HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 12/19/2011 - 12-19-11 Reg Mins (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 1 of 38
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 December 19,
2011, Mayor Lockwood presiding.
INVOCA`T'ION
Chaplain Remco Brommett, Chaplain for City of Milton Police and Fire
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
City Clerk Gordon called the roll and made general announcements.
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Zahner Bailey, Councilmember
Lusk, Councilmember Hewitt and Councilmember Tart.
Councilmember Longoria was absent/excused from the meeting.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Sons of the American Revolution led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Approval of Meeting Agenda (Agenda Item No. 11-278)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the meeting agenda. Councilmember Hewitt
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6 — 0). Councilmember Longoria was
absent/excused from the meeting.
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.
• 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 General Public Comment.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 2 of 38
CONSENT AGENDA
City Cleric Gordon read the Consent Agenda items:
1. Approval of the December 5, 2011 Regular Council Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 279)
(Sudie Gordon, Ciry Clerk)
2. Approval of the December 12, 2011 Work Session Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 280)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
3. Approval of Financial Statements for the Period Ending May, 2011.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 281)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
4. Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement for the Provision of Animal Control
Services between Fulton County, Georgia and the City of Milton.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 282)
(Ken Jarrard, City Attorney)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember
Longoria was absent from the meeting.
DEPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation Honoring Milton High School's State Champion Theatre Program.
(Presented by Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey)
Councilmember Zahner Dailey presented a Proclamation Honoring Milton High School's State
Champion Theatre Program.
2. Recognition of $3,500 Grant Funded by Milton Public Safety Fund for a Stairmaster for
the Milton Fire Gild Police Department Wellness Program arid $2,375 Grant for Milton
Police Gun Range Kits.
(Presented by Jan Fowler, President — Milton Public Safery Fund)
Jan Fowler presented the Milton Public Safety Department with a $3,500 grant for the Milton Fire and
Police Department Wellness Program and a $2,375 grant for the Milton Police Gun Range Kits.
3. Presentation of the Silver Good Citizenship Award.
(Presented by Allen Greenly, President of Piedmont Chapter, Sons of the American Revolution)
Alien Greenly presented a Silver Good Citizenship Award.
FIRST PRESENTATION
1. Approval of An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 2, Article VI, Division 11, Purchasing
Policies, Section 2-621.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 283)
(Chris I,agerbloom, City Manager)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 3 of 38
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve First presentation item 11-283.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0), Councilmember
Longoria was absent/excused from the meeting.
PUDL,IC HEARINGS (None)
ZONING AGENDA
1. RZ-11-18 — To create Article VI, Division 26, of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 64 of
the City Code) — H (Historic) District.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 242)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-12-121
(First Presentation on November 7, 2011)
(Discussed at Work Session on November 14, 2011)
(Deferred at November 21, 2011 Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field:
Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. I would like to review with you first, the
purpose of this proposed new zoning district. It is to allow for a historic structure to be used, protected,
renovated, and preserved based on its historic value to the community. It allows for a specific previous
use to continue in the structure where the use would be considered nonconforming as defined in the
current zoning ordinance. In addition, it would be implemented in a similar fashion as a community unit
plan, or "mixed use" whereas the applicant would propose for the development standards for the subject
site that allows flexibility to conform to grandfather nonconforming sites. The applicant would be
required to provide staff with proof that the proposed use previously existed on the subject site. The use
must continue in the original structure. In addition, the structure must be designated as historic by the
City of Milton Historic preservation Commission and must be completed prior to the city accepting a
rezoning application for the structure unless otherwise determined by the Community Development
Director that it is in the best interest of the city to process a designation together because of the risk of
probable demolition. Lastly, if the permitted use ceases to exist on the subject site for more than six
months, the zoning shall revert back to the district in force at the adoption of the zoning ordinance. At
the November 14, 2011 council work session, the following items were discussed for consideration and
are listed below and highlighted in red on the attached document named "Items discussed at the
November 14, 2011 Work Session shown in red" and these items were discussed included: In section
64-953 (b) to add "and bills" and delete "and/or personal affidavits. The second item discussed was in
section 64-953(d) to add the reference of the process in which structures are required to be designated as
Historic by the City of Milton Historic preservation Commission by adding "as required by Sec. 64-
2454." Lastly, in section 64-954 to add that the Milton City Council shall consider the subject property's
"City's Comprehensive plan". The proposed text amendment was deferred at the November 21, 2011
City Council meeting to the December 19, 2011 City Council meeting for a recommendation. A clean
version is provided for your review that incorporates the City Attorney's recommended changes as
presented at the Work Session without the above three items. In addition, a red lined version that
includes changes recommended by the planning Commission and a red lined version of the City
Attorney's recommendation are included. The alternatives for tonight are that The Mayor and City
Council may choose to approve, deny or defer the Text Amendment to create Article VI, Division 26 of
the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 64 of the City Code) — H (Historic) District to the City of Milton Zoning
Ordinance. That is my presentation, thank you.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 4 of 38
Mayor Lockwood:
Before we get started, do we have any questions for our staff from Council? I have a question for the
City Attorney and possibly staff too. I have gotten some feedback and some concerns from citizens that
this ordinance would allow for spot zoning and set a precedent for more development in other areas. I
would like to see if our City Attorney and/or Kathy if you could clarify that.
Kathleen Field:
I would like to defer that to our City Attorney because that is a legal question.
City Attorney Jarrard:
Thank you, I will do my best to answer that one. With respect to whether I think it sets a precedent or
would be illegal spot zoning, I believe the way the ordinance is structured is that would not be the case.
I will give you a couple of reasons why. First of all, I don't think it is going to set a precedence to allow
unrestricted commercial development based upon the fact that the preconditions to get in and apply for
this type of zoning require there be a decision that there is a historic use on the property. There is
already a threshold trigger built into this ordinance that is challenging to overcome. Secondly, the
ordinance itself provides that there has to be a use or previous use that is now considered non
rnnvnrmina thnt is nnnthPr triaaPr tliprP marl to hP nn exictina strrnrtrnre flint hnd cnme cnrt of n nrinr rice.
that has to be proven up. There is a limitation to only the historic structure being subject to this zoning,
you cannot expand it. The use cannot be expanded and in fact it says in section 64-953(e) that the
proposed historic use shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Obviously, that is to the best that
the council can fashion that sort of thing. We need to keep in mind what spot zoning is. When I think
of spot zoning, I think of having a pool or node of residential and right in the middle of it, for no
apparent rhyme or reason, dropping a parcel of industrial right in the middle of it. Of course, that
doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a planning perspective and may in fact unduly burden the
residential and doesn't make a lot of sense for the industrial either. This ordinance, in fact, has gone out
of its way to try and insure that does not occur and does reach out to the adjoining properties and tries to
establish that we will try and fashion any zoning that is provided to be compatible with those
surrounding uses. I don't think it is going to have the result that it will be any sort of precedent for
expansion of commercial throughout the City of Milton when that was clearly not what is intended in
my opinion.
Mayor Lockwood.
I would like to ask another question for Chris or Kathy. There is possibly one property that could be
designated historic but it has also applied at a later meeting for commercial zoning. If you guys could
delineate the differences in that and the process that a property that was designated historic would have
to go through in order to get a special use permit.
Kathleen Field.
Clearly, one of the main hurdles that a property under the H -District would have to go through is it
would have to be designated historic by the historic perseveration commission before it was even
considered by this body for that purpose. So, that is a big threshold that would need to go through.
Other thresholds include the fact that it could only be used for the original use. If the original use was a
country store, it could only come in as a country store. You couldn't expand the property. If it came in
as a country store and that use was granted but they went out of business for six months or more, they
would lose that zoning. It would have to come back through that process again. Those are the big
hurdles under the H -district. Right now we have a property that is coming in that is going through the
normal rezoning process and is coming in as a C-1. A C-1 is very different because once you get the C-
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 5 of 38
1, there is a whole host of different uses. It doesn't have to be designated historic, it is just a commercial
use and there are many uses that can be allowed in that. If it went out business, it could always remain
as a C-1 use. You wouldn't use it. The H -district is very constrained in terms of what it is allowed as
opposed to a C-1 use. Maybe the attorney would like to expand, but to me that is the summary.
City .Attorney Jarrard:
Certainly in most situations, with a zoning review of a new application, you look at adjoining properties
and you want to know what they are zoned as. In a typical environment, if you have an adjacent piece
that is zoned commercial, a lot of land owners will use that and say that there is an adjacent piece that is
commercial, I want commercial too. Here, to Mrs. Field's point, the H -designation is not terribly
helpful because if you hold it up as a commercial use embodied in this H -designation, adjacent
properties cannot ask for H -designation unless they also have a historic structure on that property.
Mayor Lockwood:
That is one thing I like about the h -designation, it's not something that someone can make up and move
to another property and want to make it also an h -designation. I want to make sure and clarify that if a
property is given an H -designation, it doesn't mean that it gets a C-1 zoning or anything else, that is
totally separate. We are not looking at C-1 zoning application tonight. It is totally separate.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
I would also like to make one more point to follow what Kathy said, and that is even though the city, at
this point, has received an application for rezoning and we have a parcel that is moving through the
zoning process, that item has yet to be heard by the planning commission. I don't want there to be any
mistake that there is any forgone conclusion as to the end result.
Mayor Lockwood:
What would the timing be on that?
City Manager Lagerbloom.
It goes to the planning commission this week, so it will likely be in front of the council depending on
what they do with it. Earliest would be January but very well could be February or later depending on
what the Planning commission does.
Councilmember Hewitt:
As far as the procedure goes, if a property were deemed Historic by the commission and someone
wanted to look for this, they would have to go through the same zoning as any rezoning and having to
go in front of the different commissions and coming in here?
Kathleen Field:
Yes, sir.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
This may be a question for later after we close. Mrs. Field, just a quick question as an extension to what
Councilmember Hewitt was saying, can you explain what the differences would be on the Historic
zoning even though they might have to come through the process. If they have already been deemed
historic by a separate entity, at that point would it still be a zoning or would it be more of an affirmation
of this group? As I understand it, once the historic preservation committee had made a recommendation,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 6 of 38
I don't know that the decision in process is still the same, but if you could just expand on that I would
appreciate it.
Kathleen Field:
It would still have to come to the Citv Council and you would have the right to review the conditions
that you would want to put on the application at that time.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
If it has already been identified as a historic structure, if this were approved, would that fit within the
requirements that would allow for something different than C-1 zoning that you talked about. If a C-1
zoning were to come forward, obviously we are looking at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It is
consistent or inconsistent, but once an item had been deemed historic at that point, it would then be
consistent with the language if we were to adopt the language this evening?
Kathleen Field:
It would be consistent in terms of that threshold meeting the Historic property.
r. V fIIll Q:lAllAG1110./GII XZ61111GA L1Bailey:
Okay, thank you.
Councilmember Lusk:
Mrs. Field, to the best of your knowledge, how many potential historic rezoning would you anticipate?
Is there a discrete number?
Kathleen Field:
At this point in time, we have determined that there were two. The conditions of historic means over 50
years, so as time goes ^„, k,,;lAings age so we can't say that in the fixture that you couldn't identify
1 ero time V VV Vll VK11K 11 W
them. You have such a fine group that would meet all of these conditions. Some dropped out because
they already had commercial zoning. You are really looking at those that aren't allowed to move
forward with an alternative use. To me, with that criteria, you end up with very few. Right now, there
are two but that is not to say that there wouldn't be a few more in the future. We haven't identified any
more at this point in time.
