenient store and Mr.
Joseph's property and the other problem is the distance between the convenient store and the actual
residents. Would that be the closest residence around there?
Lynn Tully:
I believe so, yes sir.
Councilmember Thurman:
On this one page summary presented on October 6, 2010, it said the Arborist wants to discuss some tree
selection placement with the landscape architect. I saw one of the conditions with zoning that the city
arborist would need to approve one part of it, but I didn't see that it was part of all of the conditions.
They also submitted photos of benches and trash receptacles but I didn't see it in the conditions.
Lynn Tully:
The benches and receptacles were offered by the applicant and they would be a condition if you chose to
add it.
Councilmember Tart:
Under condition la, is there a reason that service stations were not included? There is a lot of debate
over service stations and intensity of use and they traditionally come with bays and that kind of thing.
Am I missing it or is there a reason we didn't have there?
Lynn Tully:
We specifically did not include that one. Originally, with the emission station it couldn't be considered
a service station but it was close and we omitted it. We can add it in if you wanted.
Councilmember Tart:
The DRB comments talk about screening the dumpsters. The recommended conditions don't talk about
the screening of the dumpsters. Is that under general ordinances and therefore it doesn't have to be
specified?
Lynn Tully:
Yes sir, it is under the Highway 9 guidelines.
Councilmember Tart:
The DRB talked about the canopies being pitched to match the roof of the convenience store. Would
they be able to do that? Staff was talking about not being able to do that because of the configuration of
the gas pumps?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 45 of 53
Lynn Tully:
There was a point at which this was much more difficult in that it had an oddly shaped angle to it. With
the new shape, you can do that.
Councilmember Tart:
We had a discussion on what we could limit to address some of the concerns of the intensity of the
property. I recommended for us to discuss hours of operation.
Councilmember Thurman:
lam seems late in the morning to be getting gas.
Mayor Lockwood:
I'd like to hear some of those suggestions.
Mehdi Jannatkhah:
These restrictions are ones we cannot make. If we don't have any business after IOpm or 11 pin we will
not stay open just for the sake of being open. I believe closing at 1Opm is going to limit our business. I
think I agreed last time for us to close at l 1pm.
Councilmember Thurman:
Would 6am to l Ipm work?
Mehdi Jannatkhah:
We can make it work.
Mayor Lockwood:
On the comment of gas deliveries and the noise, I would think the neighbors wouldn't want anything
after hours or in the middle of the night.
Councilmember Tart:
I remain concerned about traffic issues. This is something we really can't even contemplate what the
effects will be when you take a gas truck and put it right there where the green truck is during hours of
operation. If they maintain the hours from 6am to 11 pm, that means the lights won't be turned off until
Midnight, and they will be turned on at 5am in the morning. I can't in good faith approve something
where I see trucks going up on curbs. Maybe in real life the guy is better than the computers, but I just
don't see that happening. I think this station is far too intense for this parcel. I would be willing to
support it if there were some concessions that were made. It didn't seem like you are willing to make
them.
Mehdi Jannatkhah:
As far as the light go, as soon as we close, we turn the light off. If we close at 11, we turn them off at 11
because there is no reason for us to keep them on. If we keep them on people think we are open, so the
very first thing we do is we turn off the light. When we come in to open at 6am, we turn them on when
we open.
Councilmember Tart:
When do you plan to have the dumpster removed?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 46 of 53
Mehdi Jannatkhah:
The dumpster unfortunately is not up to us, it is up to Waste Management. They usually come in after
the morning rush hour and between 9am to 12pm. If they come in the afternoon, it would be before rush
hour.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
There are certain hours that are prohibited from trash collection. It can't happen before lam, but it has
been a while since I read it. I think it can't happen after 9pm.
Councilmember Thurman:
When there is a motion, I would like to see the hours be limited from 6am to l 1pm which is what they
have agreed to. I would like to see that condition 3c to say that all landscape strips be approved by the
city arborist. I would like for 3i to add to provide two benches and two trash receptacles per approval of
the Community Development Director and then the other changes that Lynn Requested.
Councilmember Hewitt:
Would a pitched roof on the canopy be able to be done? Back to the hours, would you look at Sunday to
do possibly lam to l Opm?