Councilmember Lusk:
Is the Hopewell House the second of the two?
)Robyn McDonald:
The second structure is called Wash Chadwick's Store which is on the east side of Arnold Mill right
before you cross over the river. That is the other identified commercial use and there is the Hardeman
Store. Those are the only two current ones.
Councilmember Lusk:
Are they the only two submitted?
Robyn McDonald:
No, we did our research to see that it would be a possible item to be used. We double checked and the
Chadwick store is already under a C-1 old zoning, so reality is that there is only one item that could be
considered possibility.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 7 of 38
Councilmember busk:
Based on what you know, would you agree that the Hopewell House that the city purchased this summer
would be deserving of an H -designation?
Robyn McDonald:
I cannot make that determination because I would have to meet the criteria of the designation and I am
not in that kind of position to decide that.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
.rust as an extension of the question that was just posed, it is my understanding that if a government
entity owns a building, it can be utilized as the city would intend for that historic structure to be used
without having to get the historic zoning. Is that accurate? I don't think the city is intending for it to
become an Inn, but if the City has purchased that as a historic structure, I just want to make sure that the
city could determine a use for the acquired property at Hopewell and Birmingham Road which is the
home that Councilmember Lusk was referencing. In other words, it could be used by the city without
having to seek a commercial zoning and/or another zoning. Is that correct?
City Attorney Jarrard:
That is correct. It has to be within the ability of the City of Milton to function, but that is correct.
Councilmember Thurman:
We did receive several emails in opposition to it based on a anonymous email that went out from
someone under the disguise of "Preserve Milton", I just want to make sure that we have addressed the
issues that are in this email. It says that "This is in direct conflict with Milton's Comprehensive Land
Use Plan." As I understand it, project number NRC -1 was to create a historic zoning code, and part of
our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and says that we will expand identification, documentation, and
protection of historic cultural and archeological resources in the city and with possible encouraged
access by the public so I assume that it really is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
This Email that went out says that this zoning was in conflict with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Kathleen Field:
No, and I think that we would take the Comprehensive Land Use Plan into consideration as we look at
the parcel that would be in question in front of us.
Councilmember Thurman:
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan basically says that we were going to create this zoning so clearly it
is not in conflict with it. It also says that this is spot zoning which I think the City Attorney has taken
care of that. It says that the proof of the former commercial could just be an affidavit which I think has
also been taken care of. It says that there is one piece of property which I believe is the Hardeman
Store, had already been up to vote by the Council and that we had denied that. I do not believe it has
ever come to vote by the Council, so that is incorrect. It says that it would be setting a precedence for
other commercially zoned properties and the City Attorney has addressed that as well by saying it would
not set a precedence unless it was other historical type properties. It says that a substantial number of
other properties could be at risk, but I think that has been addressed by the fact that there may be a
handful but there is not a substantial number of properties at risk. It will broaden the commercialization
of the interior of Milton but I believe that that has been addressed too. This would not expand the
commercial zoning and it would not broaden it to the interior of Milton and that this would be a way of
preserving these things, I wanted to make sure, because we had received several emails that were based
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Parse 8 of 38
on this email that went out, that we took care of all the inaccurate information that was contained in that
email and addressed it.
Mayor Lockwood:
If we do not have any more questions, I would like to hear from those that are speaking in support of this
item.
Travis Allen, 13095 Region Trace, Milton, GA:
Good evening Mayor and Council. I have a short statement here that has evolved and has been
corrected by things that have been answered tonight. I have lived in what is now the City of Milton for
over 35 years and I have seen many changes that are far too numerous to count. Since the incorporation
of our city, I have been actively involved each year with the Round -Up, immersing myself in local
history and historic preservation efforts. Since the city staff first proposed the idea of historic zoning
designation to the Historic Preservation Committee several years ago, I have been conflicted with my
thoughts on the subject. I am cautiously optimistic that the H -designation could be a valuable tool in not
only preserving the few select structures that may be eligible for it but also in promoting the heritages of
this area which was comprised of former Crossroad Communities such as Hopewell, Birmingham,
Y71_1,_ I`�.._______3_ «7_1_1_ !'�__rgi _n !'�.._/__ppl «71_1,. I ,.___.rend_. ....pp ..t the
,_ a—I'. O f this ...,..V
d'1G1US Crossroads, Webb Georgia, Qd1U �.1 �1UQ�1J1G. YV d111G 1 currently Gdllly JU111.1V11 1116 �'Vt11J Ofthis 11G VV
zoning district, I do feel that it is not without flaws. Many of these have been removed tonight and
spoken on by the City Attorney and city staff .... on the property owner that wishes to request this
designation. Personal aflidavits should never be accepted. Also, I do not feel treat the Community
Development Director should not be able to process the H -rezoning application together with an
application for Historic Designation. I feel this would place unreasonable expectations on not only the
HPC and staff, but could also cause problems if the HPC were to not find the structure worthy of historic
designation. There is a lot of misinformation as Councilmember Thurman spoke about. IL is my hope,
that if passed, that council and staff will help the HPC to better educate the public of the eligibility
requirements 1`61 -this desigrlatlorl WIG 1Ls long term implications 1Vr our community.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have anymore in support?
City Clerk Gordon:
No, sir.
Mayor Lockwood:
We can move on to those in opposition.
Kurt Nolte, 825 Dockbridge Way, Milton, GA:
I would like to ask you to not create the historic district the way it is written right now. It is my concern
that the comprehensive use plan, while councilmember Thurman stated that yes it does call for that,
nowhere does it say that it goes back to the historic or past use. If you look at the comprehensive use
plan that was crafted by thousands and man hours of research, discussion, and debate and to open up an
avenue to get that change through the historic is the wrong move. This is a piece of legislation that is
going to cause more ongoing problems than it is going to solve.
Sharon Mays, 15160 Highgrove Road, Milton, GA:
I would like to ask that you not approve the H -zoning. There are many different feelings regarding this.
I am very much in favor of preserving Milton and preserving our rural characteristics and especially
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Paee 9 of 38
preserving our historical buildings, however, I do not feel that making them commercial is the way to
preserve our buildings. I would ask that the Council look into other ways that we can preserve our
buildings. For example, we need park lands. Is there a possibility that this and adjoining properties
could be used for our park lands? You have mentioned that it is not in conflict with the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. I still do believe I am happy to hear the comments today. I do believe it is still in
conflict with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. At the very least, there are some inconsistencies there
because it does open up for commercial uses within areas that were previously non commercial uses
based on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I do believe that while the intention is not for spot zoning,
the effect of it is. You will drop commercial use within the area that is already designated as residential.
To me, that is spot zoning because it is one spot in the middle of a residential area. I believe that we
need to focus on supporting our existing Milton businesses. So many are struggling and I want to do
everything that we can to support and help those businesses grow and to drop a conflicting or
competitive store within the heart of the interior of Milton, is not really the way to go about helping our
existing Milton businesses. I ask that you think about this and think long and hard before we open that
door. I have been there before at the Fulton County meetings where something that was well intended
and then people change on the board and other interested parties change and things that were not
intended to happen do happen and it opens the door. I think we need to think seriously before we open
the interior of Milton to commercialization.
Bill Shellhorn, 225 Orchard Bend Trail, Milton, GA:
I too support Milton's desire to preserve Milton's history and unique characters, however, rezoning
agricultural property to allow commercial development under the guides of Historic Zoning is
misguided. Zoning will compromise our quality of life and severely degrade our rural character. I heard
there were some conversation around spot zoning and I still also believe this is spot zoning. One of the
things that the attorney said was that spot zoning is considered something where you are dropping a
parcel of; I believe you said, dropping industrial in the middle of agricultural or residential area. This is
dropping a commercial retail store in the middle of an agriculture and residential area. There isn't
another retail store within three miles of this. I don't know how you can say this without coming to the
conclusion that you are spot zoning. With that, I also believe that this is a dangerous setting and it could
allow for potentially hundreds of other properties in the interior to be zoned commercial and now I know
you have only identified two, and I just heard tonight for the first time that you are talking about two
properties of which you have identified that have to be 50 years of age or older, but my property will be
50 years old someday. I bought it 15 years ago. Does that mean someday I will be able to apply for that
historic qualification? Okay, great. I just want to make sure that is not the case. From what I understand,
that could potentially be an issue. In addition, this property sits on a half an acre. Every piece of
property that is in the non -sewer area of Milton in North Fulton County, has a 1 acre minimum. Is this
another special permission that you are allowing this developer, in order to circumvent another one of
our rules, and allow him to have this property with a half an acre on a septic field? Is this going to be
opening the door for more people that want to avoid that particular law in the future? Are you setting
yourself up for another legal challenge from someone else that wants to put some commercial
development on less than one acre in a higher density? Hopewell and Thompson is already a very
congested and dangerous intersection. Any additional traffic would only make the situation worse and
from what I understand, they are accommodating this by putting in unwanted curbing and unsightly
curbing. One of the beautiful aspects of Milton is the fact that there are so many places where we don't
have curbs. Day one, they want to put a curb in. Aesthetically, I believe this flies in the face of what we
are trying accomplish in Milton. This is the second time that this developer has attempted to zoned this
property for commercial use. The first time, the community came together and overwhelmingly voiced
our opposition. The Planning Commission and staff recommend denial. Reading the writing on the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 10 of 38
wall, the developer withdrew his request. There is nothing in our community today that has changed.
The staff's recommendation should be the same. The Planning Commission's recommendation as well
as Mayor and Council should maintain that same position. It is very frustrating, and I am very
concerned, that we as citizens should be forced to be watchdogs and have to collectively protest every
time someone finds another twist to circumvent the desires of the community and our Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. I truly love living in the city of Milton and I would appreciate it if you protect my right
and our right to preserve it.
City Clerk Gordon:
That is all of the public comment, sir.
Mayor Lockwood:
I will now close the public hearing and open up for council discussion.
Councilmember Lusk:
To comment on what we just heard here. We are not talking about a specific project, structure, or
property during this discussion. We are talking about the H -zoning district. Just to make that clear.
Mayor Lockwood:
Any other discussions?
Councilmember Tart:
My position on this issue is very clear. I have about seven points that I would like to share with the
council and the members of the chamber. While the H -designation could provide an. incentive for a
property to remain historic, it also would allow or could allow a use that is more intense than what our
land use plan currently contemplates and that use would be ((in our rural interior. For instance, while a
country store wltil a potential gas Um might have worked 5V ears ago at a rural crossroads, our traffic
y p � pump g Y g
patterns and population density are much more different now than they were 50 years ago. I have heard
that potentially there could be two properties that this H -designation could apply to and so the question
has to be asked, why change out laws for two properties? Well, one of them is a developer who is also a
campaign contributor. Third, this is the first incentive considered by this council or anybody of this city
for that matter in terms of what we could do to incentivize historic preservation. I would like to see
some other incentives be put in place before we change our laws for two possible properties and
potentially bring commercial development to our rural interior. I do have deep respect for you, Mr.
Allen, but with regards to the deletion of personal affidavits, I realize that was a concern for many and it
was a concern for me, but the language that remains in this ordinance allows for pretty much anything.
We took the terminology for personal affidavits could be allowed as a way to prove that there was a
historic use in the property but there is also a phrase that remains in the ordinance that says "among
other things" which means that pretty much anything that could be shown to the Historic Preservation
Commission in their deciding deliberation and decide that it would be a rural or historic preservation
would meet that intent. It doesn't have to be anything in particular. It doesn't even have to be anything
spelled out in the ordinance. Really, anything goes in that regard. Although technically I do think that it
doesn't necessarily a spot zoning by definition, but because we are creating a new zoning designation
that would allow for any kind of prior use on that property, I think it meets the same intent as a spot
zoning. The last point I would like to mention is that there had been some incoming council members as
well as sitting council members that have expressed the desire to have commercial nodes, commercial
crossroads interior to our city and while this might not set precedent, I think this does provide a back
door for a lot of that to happen, so I will be voting against this.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Paae 11 of 38
Councilmember Hewitt:
Would either Kathleen or Ken speak to what is necessary to prove the prior use?
Kathleen Fields
We do have within the proposed language, and let me just quote from it, it says "existence of the historic
use of the subject property may be established by, among other things, historic pictures of the subject
property, deeds of sale, and/or personal affidavits There was discussion on the last work session to
change that to read "historic pictures of the subject property, deed, and bills of sale."
Councilmember Blewitt:
When we talked about if a building was going to use prior use but could not be expanded upon, what if
that place has been expanded after its prior use but before a potential H -designation, how would that
work into it or would that potentially make it not historic by the Historic Preservation Commission?
Kathleen Field:
I think that is a very good point and I would like to read to you the conditions by which the HPC would
use to designate a property historic. I think it is very important. It reads "The criteria for selection for
historic properties: An individual building, structure, site or object deemed worthy of preservation by
reason or value to the state of Georgia or to the City of Milton for one or more of the following reasons:
1. It is an outstanding example of a structure representative of its era." Even though a building could be
50 years old, if it wasn't an outstanding example, it would not be eligible." "2. It is one of the few
remaining examples of past architectural, style or type over 50 years old. "3. It is a place associated
within an event or persons of historic or cultural significance to the City of Milton, State of Georgia, or
the Region." A good example of that is George Washington slept here. "Lastly, it is the site of natural
archeological or aesthetic interest that contributes to the cultural or historical development or heritage of
the municipality, county, state, or region." Those are the criteria by which the HPC would use to
determine whether or not a structure was historical or not.
Councilmember Lusk:
I would like to read something here "Milton is a distinct community embracing small town life and
heritage while preserving and enhancing our rural character." The four of us at the end of this table
adopted that statement almost five years ago. It is called our vision statement. It has been the mantra of
this town from the beginning. What is rural character? Birmingham Crossroads? Crabapple Crossroads?
Fields Crossroads? Hopewell? Freemanville? Social Hill? Summit? Some of the structures which made
those crossroads are an important part of our history and heritage and they still remain. Farms, pastures,
gravel roads, and even the undeveloped areas further define that character. Prior to the adoption of the
Historic Preservation Commission, the Historic Preservation Committee crafted a tool to help preserve
historic structures in the city. This H -classification is the latest alliteration of that tool. It is just that, a
tool or a mechanism to preserve and enhance our rural character. No structures have been officially
designated to date by the Historic Preservation Commission although we have talked about a couple of
possible ones. At the rate of which several of these structures have disappeared in the past, it is
imperative that we pass this ordinance tonight so it is not to lose anymore historic structures. Now we
have talked about spot zoning, setting a precedence and violation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is a guide and a living document, Historic structures existed long
before, and in some cases, a century, before our city was even contemplated. How can you deny a
historic structure that has been around for over a century? We have received several emails here on
council. Karen read one here and it is a shame that there is so much misrepresentation of the facts with
not only this topic but several others in the past as well. Some of them are outright prevarications in an
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 12 of 38
attempt to serve a personal agenda of some sort, who knows why, but it really creates fear mongering
and it is a fear that has been talked about here in the past. First it was sewers. Five years ago, for
heaven's sake, you would think there would be a sewer in everyone's driveway out here. It hasn't
happened? Where have we come? In order to conform with a policy of transparency here on Council, I
think we need to know the facts, we need to deal with the facts and we need to get away from this fear
and lets continue on with our vision statement. This H -district is in harmony with our vision statement
to preserve and enhance our rural character. To deny its approval is to deny our vision. To deny our
vision is to deny the wishes of the vast overwhelming majority of our city. Thank you.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
One, this has been a topic that has been discussed for a while as councilmember Lusk mentioned. There
was a form of this that had been put into the historic ordinance that was first adopted but it was taken out
by the state. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources removed this because they said it didn't
belong there. I do hear the concerns of a lot of folks and I know I received a lot more than just a few
emails. These emails are consistent with what we have heard in public comment tonight. I of all people
absolutely support historic preservation and have long before we became the City of Milton. A lot of
my efforts going back 20 years had actually gone to support a lot of the structures that we have all
embraced and wanted to see continue. I think the distinction is that we flow have a citizenry that, as pail
of our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, has said that yes, they want to see historic buildings preserved but
they also want to see the agricultural and residential land preserved from a comprehensive land use
standpoint. I take a slightly different approach when I think about if it is consistent or inconsistent and
listening to the comments that have been made here tonight by my co -council members. I do believe
that it is inconsistent from the perspective that it is only going to apply to two properties and of those
two properties one of them is already deemed commercial. Effectively, we would be putting forward an.
H -zoning this evening for the purposes of one singular property. I think that is inappropriate in terms of
land use law. I don't think that we need to as a body and as a group need to be putting ordinances in
I that address Just one property. `�Je have heard iiom our staff that the property on Arnold Mill is
P j."., p p y� p p y
already deemed C -I and based on their research, as Robyn noted, there's only two. Are there more? We
have heard other properties noted, but tonight what was said is that there are two identified. Of those
two, only one of them, if this were to apply and it was passed tonight that particular property that the
current C-1 process would either take this zoning approach and use this category and perhaps withdraw
that C-1 request in the hope that they would be able to utilize a historic commercial use. That is in
conflict with our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan, when you look at
Hopewell and Thompson, does not say that that half an acre can be used for commercial use. I think that
we can all have different opinions, which we do, but we need to be transparent and I believe the honest
statement is that if this were passed tonight, it would set the opportunity in play to allow the Hardeman
Store to be pursuing commercial use under this particular designation. Regardless of your opinion, I
think those are the facts. The timing of that commercial rezoning was actually pushed into January so
there would be time if this were passed to withdraw and come back up under this designation. I
appreciate the opportunity to talk about the need to be transparent. In terms of our vision and mission, it
doesn't say that we should preserve a building in a particular location at the risk of undermining our
commercial, residential, and AG -1 zoning. I believe that because this affectively applies to just one
property, that today it would not be allowed under our Comprehensive Land Use Plan to have a
commercial zoning. It is affectively being set up to undermine the very Comprehensive Land Use Plan
that says that there should be no commercial at Hopewell and Thompson. If our Planning Commission
and our Comprehensive Planning Committee had felt that commercial needed to be at Thompson and
Hopewell, it would have been in the document that Councilmember Thurman referenced but it's not.
Individuals that we have heard from tonight and individuals that we have heard from historically and
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Pate 13 of 38
those that we have all received emails from don't want to see commercial by property. We are not
hearing that commercial zoning tonight, but again, under the laws of transparency and just our
responsibility as councilmembers is that if this is applying to one singular property, which it is, then if
that one singular property without the passage of this would not be allowed to have a commercial use. I
don't know who we are kidding. This would allow for commercial use at Hopewell and Thompson.
Granted, it would be predicated. It would be predicated on the HPC having to designate it as historic but
that hasn't been decided. We surely can't remove that decision from that body. That body is made up
of human beings that may or may not interpret that language differently. Some of the language that Mrs.
Field mentioned is accurate but it is also subjective. As an example, whether or not a structure is
outstanding or not, there are no parameters to say that this is what's going to allow me as a person to
determine if it is outstanding or not. If it is the only singular building that is still standing, I may decide
that is the only outstanding structure that still exists. The English language would allow me to interpret
that way. The HPAB are great folks and are very intent on seeing our structures preserved. My only
point is that the language, going forward, does not spell out the specificity with which that needs to be
addressed. It is difficult for me to embrace an ordinance that effectively tonight we are being told would
apply to a singular property. I think another approach for preserving our historic structures as an
example would be that we could preserve the historic structure and it can be preserved without us
designating or creating a zoning category. One, the land owner could simply take that property and
deem it to be historic. They could have a marker there and identify it as historic. Another option that
has been addressed with other historic structures, which sometimes is not ideal, is to move a historic
structure if it needs to be moved for purposes of the community and being able to embrace and utilize
that structure more. I do not necessarily believe that you have to change the underlying zoning and use
in order to preserve a building. At the end of the day, a use in traffic and other things that would be
brought into an arena that today is all residential and agricultural, I do believe it is in conflict with our
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and I think we need to take serious consideration and note of that. If we
want to preserve historic structures, there are ways of doing that without converting to a use that is
inconsistent with our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In terms of the language that I believe
Councilmember Tart mentioned, both the proposed changes as well as the current version before us, it
still includes that clause which says "among other things" which does leave it wide open to allow for
many things that are not outlined and it allows a body to decide that a prior commercial use could come
into a non commercial area. I would agree with Ken Jarrard that under the legality of spot zoning, it
doesn't meet the standard. I do think we have to listen to our citizens that say their interpretation of
putting commercial in an area that is not allowed based on their vernacular is commensurate with that. I
do understand the distinction legally with spot zoning. Rather than to use the term spot zoning, it should
say that a zoning that would otherwise not be allowed, would be allowed in a residential area. That is
the issue that I hear from the citizens that have spoken and from the ones that we have been hearing
from. I am concerned an ordinance that would be established for the purposes of effectively allowing
one singular property to be zoned for commercial use. Thank you for your opportunity to speak, thank
you.
Councilmember Thurman:
First of all I do not believe it is one particular property. We actually have several properties currently in
Milton that I believe are grandfathered commercial uses, If those properties were no longer used for
commercial use for a short period of time, they would lose that commercial designation. These may be
properties that could eventually be part of this historic zoning because these are historic properties. One
of those is the Union restaurant. I believe that most people have been there before. If falls in that
category where it is a grandfathered use. I don't think we have deemed that necessarily as one property
that it would pertain to. Our legal council has clearly said that this is not spot zoning. It doesn't set a
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 14 of 38
precedence, which unfortunately something like a commercial use of something does set precedence
because it is a commercial property where this is not. I believe that the Planning Commission approved
this 5-1 at their meeting and it is my understanding that the same process wound be applied for approval
as it is in any other zoning request. The Heritage Preservation Service which is part of the National Park
Service has been properly applied. Zoning can be a powerful tool in protecting historic property. I have
been working for more than 20 years on protecting historical properties in Milton. Way back before
Fulton County, I worked on preserving the historical properties. We did a historical inventory. We
looked at a number of properties that at that time showed up on our inventory that are no longer there
and it is really sad. If you're saying there are other ways to preserve it, it obviously hasn't worked so
far. There are a lot of properties that would not qualify now because they have decayed to the point of
not being relevant. We need to do what we can to protect our historic properties. We need to protect
our rural character and the historical properties and the rural crossroads is what makes Milton unique.
This is clearly in keeping with our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan
very specifically says that we were going to have this type of zoning and recommended it, so it is in
keeping up with it. Our Comprehensive Land Use Plan quotes the word "historical properties" about 32
times. Obviously it is something that is important in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that we do keep.