Mehdi Jannatkhah:
As far as the pitched roof goes, I can take a look at it and see if I can do it. As far as the hours are
concerned, I would allow opening at lam but I would like to stay open until l Ipm. Please keep in mind,
if we don't have business, we won't keep it open.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Intensity of use is the issue that we have heard relative to hundreds of citizens. Obviously this case has
been before us before. It has remained before us in some form or fashion. I would be remiss if I didn't
address the fact that some citizens have continued to indicate that intensity of use is an issue on a parcel
of 1.8 acres. I do appreciate that the applicant has made some modifications. I am also mindful that we
have some alternatives. Could our city attorney please speak to the other approach in addition to
accepting these conditions with these modifications that the other approach is to rezone this Cl to
address that issue of the split zoning between a portion of AGI and C1, but to be able to rezone that as
C 1 but with conditional approval that would allow for prohibitions of certain uses that are considered by
council and by citizens etc. that would be legally defined by other zonings that have been before this
body. Effectively, the standard prohibitions that we have seen be put in place along Highway 9 in this
area. Could you speak to that about what we can and cannot do?
City Attorney Jarrard:
I think you are suggesting that we rezone the property to commercial. Once you do the rescission, there
is no limitation as to what you can do with it and nor is the applicant restrained. Therefore, you have all
options that are available to you just as you did the first time. There is always an option to take an
application, if you don't want to provide quite the intensity of use that the applicant has asked for, you
can provide something less than that. We have discussed that possibility and the context of general
zoning discussion, you have the ability to rezone it to something that is much more defensible than what
the denial was. If you were to zone it to a commercial property, we would be in a more defensible
position. As I said previously, and I don't want to speak for the council, we have talked about if we were
to zone it commercial, some of those standard prohibitions it may be the case that the litigation would be
ongoing. We would have to work that out procedurally.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 47 of 53
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Could someone read into the record, the laundry list of Cl uses that are allowable under our zoning
code? I'd appreciate that.
Councilmember Hewitt:
I would say they are allowable, but not necessarily viable.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I think it is important to have what the array of uses that are allowed on C1 designation.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
We have a staff prepared document, I would rather that to be read in.
Lynn Tully:
The list of uses that could potentially be designed to fit this site is using the assumption of
approximately 2,000 square feet of building and a maximum available parking area of somewhere
between 15 and 18 spaces. Those uses under Cl would be an art gallery, clinic medical, bank with no
drive thru, spa, laundry mat or dry cleaners with no drive thru, branch library, offices personal services,
barber shops, nail salons, etc., pet grooming with no overnight stay, photography studio, printing shop,
convenience only, appliance or similar repair shop, retail, a school of business, music, or dance, gas
station and convenient store, recycling center, restaurant limited to 1,000 square feet with no seating,
carry out delivery or catering limited to 1,000 square feet with no seating.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Thank you, and that is the list of C 1 uses that would be allowable under a C 1 piece of property.
Mayor Lockwood:
Thank you. Do we have a motion?
Motion: Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey moved to approve RZ10-01 with the following conditions
as recommended by staff:
1) To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a) Retail Commercial and accessory uses, at a maximum density of 2,411 gross floor area
per acre zoned or a total gross floor area of 2,100 square feet whichever is less and a
maximum of 4 gasoline pumps, whichever is less but excluding service stations,
freestanding fast food restaurants, commercial amusements (cinemas not included),
package liquor sales, (restaurants may sell liquor by the drink), motels, hotels, adult
entertainment establishments including adult bookstores, adult entertainment as defined
in Section 64-1, check cashing stores, pawn shops, coin operated laundries, video arcades
(video machines that are incidental to otherwise permitted businesses are allowed), pool
halls, massage parlors, nail salons, stand alone beauty salons, stand alone barber shops,
flea markets, discount retail shops, roadside vending, roadside produce stands or seasonal
vending.
2) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:
t
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 48 of 53
a) To the revised site plan received by the Community Development Department on April
20, 2010. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, all other applicable city ordinances and these conditions prior to
the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted herein, compliance
with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy.
3) To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
a) All new sidewalk installations along the rights -of -ways shall have a color stamped pattern
to simulate a transverse double row brick paver pattern every 50 feet, to be approved by the
City of Milton Design Review Board.
b) Provide a black four -board -equestrian -styled fence along all sidewalks interior to the
landscape strip or as approved by the Director of Community Development.
c) Provide additional landscaping within the required landscape strips as approved by the City
Arborist.