I do believe this is one tool that we have that could apply to more than one property long term and we
need
.S ^. .L ,.a a., .. a,. ..a a7_,. ,...a: Y I- _I: 1. ,.1 A. ..1 A-++,. -+
need o do —ha -t we car, to protect t11V3e propGltleJ. A uulleve 11Vt11111g a pCIS0110.1 vellUGtta agaill"L
someone because of the way they voted and not wanting to give them this designation. That is not how
we need to make decisions in Milton. We need to make decisions based on what is best for the citizens
Oil Milton. If we can do something like this and it will enable us to preserve some of our historic
structures, then I think we need to do it.
Mayor Lockwood:
I appreciate everything that the council has said up here and I appreciate the comments from the public
comments. I have to say, I to would share the same concerns that I have heard from in emails and from
citizens that have spoke tonight. I am iia another position up here and I knov�' where I staaid. Ido not.
stand for expanding commercial into residential areas or areas that are not on our Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. I know that some people have mentioned it being one property now, but it may be additional
properties later. If I use that one property as an example, I feel like it's my job to look at our vision and
go out 50 years from now and see what people appreciate about Milton. I know people appreciate the
horse farms, the beautiful neighborhoods, we appreciate the Crabapple area, Birmingham crossroads,
our nice retails areas and I can sit here and think about "what if a couple of the old structures in
Birmingham Crossroads, the owners weren't allowed to do anything with those?" They would take them
and tear them down and build houses over them. If we want to call the white elephant in the room, we
have an older structure referred to as the Hardeman store. If I owned that properties, which I don't nor
do I have any ties to the developers or have received any contributions from the developer, but if you
couldn't do something with it historical you would just have to tear it down and build some houses.
Over time, we lose our identity and we end up looking like some other cities around us. Again, the
reason I am supporting this designation is because I feel that we can take the few buildings that we have
and make Milton something a little bit different. If you look at the comments that we get from people
that drive through Crabapple and there are only a few old buildings there. In the Birmingham area, it is
what sets the tone for the rest of the area and I believe it is unique and is good for Milton. I in my heart
and mind have been through the concerns about spot zoning and commercial zoning. I feel confident in
our staff that we as a council can make sure that doesn't happen. Just having this H -zoning is a big
process that a property would have to go through. It's not the same as just having something getting
turned into commercial.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 15 of 38
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I just want to make the point to Councilmember Thurman's point about grandfathering of the Union
restaurant. Union Restaurant is an existing C-1 so it would not need the historic zoning. It is a C-1 and
it dates back to 1973 and was stated so on the 1996 survey. I support the preservation of historic
structures but we can preserve historic structures such as the Crossroads which were preserved because
they are in commercial. This unfortunately undermines the land use plan and so that is the distinction.
Councilmember Thurman:
On the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, several of those properties there on Providence Road that is
commercial uses are not reflected as commercial on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That is why I
was saying that it was not anything different then what we were already doing. We are using some of
those that are old commercial properties with old zonings and they are not reflected as commercial on
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
Councilmember Dusk;
There are other incentives or methods of preserving historic structures. By designating this zoning
classification, the city has the opportunity to come forward with those incentives. Possibly in reduced
permit fees, property taxes, or other means or mechanisms to do that. That is positive and that is how
you create an incentive to preserve historic structures.
Mayor Lockwood:
If we have no other discussion, I would like to open the floor to a motion.
Motions Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Zoning Agenda Item RZ-11-18 as presented in the
Text Amendment as presented at the November 14, 2011 Work Session Meeting.
Second and Friendly Amendment: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion with a friendly
amendment to Section 64-953(b)- Use Regulations- to reads
"H District classification shall only be available for property on which a
proposed Historic use would be deemed non -conforming under the existing
zoning classification. Existence of the Historic use of the subject property
may be established by, among other things, historic pictures of the subject
property, deeds, and bill of sale, and personal affidavits. In the event that the
personal affidavits are submitted as part of the "H" District Zoning
Application, such affidavit shall be supplemental to other evidence of Historic
use and may not be the sole evidence of same."
Vote: The motion passed (4-2) with Councilmember Zahner Bailey and Councilmember Tart in
Opposition, Councilmember Longoria was absent/excused from the meeting.
2. ZMI1-03 —12792 Donegal Lane (Lot #39) Vickery Crest Subdivision — Gerald E. Hudgins
requests to modify Condition 3.a. of RZ05-135 to reduce the Minimum Rear Yard from 50 feet
to 10 feet along the west property line.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 271)
(First Presentation on December 5, 2011)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 16 of 38
Kathleen Field:
Thank you Mayor and Council. I will be using a power point for the two zoning modifications. It will
be up on your screens. For the members of the public, my presentation will appear on both of the
screens facing you so you can follow along as well. The first item is Zoning Modification 11-03. To
reduce the minimum rear yard from 50ft to 1 oft along the west property line to allow for placement of
an accessory structure. You can see the parcel location map. This is a parcel off of Hopewell Road that
runs north — south and the road just to the north of the property is Hopewell Place Drive. This is located
on Donegal Lane. I don't have use of a pointer, so I will verbally have to describe these maps. The
background is that The subject site is located within the Vickery Crest Subdivision located on the west
side of Hopewell Road in the southern portion of the City. It is zoned CUP (Community Unit Plan)
pursuant to RZ05-35. Vickery Crest is currently under development with a total of 46 lots in Phase I
where the request for modification is located. There are currently fifteen homes occupied and ten under
construction. Any changes to the approved zoning conditions require a zoning modification. Currently,
there are 15 homes occupied and 10 under construction. You have in front of you the site plan. You can.
see at the top left corner in red in solid, that is the proposed site of the garden shed. It is within the 50ft
setback area. The applicant is requesting a reduction of the minimum rear yard on the west side of the
property from the 50ft to 1Oft so as to allow for the completion of this garden shed. The community
r 4. �: n dY, 9a Ar _ r 1n ')nr 1 r_-AA:f:, f- +1.,.
zorling ll11V11nd-tion mee ing, he 1.L.11V1, wab 11611! WI 1V V V CHIMI JV, /_V1 1. 111 allUILIV11 LV L11G ap1J11Li UIL,
five people were in attendance, all of which were in opposition. Their concern is the potential of setting
a precedent for further actions of this type. In terms of the staff analysis, when staff inspected the
garden shed under construction, they determined that it was located within the 20ft drainage easement as
shown on the subdivisions reported plat. The applicant, however, has agreed to raise the structure on
pillars to allow for the free flow of water. The applicant intends to finish the exterior of the shed with
matching architecture and materials as that of the house. The applicant has already screened the
structure from the road with evergreens. A staff evaluation of the rear yard finds that the buildable area
of the lot is small and that there are minimal alternative locations in which to locate the shed. You will
see that the applicant has already piai'ited evergreens to screen the spired that is in elle rear from those
driving by in the front. Here is an actual picture of the shed in the rear of the lot. The staff
recommendation is that the staff does recommend approval of ZM 11-03 with conditions. The
conditions are as follows:
1. To modify the minimum rear yard along the west -south property line's estate and it would be
50ft except for lot 39, which is the lot in question, which shall be 10ft only for the existing
accessory structure as depicted on. the site plan dated November 3, 2011.
2. The accessory structure on lot 39 shall be elevated to a minimum of 12 inches from the ground to
allow water to flow.
3. The existing structure located on lot 39 shall be screened from view of Donegal Lane.
That is my presentation. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood®
Any questions for Kathy?
Councilmember Zahner Bailey -
First of all, in terms of hardship and hearing your point that some citizens have some concerns with
precedence, did you guys look to see whether or not this was deemed a hardship? Because they made a
conscious decision to build it, it is hard for me to imagine that it was considered a hardship.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Paee 17 of 38
Kathleen Field:
The applicant did not realize that there was a requirement for this setback. We did go out and look at the
site and did feel that the garden shed is pretty well along in terms of construction. We did not see an
alternative location for that shed. The applicant did get letters of support from neighbors to the west and
to the north. I did leave out the community participation plan. The issue is that there is a potential of
setting the precedent for others in the future, however, we did recommend only for this lot and for only
this structure that we would not recommend any other structures being placed on the lot. The lot is very
tight and they also have a play area of another part of the lot so there really isn't any other place to put
the shed.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Because they are going to have to move it in accordance with the conditions anyways to move it up, is
there not a way to move it up and away from the back property line to allow a little bit of a compromise.
If they are going to have to go through the cost of raising it, could they raise it and move it forward to be
consistent with the neighbors request that has stated they still have some concerns.
Kathleen Field:
I believe that is a question for the applicant.
Councilmember Thurman:
Typically, this kind of issue arises and goes through the variance request. This is before us because it
was part of a CUP zoning that was site plan specific, is that correct?
Kathleen Field:
That is correct.
Councilmember Thurman:
A variance that is given does not set a precedent. flow can we handle this in the future so if it is an
isolated issue, we can make sure that no precedence is set where this is typically a variance type thing
that wouldn't set it, rather than being a rezoning type issue.
Kathleen Field:
It would be a case by case issue. If another lot had a similar type issue, any change to the CUP would
have to come in and you would all have to look at it case by case to see the issues.
Councilmember Thurman:
You feel comfortable that this doesn't set a precedence?
Kathleen Field:
That is correct. I think that we would go out and look at each individual case. It wouldn't be an across
the board type situation.
Councilmember Thurman:
Especially since this is a very specific in that it is only for the structure as on that particular plan dated
that day. It's not for the whole backyard, it's just for that specific thing. So it really is very similar to a
variance request but through this different format.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 18 of 38
Kathleen Field:
Yes, because the technicality that it comes to you all for your review as opposed to going to the BZA.
That is correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey -
Just a quick extension of that, is there a way for this to also go to the BZA? Would that have been an
alternative route or are you saying that because of the CUP it is required to come here? I am just
wondering if that would have been a potential alternative?
Kathleen Field-
It is my understand is that if it is a zoning modification, it goes for City Council review.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey-
I believe there was a similar situation that was a fire pit that had been built, and I am recalling that there
was an item that went to the BZA at one point. Again, I'm surely not debating that issue. I just would
like to suggest that we could go back and look. I don't think that the fire pit came before us, I think
there was something similar that did go to the BZA, just because it is something that we might have to
grapple
_Y '.9. going
_ _.---.. _Y 9'. P.]_ _. .. __-- . _911_ �l
grapple w1Ln going lorWaru. �1Ll1er WC COUIU UCIUr LHIS LU OUI HUM 111CUL111g Lu Ne111y 11 you L;UUIU go
through that variance process or going forward just make sure that the BZA is not a possible venue for
that.
Robyn MacDonald:
Anything that comes before you under the CUP is because the original requester had made up their own
setbacks and so it was approved, in this case by the Board of Commissioners in Fulton County. To
amend that, even for just one lot, it needs to go back to you. I think the fire pit and many of those issues
of structures, those were to a zoning district setback which would go directly to the BZA. If this was
zoned tk& l or 1f 1t was zoned IR4 or anytillrlg else, It would have gone to the BZA.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey-
After tonight, could staff go back and use that fire pit situation in White Columns? I believe part of
White Columns is a CUP, so that from this point forward that gets resolved.
Robyn MacDonald -
If an item is a CUP, your body has heard many of these similar requests for Atlanta National. Again,
that is a CUP and we have asked for reductions and setbacks. It is exactly the same.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey-
So maybe that one specific item was an anomaly. Thank you.
Councilmember busk-
I believe the fire pit issue was on Quarter Path Lane off of Freemanville Road. Beyond that, I noticed
the structure is located in the drainage easement. You said that is an issue too?
Kathleen Field-
That is why we asked them to raise the structure, to allow flow of water underneath. We have had it
reviewed by staff and they felt that would be an adequate accommodation to that issue.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Pate 19 of 38
Councihnember Lusk:
But the easement also speaks to access, not specifically or solely on water flow.
Kathleen Fields
Again, it's like putting a mailbox in the easement. If you need to get access to it, the owner has to bear
the cost of removing it or modifying it to allow for that access.
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, we will move on to public comments.
City Clerk Gordon:
Okay, we have speakers that are for and against.
Mayor Lockwood:
Let's start with those in favor of this item.
Gerald Hudgins, 12792 Donegal Lane, Milton, GA:
Thank you for your time today. I apologize that I am having to take your busy time for this. My wife
and I moved here in August 2010 and we moved back from Tennessee. We were very excited with the
Milton and Alpharetta area. We sought a subdivision that had covenants and controls in place so that we
could protect the value in our home, which we do have quite a bit of value in the home. We would not
want to do anything that would detract from the value and the money that we invested in the home. We
checked the covenants before we bought the house to make sure that if we wanted to have anything like
a simple garden shed, like in the 1950's when those people came back and were building homes and
there was a quaint garden shed that you could also find in Dome and (Darden magazine or Southern
Living. My grandfather was a master gardener, and I enjoy gardening as well. I enjoy plants, routings,
cuttings, and graphing different plants together and so on. It is a hobby, it's what I like to do. What I got
myself in trouble with is trying to self medicate and prescribe. I went to the Milton website and
searched everything, it said I did not need a permit for a small shed under 120sgft. There were some
other projects that I had in the yard and I had an inspector out there with a building permit. I had
another permit to build a pergola. I asked the inspector on his thoughts of the garden shed and I also
knew there was a water shed issue and now that inspector, I am now told, was wrong. I was told that
there should be no trouble with that. The water shed was something that was apparently put in when
Vickery Crest was created. It allows for sheeting of water down through the rear of the subdivision. We
have not seen any significant water runoff or water flow since the builder has continued to build other
lots. He has tried to continue with berms to keep that water flowing. The shed as it is right now is
already eight inches off of the ground. It would only require four more inches to get that within the
twelve inches that we discussed. I am in full agreement to get that raised up and insure that the water
can flow freely under that shed. I hate to call it a shed because to me it's a garden structure. I know I
am running out of time but I want to show you quickly, if you see on your screen there this is an aerial
view of my lot. The white line that you see there is where the 50ft setback is. There is not a lot of land
left in the rear yard to try to put a garden shed. Those of you who do gardening know that you need
some sun exposure. I have tried to put it in there and the only place I can find sun where I get south and
west sun is where the blue arrow is pointing. This is just a survey looking at the same thing, I thought
all of those dash lines were marking where my house is sitting. My house fills up all of those dashed
lines on the lot. This is what I have done to try and appease everyone and anyone. I have learned that it
is hard to please everyone, but I have tried. I planted these trees here to block the view from the road. I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Pane 20 of 38
tried to block it down the side as well. The trailer will be gone. I had put in a stone walkway, I have
now screened the walkway that I was very proud of. I have screened that from view. This is a
precedent where someone similar in my situation in Crabapple had this happen and they built this shed
without realizing what they had done. They were approved in 2008 when they had the same situation.
Theirs, if you will notice, is even less of a. setback than what I have. I think they are eight feet on one
side and four feet from the other. Notice also that their shed was also installed without any screening,
no buffers once so ever to screen it from view. Before I began any of this, I contacted Tom Sharp with
Sharp Residential and the HOA and I did get approval. If anyone is worried about precedence, it was
not an easy process. Sharp is very thorough. They wanted to make sure that it would be built with high
quality materials, architectural shingles, double pane insulated windows, cedar shaped shingles at the
gable ... it's not a cheap shed to build with that much material. I have already invested in over $1,000.00
plus fees with the applications. It's not a cheap project. Those who think this will set a precedent, I
would hope someone else is as committed to a hobby and to want to get something done like this. I
personally can't imagine. I am trying to make it look like that garage on the left hand side, that is the
intent. To make it blend in and preserve the value that I have. I spent about four hours to try and figure
out how to give you some sort of idea of what it would look like. Now I have another hobby of trying to
use CGI and figuring out how to do this. It allows you get some idea to see what I'm trying to do in the
1__ _9 ____._�I V ____ ___ ____ a1____ ___,1L'._._ — __.._— _a C....__ __9 ---- iT.... ��9,� ..._1e...:-1_�- .,.,. __. T .. .1...,.:� :a n— ,. once ,..
Ucll liYMU. I 111 111U1G WWI W111111g LU NUICU11 A HUM VXW. 1 GJ, 1L � Ub'ly 11b'11L Ho . 1 al"111L A. UUL once
it has the windows and shingles, the doors ... I have already bought the windows back in the spring. Once
it is complete, it should be obscured from view where it can fade from memory. As I can say again, any
precedence if people are worried about that. Each and every one of them will have to come to the HOA
for approval as well as you regarding any type of setback. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Lockwood:
We will now move to those in opposition.
Mik Sebuscb,149 Lantern Ridge Court, Mallon, vA-
I am the house that is diagonally right behind this property. I am opposing this zoning for three reasons.
One, the neighbors don't want it. Two, it goes against the original design of the CUP which I have been
involved with since 2005. Again, it is that precedence that it could potentially set. Maybe not a legal
precedence, but a public precedence. If you give it to one, you have to give it to all. Being on Lantern
Ridge Court, I am in a neighborhood that backs all along there, so we could potentially have that all the
way going down. When I started this in 2005, I was working with Richard Warnick who was the
original developer of that location. Unfortunately, he went bankrupt because of the market situation. I
had many meetings with him. Tommy Fuquis was the original builder that was going to be working on
it with him. His representatives met with us and originally it was supposed to be acre lots all the way
across. They were trying to get 18,000 square feet approved. We fought that vigilantly. They now have
a mix from 18,000 to an acre. I have emails here with Richard Warnick where he had agreed that he
would make the minimum 20,000 square foot lots which he went against and did not honor. He assured
us that it would be 70-90 feet. We were in support of the development with the 70-90 feet, but it ended
up to be 50 feet because they put the 18,000 square foot homes along our subdivision. He also agreed to
do horse fencing and also agreed to do French drains all the way across the back of it because that water
shed falls right into us and right into the back of my yard. It is a problem. I have sent many emails to
Jimmy Sanders, your city engineer, to try and work on it because the mounds put up have sunk and it
has not been enough. I don't believe the French drains are going to go on because that is an agreement
that Richard Warnick said he was going to do and the new developer does not have to do it. When there
is a 50 foot buffer, there is also allowance for 10 ft decking. The 1 oft decking can go additionally
further. If you approve this, allowing 10 feet away, he could potentially put a deck behind it. He
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 21 of 38
probably wouldn't, but he could legally and put it right against the property. What happens if he decides
to change the design? He could tear it down and do another one. We are worried about that precedence
going all the way along and down the way. I was not here on November 30th to voice my opinion, I was
out of the country but I do know that several people that were from that neighborhood. I sent an email
and I looked at the report just a minute ago that I got at the beginning of the meeting and there are two
emails from neighbors that are in support of it. One is .Jennifer fano who is right directly behind me.
She doesn't live there, She was selling that house and has been up for sale since summer of last year.
What would she care if someone was going to build? The house right next door that sent the other letter.
He has been there for two months, he won't start a problem with his neighbor and he might even want to
do a building structure there. We just want everything to stay 50 feet and keep 50 feet all the way
around. That was the original CUP, that is what we fought for, that is what we spent lots of time on.
We would like to see that continue. I would also like David with Vickery Crest to come up and say a
few words on behalf of his association. I also have our president from our association speaking on
behalf of my neighborhood association and the board is against it as well.
David Marsden, 12802 Donegal Lane, Milton, GA:
I am the house immediately to have the right of Mr. Hudgins. I would like to clarify, I am not here to
represent the HOA. We don't representation yet, we are a new neighborhood. I hope that I have
captured most of my neighbors concerns. First, we fear that it goes against the original intent of the
agreement of the neighborhoods around us. It was set at 50 feet for a reason and to take one lot and give
them 10 feet, sounds a lot like spot zoning to me. If you let him have 10 feet then I want 10 feet and
then all of the houses along the road will want the same. I am also concerned with the maintenance of
this shed. Gerald has said he will take care of it, and I can believe that but if he sells and someone else
comes in, what does it turn into? It could just be a spot for garbage or trash, whatever. They did say in
the report that we have 15 homes currently occupied. Five of us came to the discussion meeting all in
opposition, that is a third of the neighborhood. The other point that was brought up was what
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked was is this a hardship? By no means was this a hardship. We live
in a neighborhood where the homes are 5,700 to 6,500 square feet. To say you need a shed to do
gardening is not necessary. I also wanted to bring up that he keeps speaking of his investment, but if he
didn't follow the rules, I can't feel bad that you didn't invest your money wisely. It's not a good
argument. Also to question if it is precedent of the other shed that was shown, that was more of a
garage, not a shed. It was clearly at the end of a driveway with at the garage at the end, not something
made for gardening. The last point would be to have the water runoff. We do have water runoff in our
backyard. I am his direct neighbor. Right now he just has the building on cinderblocks. A cinderblock
does not allow for water to flow through. There is water runoff back there and it's not in my backyard
because it runs into his, and then into the neighborhood behind us. He did say that he had support from
the woman who is moving, but the new gentleman that moved in has his letter of support and he was
asked about it within two weeks of moving in and of course he doesn't want to cause an issue. I spoke
with him personally about it tonight and he said he just doesn't want to have a bad neighbor situation. I
don't want that either, but I also don't want to have a shed in our backyard. If you look at the letter as it
was written, it was not written by the neighbor. This has been written by Mr. Hudgins and the neighbor
just signed it. I don't think Mr. Hudgins would use the language that he used. He would say that he just
supports it or doesn't.
Jason Tweedy, 535 Westminster Ct., Alpharetta, GA:
I am the president of the Andover North Neighborhood Association and I discussed this with the other
six board members and nobody else on the association representing the neighborhood wants this shed to
remain in the backyard.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 22 of 38
Mayor Lockwood:
Okay, we still have a few more minutes if the applicant would like to use this time.
Gerald Hudgins:
I would like to clear up a few of those things, The neighbor to my left, he has been extremely
supportive. I have known him since back when he was shopping for the home, so the fact that he moved
in two weeks prior is irrelevant. I have known him and been chatting with him back before and we had
a friendship at that time. Also, to suggest that the letter was written by anyone other than him is an
insult to me personally. I have the email tracing where he did write that in an email and sent that to me
and of course he signed it as well. Jennifer got married and lives in the house behind me. If the
neighbors would actually go meet Mrs. Kapano, they would know that she recently gotten married and
now lives in that home. She has also installed a trampoline in the backyard for her daughters and my
children go back and play with her daughters and jump on the trampoline. I wouldn't say the home is
vacant. Mrs. Kapano is very supportive of it as well. The watershed issue, we have lived there for over
a year now and I can say again that we have had some heavy rains and there just isn't that much water
that is running through there. The issue of the cement blocks will not be an issue because as I told
Robyn, they will be removed so that it will be elevated. If it had been a temporary structure on two
_1 _' _ �Y_ ___ i1_ _ __._<_.. __._ __Y -1 P ___. , . -1_� Y_ _c _ ___ a1_ _ a__._ -1 - A- A _ _. . ..-- .. I-, ,_C ..Y_:1 .5 <.,.. 5. ._Y.._.Y,. ...... ,...