J) Provide new fire hydrant along Bethany Bend between the entrance and the point where the
50 foot taper begins or as approved by the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief.
e) Provide one fire department connection (FDC) along Hwy 9 near the apex of the site and
provide an additional FDC where pedestrian access is shown on the site plan along Bethany
Bend approximately halfway between the two ends of Bethany Bend and the northern apex
of the site for fire department staging off site, or as approved by the Fire Marshal and Fire
Chief.
f) Provide Fire Department accesses along Bethany Bend and Hwy 9 where FDCs and fire
hydrants are located with a minimum width opening of the equestrian style fence of eight (8)
feet or as approved by the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief.
g) No outside speakers/intercoms permitted on the premises.
h) All canopy lighting must be recessed.
i) Hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday: 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. and Sunday: 7 a.m.
to 11 P.M.
j) Require two (2) benches and two (2) trash receptacles to be placed on the site.
k) Two intersecting gabled roofs over the gas canopy if approved with input from the Design
Review Board and if otherwise economically feasible.
4) To the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication, and
improvements:
a) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton or Georgia Department of Transportation
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 49 of 53
(GDOT) prior to the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy, sufficient land as
necessary to provide the following:
Provide at least 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Bethany Bend
ii. Provide at least 12 feet of right-of-way from the back of curb of all abutting road
improvements, along the entire property frontage, as well as allow the necessary
construction easements while right-of-way is being improved.
iii. Provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements along entire property frontage of HWY
9 and Bethany Bend according to cross sections in Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and
Other Public Places of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances and as approved by
Milton Public Works.
iv. Installation/modification of the following transportation infrastructure according to
GDOT Standards and Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the
City of Milton Code of Ordinances:
b) NB Right Turn Lane on HWY 9 at new access drive
C) EB Right Turn Lane on Bethany Bend at new access drive
b) Reserve for the City of Milton along the necessary property frontage of the following
roadways, prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit, sufficient land as necessary to
provide for compliance with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
The location of the landscape strip with the reserved right-of-way to be determined by the
Director of Community Development.
i. 55 feet from centerline of HWY 9 or as may be required by GDOT
ii. 45 feet from centerline of Bethany Bend
a) Access to the site shall be subject to the approval of the GDOT District
7 Access Management Engineer and Milton Public Works, prior to the
issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit.
b) Provide a 30 foot wide cross -access easement free of any structures or
utilities for future vehicular and pedestrian inter -parcel access on the
south property line as approved by Milton Public Works.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Tart seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-4 with
Councilmembers Thurman, Lusk, Hewitt, and Mayor Lockwood in opposition.
Councilmember Bill Lusk:
I am not sure what happened here.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I made a motion to approve the rezoning C1 conditional and the condition being that we allow certain
Cl uses and that we prohibit others as it is consistent with decisions that we made along highway 9 and
specifically I numerated those, consistent with the decisions that have been put forward by this body and
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Pace 50 of 53
has been sanctioned by other decisions as a matter of record including the additional commentary about
hours of operation.
Councilmember Thurman:
Since this is very different from what the applicant has requested, I would think we should get their
opinion on the record.
Mayor Lockwood:
Basically this is denying this application.
Councilmember Hewitt:
Could we add a "3-K" in there to talk have input from the design review board and design to the roof
over the gas canopies.
Mayor Lockwood:
I would add something like if it is feasible.
Councilmember Lusk:
To that point a little bit further, we would recommend intersecting gable roofs in lieu of the canopy roof
there with a final approval and decision coming through the DRB.
Councilmember Hewitt:
Councilmember Lusk, if you could state that really loud, this will be my 3-K if the second will approve
it.
Councilmember Lusk:
On 3-K, council recommends in lieu of the canopy roof, two intersecting gabled roofs with the final
recommendation and approval by the Design Review Board.
Councilmember Hewitt:
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Mayor Lockwood:
If you would just add feasible, I don't know how you would clarify that.
Councilmember Lusk:
The roof would be compatible to something similar to that on the main building. That is a gabled roof.