S1GU5, U1G11 U1G WQLGl WUU1U 11UW 118111 UGLWCGII L11G LWU J1GUJ. tiJ YUU BGG a AVL U1 WillU1G11 J 111Q,11UUJCJ,
they have them. The issue of cinderblocks will be moved so that it is on some type of sleds. The
concern about precedent, it takes quite a bit of energy and effort to go this far, and I apologize again for
taking your time tonight. IL does have to go through an HOA which this becomes an .IIOA issue with
setting controls but it can also emphasize the developer himself has a lot at risk with trying to sell homes
and he was willing to approve this. That developer was Tom Sharp. I am out of time, but thank you for
your time.
Mayor Lockwood:
At tiilS tilde I will close: the public hearing. Are there a—liy, questions for the applicant from coilncil?
Councilmember Thurman:
I have a question of staff. Often when we do zonings, we can do a concurrent variance as part of the
zoning. Is there a way that this could be structured as a variance so that no precedent would be set in the
rezoning rather than this being an actual part of the rezoning? Could this be a concurrent variance to go
along with this rezoning request and rezone it the way it is and have it a concurrent variance that
allowed this so that it is truly a variance so it is not a precedence setting rather than being a rezoning?
The zoning modification could state that this was a concurrent variance rather than a change to the
zoning, is there any way to do that so that it does not become an actual zoning modification, it becomes
a variance which we know is not a precedent setting. I feel like that is the main issue here is the
precedence.
City Attorney Jarrard:
I don't think so. I think the way it has come to the council and the way it was originally done has bound
your hands on this.
Councilmember Thurman:
Could this be deferred and come back to us as a concurrent variance along with a zoning modification
rather than being just a zoning modification with a precedent setting? We do concurrent variances a lot
with zonings initially.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
PaRze 23 of 38
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
This is effectively what I was asking earlier about the BZA, unfortunately I believe you said no.
Councilmember Thurman:
Clearly it would have to come before us but we do concurrent variances along with our zonings.
Councilmember Hewitt:
What would it be concurrent with?
Councilmember Thurman:
I am trying to find a way to do it so that it is truly a variance rather than a zoning modification that could
have a precedent setting. We need to find a way to get this to work in the future if it ever comes before
us again.
City Attorney Jarrard:
I'm going to have to give this some thought and talk it over with the Community Development Director
about that and figure out how it would work. It's a great idea, I just don't know if I am prepared without
looking at the full file to answer that this evening.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
These are the issues that sometimes make this job a little difficult. One, I acknowledge that the applicant
obviously is doing this with a positive intent as to enjoy your yard and gardening. Similarly, I
understand that those that live in your neighborhood have a right to the 50 foot setback that was put in
place by the CUP and they too have invested a large amount of value into those homes. As we have
heard from staff and at least to this point from our city attorney, because this would be precedent setting
under the modification of the CUP because it is not a variance, that troubles me. The reason I asked if
there was a hardship earlier, is that if this were to come before the BZA, our laws require there to be a
hardship in order for a variance, even if this went to the BZA, there would have to be a hardship
identified. Unfortunately, I do believe you have done your research and I applaud that, obviously in the
future I would encourage folks to come and come directly to city hall. Unfortunately, I do think that
when you have a situation like this, it is important to view the rights of the entire community as opposed
to just the one land owner in terms of the placement of the shed. One thing that also troubles me is the
fact that we highlighted a situation in Crabapple where there was an adjustment made, to me it starts to
speak to exactly why this is precedent setting. If this were approved in its current state, we have not just
one that was approved in Crabapple, but this one as well. Please know that from my personal belief in
terms of how we need to interpret with the attempt of what are those unintended consequences and I
would be very troubled by approving a modification for a one off that does not meet the legal standard
of hardship and I respect your hobby, I love to garden. Unfortunately, we do need to think about the
rights of the land owners that invested in that community.
Councilmember Hewitt:
I never thought that a small structure like this would have caused so much uproar and thought. I'll have
to agree with councilmember Zahner Bailey. Saying it's not a precedent but then showing the one across
town that was essentially the same thing, I believe that is showing precedent. I would like to see if we
could figure out a way to make it work but make it work where it is protecting everyone. I don't know
if that is doable tonight or not.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 24 of 38
Councilmember 'Tart:
I appreciate the applicant for doing the research that you did do and I understand how that can happen
and I appreciate you also for referencing the 2008 case in Crabapple and I remember that case very
clearly and I remember that in that case, it was a case of not know as well and I remember how I voted
in that case and I voted to deny it. With this being a precedent setting case, I think it is incumbent upon
us to make sure that we apply the law fairly and equitably to everyone and so basically, if it is a
precedent case, we can do one of two things. We can either apply the CUP as it was intended and now
allow this to go forward or we could allow these types of structures for all of the parcels within that CUP
which I am certainly not in favor of.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to defer Zoning Agenda Item ZMI 1-03 to allow
Legal and our Community Development staff to see if there is a way this could be done as a concurrent
variance that would not be a precedent setting event and to reappear at the January 23, 2012 Regular
Council Meeting. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Councilmember Longoria was absent/excused from the meeting.
3. ZM11-04NC11-06 —Deerfield Green Subdivision — Redus Atlanta Housing, LLC
v•r .9 r w r.• v
requests to modify the following conditions Lo read:
1d. Site development shall be substantially consistent with the rendering and
elevation submitted to the Fulton County Department of Environnnent and
Community Development on June 27, 2005 except for lots identified as 136
through 163 on the revised site plan submitted on November 24, 2009 to the City
of Milton Community Development Department (ZM09-03); 186 through 220 on
the revised site plan submitted on November 3, 2011 to the City of Milton
Community Development Department. (RZO5-22)
1L The minimum heated floor area for a townhouse unit shall be 2,000 square feet
except for those lots identified as 136 through 163 shall be a minimum heated
floor area of 1,850 square feet. All units shall have a rear entry 2 -car garage
except for those lots identified as 136 through 163 shall have a front entry 2 -car
garage per the revised site plan submitted on November 24, 2009 to the City of
Milton Community Development Department (ZM09-03); 186 through 220 shall.
have a front entry 2- car garage and a minimum heated floor area of 1,850 square
feet per the revised site plan submitted on November 3, 2011 to the City of Milton
Community Development Department. (RZ05-22)
1g. Units 136 through 154 provide a minimum of a 20' setback from the back of
sidewalk to the garage door and Units 155 through163; Units 186 through 220 to
provide a minimum of a 18 foot setback from the back of sidewalk to garage
door. (RZ05-22)
2a. To the revised site plan received by the City of Milton Community Development
Department on November 3, 2011. Said site plan is not conceptual; the developer
must strictly adhere to the site plan as submitted. Any changes to the site plan
must be approved by the Director of Community Development and must meet or
exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these conditions. Unless
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Pate 25 of 38
otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to
the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. (RZ05-22)
To request the following 2 part concurrent variance to 1) To reduce the number of required
parking spaces from 18 spaces to 13 spaces for the amenity area (Section 64-1410); 2) To allow
the rear of town home units to exceed 25% cement siding for units 186 through 220 (Section 64-
1095 (p)).
(Agenda Item No, 11 - 272)
ORDINANCE NO. I1-12-122
(First Presentation on December 5, 2011)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Fields
As the City Clerk read, this is a consideration of a zoning modification, ZM11-04 with four conditions,
I d, l f, l g and 2a and a concurrent variance with two parts. The next slide shows the parcel location map
for Deerfield Green. You can see it is bounded by Webb Road, by Morris Road up to the east and by
Deerfield Parkway to the west. The original site plan with the original rezoning request was submitted
June 27, 2005. The plan was approved for 248 units of 21000 square feet each with rear loading garages.
On November 2009, a revised site plan was submitted for a zoning modification. They requested that
lots 136 through 220, which is a total of 63 lots, be modified to allow for front loading garages, a
minimum setback of 20 feet from the back of the sidewalk to the garage door, and a reduction in size of
units to 1,850 square feet. After input from the community and staff, the number of units was reduced to
28 units for units 136 through 163. Staff recommended approval at that time. Since the retaining wall
behind the units did not provide adequate space for rear alley access. Hence, the zoning modification
was approved by the Mayor and City Council. You can see here that the site plan from 2009, the units
originally came in for all of the units, all 63 of the units. Subsequent to that, the blue ones were dropped
from the request. Only the red ones went forward. In 2009, the council approved the red units for the
front driveway access and the setback of 20 feet from the rear of the sidewalk to the garage door. The
red ones were approved in 2009 and the blue ones were dropped from consideration. You can see an
example of the front loaded garage doors on those units that were built as per that 2009 zoning
modification. In addition, after approval of the revised site plan in 2009, rather than coming in for a
concurrent variance at that time, which they could have. They waited until 2010 and they went to the
BZA for a variance. The variance was to request that the maximum of 25% per side of cement siding
requirement be exceeded. The BZA did approve that request. Once the DRB reviewed it, they also
asked at that time that the rear of each unit should be painted a dissimilar color. After the BZA variance,
they were allowed to exceed the 25% for each side in terms of the cement siding. We now come to the
current request. Essentially, we are revising the revised plan of 2009. On November 3, 2011 a request
for modification for units 186 to 220 was submitted. We will go back and look at the plan. It is the
original blue units that the first time around were dropped from consideration in 2009 and are now back
for consideration in 2011. We will start with the second condition. It is to allow these units to have a
front entry two car garage with a minimum heated area of 1,850 square feet and then the third condition
which is to allow these units to provide for a minimum of an 18ft setback from the back of the sidewalk
to the garage door. The first condition and the last condition relate to the site plan as well as to the
rendering if the plans. When you zoned, you zoned to the rendering and to the site plan. To make any
changes, you could have changed those conditions plus in order to allow for those two conditions of the
front entry two car garage as well as to the 18ft setback. In addition, this time around they have asked
for two concurrent variances to be considered as part of the zoning modification. The first is to reduce
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 26 of 38
the number of required parking spaces from 18 to 13 for the amenity area. The second one, which is
similar to the request that was before the BZA for the first phase, was to allow the rear of the
townhomes to exceed the 25% maximum per side of cement siding for the blue units which are 186
through 220. In terms of public review, the required CZIM meeting, was held on November 30, 2011 °
Besides the applicant, five residents spoke in favor of the proposed application. They were supportive
of any changes that may encourage further completion of the development. Staff received input from
the president of the homeowners association of Park at Morris, Lake Townhomes stating the HOA's
approval. Staff, however, recommends denial of this zoning modification ZMI1-04 and the conditions
Id, If, Ig, and 2a with the denial of also the concurrent variance parts one and two for the following
reasons: Although staff recommended approval of the 2009 revised plan, that is for those red units,
units 136 — 163, the location of those units did not have an adverse affect on the design intent of the
whole development. Additionally, the current revision under consideration proposes changes to those
units 186-220, the blue units, surrounds the sites major amenity area which is a focal point for the entire
development. I have an example of the original rendering that the original rezoning was based on. You
can see the setting and this shows the blue units around the major amenity area, which is a focal point..
You can see the ambiance that they are trying to set. We really felt that by moving the garage entry
from the rear to the front, you are really changing that whole affect. In terms of alternative
...______.___._S_a°_--_-1_- ✓"x___.__71 _._._.... _.._9 _t b1_... b�...
recti nmellUQ i -ons, sI1UU1U L11G Mk yUl Q11U C -Ay I.UU11Ull 1GUU111111G11U UpplUVQl Ul Uln appiwaLlUll, U1G
zoning modification with the four conditions as well as the concurrent variances, they have set a
recommended conditions that are included in your packet on pages 18-20. That is my presentation..
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have any questions from Council? If not, let's open it up for those in favor of this application.
Howard Carson, 3082 E. Shadowlawn Ave., Atlanta, GA:
As staff has pointed out, we are bringing before you 35 units out of a 244 unit town home development
+: l ..� t +i a +; , + + roll +
"or zoning modification along with a minor rnoulaavaGivia to the aTTienity' site. As you car`ai tell aasiaas tla1s
site plan, those units will not be visible from any public street. They are bounded on one side by an
Apartment complex and the other side by other front loaded town home units that have exactly the same
kind of siding on them that are part of our request. The initial application that changed that frontloaded
condition was one that was proposed by David Bowen. I am representing the Atlanta Housing who is
the owner of the 188 remaining vacant developed lot. This is the zoning change that changed the nature
of the development. The addition of these units has very little if any impact on the development and
does not affect any of the other remaining lots on the development. We are asking for very much the
same thing that was brought to you by David Bowen two years ago. Market conditions have continued
to deteriorate and as you might guess, those big expensive town homes units are not marketable in this
environment. I would like to introduce Todd Jones with Lenar homes which will speak to his plans for
the development.
Todd Jones, 3999 Chapel Grove Drive, Marietta, GA:
As Howard said, I am with Lenar Corporation. We are a national home builder. We are in partnership
with the bank to go forward and build through the community. We built this product and two other
communities in Atlanta now. our desire and hope is to build it exactly like the four units that are out
there today. The exact same product, the exact same finishes, and the exact same colors. We build out
of cash, we don't need a bank loan and we are going to be successful all the way though and we have the
funds to continue all the way through this. Our intent is also to, once we start, we will start engineering
for the amenity site. We will start the amenity site once we sell halfway through the 60 proposed home
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 27 of 38
sites and we will have it finished by the time we get the last seal for the 60thhome. We will save the
remaining time for rebuttal.
City Clerk Gordon:
We have no more in support or opposition.
Mayor Lockwood:
I will now close the public hearing and open it up for council discussion or questions to staff or the
applicant.
Councilmember Dusk:
I have a question for Mr. Jones. How many units exist out there at this time?
Todd Jones:
Of the 63 that are out there, the only ones that are constructed are four which are part of the original
secondary zoning that came in. These four are existing and I believe there are several homeowners as
well, but there are only four standing.
Councilmember Lusk:
The total development will be how many?
Todd Jones:
The total development I believe is 244.
Howard Carson:
Mr. busk, if you are asking about the ones that are currently constructed within, the real focal point of
this development is the structure that is invisible from the main roads. The units to the west of that have
been built with the exception of this corner which was the live/work part of this community which
hasn't been built. These units have been built and I don't think it crosses this road. None of this has
been built.
Councilmember Lusk:
But that is all of the same development?
Howard Carson:
It is all of the same development, that is correct. Much like the development directly across the street
from city hall. At city hall, there are rear entry three story units, there are front entry two story units,
there are front entry three story units. This would just be another development that had a mixture of
products.
Councilmember Lusk:
It is my understanding that there are no amenities that are existing at this point in time, is that correct?
Howard Carson:
That is correct. As you will notice, even from the `05 zoning, the amenities were tucked away. This
was not our doing, this was the original '05 zoning. The amenities were tucked away in a back corner of
the development that were always intended to be relatively modest even though you can paint pretty
pictures of it. The site that was left by the developer for the amenities is very modest which is why we
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 28 of 38
requested the reduction of the parking spaces in order to maximize what we could fit on the available
land. The benefit of this and why the residents are supportive of this is so that this amenity will get built
and get built in an appropriate time when there are enough rooftops to support the amenity.
Councilmember Lusk:
Are you saying there are not enough units that are presently existing to support the amenities?
Howard Carson:
Absolutely not, Councilmember Lusk. We have all heard that it takes 60-80 units to support an amenity
site, a pool, insurance and all of the upkeep on that. One of the beauties of this is that it allows for the
commencement of construction and allows an additional 63 or so units to be built that will help support
that amenity,
Mayor Lockwood:
Could you just explain the market and what you are seeing and why you think this is where the market is
taking this?
Todd Jones:
SS 7_ __ _ ____________ 9___._ 1___,_ Y___91 ,1 L_._ _L___ �1_._ 9l�C/19� IS 7,., 1_,._.,,. 1- ,. _,° 1-..:1,.1:«.,. 9.,. Aa1..-,- 1;-... aY— 1-
We
,.,.e
W e as a company have been building since he 1750 s. We Have Ueen UUlluing 111 titlallLQ 1V1 Lile 16BJL
two and half years. We are starting to see the market come back. When we are looking at three story
products with a driveway, basement, big stairs that go up to the front... it's just right now the economy
and scale just do not allow us to build tliat kind Of coriStructi0il and support the prices that we are seeing
today and in the market. The prices that we see in the market, and we did a study and we were looking
at the recent sales that are in that area. We are looking at the comps within this area which is why we
are proposing to go back to the two story product for the time being.
Councilmember Dewitt:
Did 1 ur'adersLCLlAd Ll'lal i1 Ll1lS were Lll go L111VU�'id L111J i,vening, Lii0.t you wvudld start applying ivr permits as
quick as possible and start building out?
Todd Jones:
We would. We have some due diligence to do at the bank, but our intent would be to start along Morris
Road, put the landscaping in that is required along this entrance, and start building up and around.
Councilmember Dewitt:
Ido you have any idea what you think of time period from when you think you would be built out?
Todd Jones:
We are currently building a community very similar to this in South Forsyth. It is the exact same
product. Right now we are selling at a pace of 3 to 3.5 per month, My guess is that we would be out
within two years.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
You mentioned that you are still working with the bank, can you speak to whether or not you currently
own the property, is it still in negotiation or is or predicated on tonight's action?
Todd Jones:
It is predicated on tonight's action. Our company, along with the bank, worked on numerous projects
throughout the southeast. We are in negotiations with them now. part of that negotiation is to help them
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 29 of 38
think through a solution to get through the community. We have worked on due diligence together and
we are looking at product together and how to move through this. We are working on this together,
however, they are the owner of the property.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
In terms of those 35 units, could you speak to whether or not you guys have given the consideration to
build them as they were originally approved?
Todd Jones:
Did we give it consideration? Yes ma'am, we did. Economically, it just doesn't work today.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I'd like to go to staff. Thank you Mrs. Field for you and Robyn for being so thorough in your
assessment. Obviously you made a recommendation of denial of both and it was not lost on me that you
went through each of those and indicated that it is denial based on your professional recommendation
based on the fact that if I heard you correctly, this would be countered to the intent of that village
approach. I understand market conditions, I recognize that. It is concerning. We have been talking a lot
tonight about precedent. I am pleased to hear some folks that are saying they are seeing a turn in the
market. Obviously, we all want to see that happen. It concerns me as it always does as we start to make
different decisions that move away from what the intentions were for that long term vision and mission
that we have heard other council members here tonight reference. ,Along this area of Deerfield and
Highway 9, that remains important that we not move away from that in the short term and that we keep
that long term view. I know the original modification to this zoning was based on, at least at the time,
was represented as a hardship because of the distance to those particular that were in red. I do not
believe those were predicated on market conditions. Can you speak to what it was?
Kathleen Field:
We did approve the request for the 2009 zoning modification. Because of the fact that its location was
in the rear of the development. Also, because there was a retaining wall in the rear of the property that
really didn't allow for easy access from rear entry garages. We felt for those two reasons that we could
go along with just those 28 red units that are shown the site plan for front entry. As I mentioned to you,
the other units were also included as part of the original 2009 application and we really felt that we
could not support at that time and we continue not to support that change to those because of their
location being that major focal point within the development. WE felt that it was too important of an
area. From a land use perspective, we felt that we needed to deny that application.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I appreciate you mentioning that. I do think that it is important that tonight, for the record, we
distinguish between tonight's request and what allowed for request to be approved back in 2009. It
sounds like these are very different and distinct requests. I realize that there is potential change of
ownership and that there is a desire to do something that either one, costs a little bit less to produce, but I
do believe that we as a council but also us a community need to continue to keep that vision and mission
in mind, and when we approve zonings with specific conditions, they are intended to be in place for the
longer haul, not to be modified every few years, just when we have ownership change. Same sort of
thing that I think we heard concerns from citizens earlier on the earlier request. It's a different issue, but
effectively it is a similar issue. I think it is also important, and I heard Mr. Carson mention, that the
amenity area is tucked back away and it is and yet the only amenity area or the primary amenity area is
going to bring folks from the front of that development back. I am sure that those future land owners
who we help make those decisions on their behalf, even though they don't live there now, will be
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 30 of 38
coming to that community in the hope that they will have an amenity area that was consistent with what
was originally approved. It does not escape me that our professional staff is recommending denial for
all of the reasons that have been stated for the record and for the analysis. 'Thank you Mrs. Field.
Councilmember Thurman:
I am torn on this because I know the initial concept of what it was supposed to look like and clearly the
village type thing is a very nice look. I also understand that this has been sitting here for quite some
time as a pipe farm and it would be nice to have it developed. I know that the people living there
probably have no objections to these other units looking just like the ones they are living in. I also know
that the rear entry garages, as nice as they are to look at from the front, they also require a lot of
additional asphalt to put the ally way in. It does take up space that would be green space in people's
backyards where families could enjoy a backyard. I am torn on this. I would love to see it go ahead and
get it developed, I feel that it is important. The fact that there isn't an objection from existing units there
because there really aren't existing units there, to me is very important. What we want it to look like,
even though we may never drive in there, I think what is most important is what the people who actually
live in there want it to look like. I'm sure the people that would buy the front entry houses wouldn't
object to them being a front entry house or they wouldn't have bought it in the first place. It is a tough
Wing
P_.. __
WingdUd Us.
Councilmember Lusk:
I have a question for Pair. Carson. The two opera areas that are inside the complex, I assume one of them
is a detention pond?
Howard Carson:
This is a detention pond and this is an extreme buffer green space and that is obviously where the
building would be.
Councilmember Lusk:
There is quite a significant percentage, area wise, of green space in there including the detention pond?
Howard Carson:
We didn't develop it initially, we are just trying to solve the problem of foreclosure. There is a
substantial amount of green space and as councilmember Thurman just pointed out, this is going to
increase the green space to allow someone to have a backyard.
Councilmember Lusk:
The point that I was getting at, any detention of the pool area there, I think is more than compensated by
the green space that you have there. That in itself is also a focal point. It plays into our rural character
issue that we spoke about earlier.
Councilmember Tart:
I have one question. I understand why you are asking for condition 1 g to be changed. I understand
why SIC 11-06 part one of the concurrent variance to reduce the parking spaces, I am kind of confused as
to why you are asking for VC 11-06 part two as far as the cement siding to be exceeded above 25%.
Why is that exactly?
Todd Jones:
To be consistent with the units that are already constructed.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 31 of 38
Councilmember Tart:
Could staff speak to what that is going to look like as opposed to what we have already approved? I
remember there was quite a bit of discussion about this when it came up before several years ago about
the look of those units and we specifically approved that one set based on what you had already
articulated about the retaining and it being backed up. What are we going to see as a result of this
cement? Where is that going to back up?
Todd Jones:
This is backing up to the detention pond. The back of these would be backing up to the townhomes.