Mayor Lockwood:
We are going to have to summarize this. I think that everything up until now has been talked about with
the applicant with the hours and what not.
Councilmember Hewitt:
Those hours were six to eleven Monday through Saturday and seven to eleven on Sunday.
Mayor Lockwood:
The only thing that was not is that the gabled roof was addressed a little bit and the applicant said he
would look into it and talk to the canopy people. I think that what we are hearing now is that we want to
include that that it goes through the DRB and that is the direction that we would like to go.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 51 of 53
Councilmember Hewitt:
Are we in agreement with that?
City Attorney Jarrard:
Can the City Manager.... we need to connect a record here.
Mayor Lockwood:
I want Councilmember Hewitt to repeat his motion and then if Councilmember Thurman wants to
second it, then we will go back.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
Okay, this is what I heard. The motion to approve RZ 10-01 with the recommended conditions as
included by staff in the packet subject to the following modifications:
1. Add section 3.i to indicate operating hours Monday through Saturday no
earlier than 6are and no later than l 1pm. With operating hours on Sunday no
earlier than lam and no later than 11 pm.
2. In section 4.b the removal of that with the substitution eastbound right turn
lane on Bethany Bend at new access drive.
3. In section La. to add the words "service station" as an excluded use.
4. To modify landscape strip to landscape strips in 3.c and striking along the
south property line from that section to add 3.j which would require two
benches and two trash receptacles to be placed on site.
5. Add 3.k with the statement that Council recommends to add two intersecting
gable roofs over the gas canopy if approved with input from the Design
Review Board and if otherwise economically feasible.
Councilmember Hewitt:
I would agree with that.
Motion: Councilmember Hewitt moved to Approve RZ10-01 with the recommended conditions as
included by staff in the packet subject to the following modifications:
6. Add section 3.i to indicate operating hours Monday through Saturday no
earlier than 6are and no later than 11 pm. With operating hours on Sunday no
earlier than lam and no later than l 1pm.
7. In section 4.b the removal of that with the substitution eastbound right turn
lane on Bethany Bend at new access drive.
8. In section La. to add the words "service station" as an excluded use.
9. To modify landscape strip to landscape strips in 3.c and striking along the
south property line from that section to add 3j which would require two
benches and two trash receptacles to be placed on site.
10. Add 3.k with the statement that Council recommends to add two intersecting
gable roofs over the gas canopy if approved with input from the Design
Review Board and if otherwise economically feasible.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 to 3 with
Councilmembers Zahner Bailey, Longoria, and Tart in opposition.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 52 of 53
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of an Ordinance Establishing Solid Waste Collection Services within the
City of Milton; Providing for the Scope and Nature of the Operation; Providing for
The Disposal of Garbage, Solid Waste and Refuse; Requiring the Execution by
Service Providers of a Non -Exclusive Agreement with the City of Milton; Providing
Procedures for the Handling of Complaints; Providing for an Infrastructure
Maintenance Fee; Requiring Indemnity Insurance; Providing for Revocation and
Amendment; Prohibiting Assignment and Subletting without Consent; Providing for
Forfeiture; and for Making Other Provisions.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1278)
ORDINANCE NO. 10-11-84
(First Presentation on November 1, 2010 Council Meeting)
(Matt Marietta, Fire Marshal)
Matt Marietta:
• If this passes tonight I will follow up with all of the garbage companies and ensure they are in
compliance.
• I will issue new copies of the ordinance and continue to regulate the system and 'now they
provide the service to our citizens.
Councilmember Thurman:
• Are there any changes from prior years ordinances?
Matt Marietta:
• No ma'am.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
• Any recommendations for change?
• I think it is positive that we have an ordinance that we have perspective to.
• I think it's nice that we have something in place and we are upholding it.
• As it relates to recycling, I would like to see a recycling agreement from Forsyth County.
Matt Marietta:
• No ma'am.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item number 10-1278,
Approval of an Ordinance Establishing Solid Waste Collection Services within the City of Milton.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Page 53 of 53
NEW BUSINESS (None)
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS (None)
STAFF REPORTS(None)
Chris Lagerbloom:
• We will have to have an executive session on December 6, 2010.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (None)
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 1.0-1289)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved Adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 11:32pm.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Date Approved: December 6, 2010
'J
Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk
Joe Lockwood, Mayor
No Text