These would all be backing up to the detention ponds. This backs up to apartments and wall that would
need to go behind them as well. They all face outward. None of that would be visible from any street.
It would just back up to other town homes and to apartments that would have very much the same look
across the property.
Councilmember Tart:
I know there was some concern with the look even with the ones that we approved with adjacent streets
and that is where you were talking about installing the landscaping buffer, correct?
Todd Jones:
Correct. The condition was added by staff to increase this landscape from around this corner. It was
never installed by the previous applicant. That is the first thing that they are going to install or fairly
early on. They are going to install that corner landscaping to fulfill that commitment.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
If I recall correctly, that was expressly so that as you were driving by, you can see it all. It's a great
point that it has never been installed.
Todd Jones:
.As I said, this is the change that changed the nature of the project. This is so invisible to the back of the
project. You will never see it from here.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
What are the name, of the townhomes that it right behind?
Todd Jones:
This is the Views at Morris bake. This is the apartment complex, Villages of Devonshire which is a
four story apartment complex.
Councilmember .Zahner Bailey:
For the citizens that live in apartments, they are citizens of Milton. It is important to note that they are
citizens too. In terms of density, there was discussion about backyards, Mrs. Field, could you recall for
us the lot size of each of these?
Todd Jones:
There really is no change.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 32 of 38
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I was asking for that recollection because in other words, there is not a lot of backyard. IL is a very
dense area.
Todd Jones:
Instead of having an ally way in the back, there will be a small green area.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
In terms of green space, just for vernacular, I don't know that the detention facility rises to the level of
green space depending on how it is developed, is the detention pond that is already there, is it already
constructed?
Todd Jones:
Yes ma'am.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Is that fenced?
Todd Jones:
The owner of the property, immediately after taking possession of the property, went in and did some
a r things s w 9 v ��
substantiae raiidscapiiig slid lies done some Lr11r1�'J LG clean up the detention pond that the previous owner
had not done.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
My question to that would be is that detention pond a place where people can go and recreate and hang
out? I don't think that it is. I don't want us to presume that what is in existence that you have had to
C can up is part of an amenity. I Uelie Ve L11 1s a ldllsrepr esenLa LlGll of What 4 at area ls. In terms of green
space, can you describe the detention facility that would fall out of that percentage? I am trying to
understand the premise to see if there is a lot of green space because I don't know that under that
original development we would defined it as green space. I believe that is why that amenity was so
important. I know when we talked about the Highway 9 area and Windward that we need more green
space, and I hope that when we look at green space beyond this that we define it in its truest sense when
we are trying to maintain what the highway 9 area will look like.
Councilmember Thurman:
The original zoning conditions said that the units could not exceed 25% cement siding and now you are
going to 100% siding on the rear of the unit. Are you willing to go down to 75%? To be honest, the
back wall being nothing but cement siding is not a pleasant site. If you can do it where you have brick
or stone on 25% of it, but I think it would look better to have some that matches the front and sides of
the units. That would break it up a little and have it look a little bit nicer than just a big long wall of
cement siding that just happens to be painted four different colors, especially when you have some of
these that are 12 units long. It would be nice if it were distinguished a little bit.
Todd Jones:
Cour intent was to comply with exactly what was out there. To meet and be identical to the four that are
out there. If it would help, if it would help for a two foot water table to be current with, we will be open
to that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 33 of 38
Councilmember Thurman:
To me it just looks better. I don't know what you guys think, but four of the units together with nothing
but cement siding doesn't look too bad, you put 12 together and it looks like a lot of cement. If you
could at least put more than just 25% of straight cement siding, I think it would make it look better and
it's still giving you an additional 50% change in what is currently allowed.
Todd Jones:
I would be open to it, but sometimes it's hard to determine percentages with windows, but if you would
like I would put a water table along the bottom and that may be something easier to come in and do. We
will put a water table on the back of the homes, we would be more than happy to do that.
Councilmember Thurman:
What does staff think of that? Don't you think a back wall of twelve of the units is going to look like a
lot of cement siding?
Kathleen Field:
I am not a fan of 100% cement siding.
Councilmember Dusk:
Going back to the green space issue that I brought up earlier, It's kind of presumptuous to say that it
can't be attractive and that a detention pond can't be an attractive asset. We completed a league certified
school about a year ago with an acre and a half detention pond. We put sod on it before we left the site
and it doubled as a soccer practice field. I would like to see it enhanced. Grade it, seed it, sod it so that
it has the appearance of more green area that is usable for the community.
Todd Jones:
I have spent a good bit of time talking to Mark Law about this. There is a sizable tree that is sitting out
there for a long time on this project. There has been some discussion about planting some trees interior
to the detention pond. Because it is already grated and stabilized and fenced, to turn that into an active
amenity area would have some liability issue. Kids not knowing when they could go into and when they
couldn't. There is some intent to do some additional beautification to it.
Mayor Lockwood:
I appreciate everyone's comments and I appreciate what you guys are doing and I appreciate our staff
and your recommendations. It would be great to deny this and say that we want the nicest thing out
there, but we have all had to make some changes and if that is what the market is driving and that is
what we have to have to turn the market around for Milton, we need to get rid of some pipe farms and
do what is best for the market. I personally support this application and I agree with adding the water
table.
Councilmember Tart:
I just had one question, so 136-154, the homes in blue. Clarify for me what the backs of those look like?
Those are with the cement?
Todd Jones:
Yes, sir.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 34 of 38
Councilmember Tart:
And how high is that retaining wall?
Todd Jones:
It is about 15-18 feet.
Councilmember Tart:
How high is the back of the houses?
Todd Jones:
With the roof, about 20 feet.
Councilmember Tart:
So basically, only about 2 feet of the back of the houses are actually being able to be viewed by
surrounding land owners.
Councilmember Hewitt:
a Y 9 . 9 .° but
T 9 9. 7 Y a n' Ya_
1 am about ready to make a motion, but 1 (Ion't Know now to arllculatC 11 WC PUL Llle SL11JL11M1011 11Y, 11t
reference to the water table. How does that affect the 25% condition that is in there now? How do we
include the water table?
City .Attorney Jarrard:
Why don't you go ahead and begin your motion and let me see what it sounds like.
Motion: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Zoning Agenda Item ZM I 1-04NC 11-06 with the
following modification, to the Staff Recommended Conditions to read:
1. 3(u) - To reduce the number of required parking spaces from 18 to 13 for the
amenity area.
2. 3(v) - To allow the rear of townhome units to exceed 25% cement siding for
units 186 through 220. (VC 11-06, Part 2) with also having a 3' tall water
table.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed (5-1) with
Councilmember Zahner Bailey in opposition.
Councilmember Longoria was absent/excused from the meeting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 42, Secondhand Goods, by Adding an
Article III, Precious Metals Dealers.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 273)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-12-123
(First Presentation on December S, 2011)
(Discussed at December 12, 2011 Work ,Session)
(Ken Jarrard, City Attorney)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 35 of 38
City Attorney Jarrarde
b This is the first of two ordinances that we will be discussing this evening.
A Both of them are related but pertain to different sources of transactions.
This item would be a new precious metals ordinance to be adopted within the City of Milton.
0 The item that you have is the product of the last work session and recommendations that were
made.
® 1 would recommend that we treat these separately tonight.
® The city of Milton does not have any of these dealers yet but the City has been attempting to get
in front of the issue.
The precious metals ordinance is different than the pawn broker ordinance. It is primarily going
to be an administrative system.
The Police chief will be the primary receiver of the applications and she will be processing them
as well as implementing them.
® It pertains to a system for permitting for dealers and you have to have a permit to sell precious
metals which are defined within the code.
0 There is also a permitting system for employees.
There is a required section on information and it has to be tendered as part of both the application
for the dealer as well as the employee.
0 There is a series of hearing systems for a denial of the application as well as a suspension of any
of the licenses.
0 There are regulations as to employees.
® Regulations as to hours of operation.
® The nuts and bolts pertains to the records that must be maintained with any precious metals
transaction.
a There are daily reports that have to be tendered to the City of Milton Police.
Those can be electronic reports.
® Those may in fact be part of a state wide database.
0 There is a retention requirement that explains how long the item has to be retained on site before
sold to a third party.
® Section 1c, this article should not apply to individuals that are holding events at a residential
location.
0 Section 3, if the application meets the requirement of this code, the police chief will grant a
license for a precious metals dealer.
0 The state law is clear that the chief of police has to be involved.
® We would like to add language that says "to the extent allowed by law" to include future laws.
Councilmember Hewitt:
® To expedite the processing time, we could have an extra fee for expedited services.
Councilmember Tarte
• Are you comfortable with going from 35 to 30 days in section 13(a) from a legal standpoint?
Ken Jarrarde
® It was discussed and debated, it is not so much a legal issue as it is a public policy issue.
® We are comfortable with the change in days.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Paae 36 of 38
Motion: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item 11-273 with the following revisions:
1. Section 8(b)(7)- Change 30 days to 10 days.
2. Section 12(f) — Add "To the extent allowed by law".
3. Increase fee for expedited processing of employee permits.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
(6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent/excused from the meeting.
2. Approval of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 42, Secondhand Goods, Article 11, Pawnshops and
Brokers.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 274)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-12-124
(First Presentation on December S, 2011)
(Discussed at December 12, 2011 Work Session)
(Ken jarrard. City Attorney)
City Attorney Jarrard:
• With respect to the pawn shop ordinance, it is very similar to what you just approved.
• This item does have the same language with the addition of adding "as otherwise allowed by
law".
• If a citizen were to be a victim of a crime, they would be able to look at the records.
• This scheme does deviate somewhat in that this is more financially driven as far as processing
the application.
• We are trying not to overload the police department or the finance department.
• This will be brought to you very much like an alcohol ordinance.
• You will have it put in front of you and you will be able to approve it.
• Other than those changes, it is very similar to the precious metals.
• We did change the turnaround for the employee permits in section 4(c) to 10 days instead of 45
days.
City Manager L,agerbloom:
• Pawnshops cannot be closer than 2500 feet to another pawnshop.
• Originally with the 5000 feet to a property would prohibit a pawn shop to be in Milton.
Motion: Councilmember Tart moved to approve Agenda Item 11-274 with the following revisions:
I. To the definition of "Interest in a Pawnshop"- add "immediate" between "her'' and
"family".
2. Section 11(b)(11) should read: "Location is no closer than 2,500 feet to another
pawnshop and no closer than 500 feet to the following:..."
3. Section 12(2) should read: "The pawn shop will be located within 2,500 feet from
another pawnshop or within 500 feet of a structure..."
4. In Section 18(f) — Add "as otherwise allowed by law."
5. In Section 26, change last paragraph from "b" to "c".
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 37 of 38
Second and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was absent/excused from the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Approval of a Resolution to adopt the 2012 Zoning and Use Permit, Planning
Commission, Zoning Modification, Board of Zoning Appeals, Historic Preservation
Commission and the City of Milton Design Review Board Schedules.
(Agenda Item No, 11- 284)
RESOLUTION NO. 11-12-200
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field:
• The approval of these schedules allows staff to plan and prepare for reports and
recommendations that go to each board of commissions.
• Schedules are posted so that applicants can submit their applications at the correct time.
• Attempts have been made to avoid major holidays and school closings.
• The general public can plan to attend meetings as they deem necessary.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item 11-284. Councilmember
Tart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember Longoria was
absent/excused from the meeting.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Lockwood:
• There was an article last week about ranking of the quality of life and Milton was number one on
the list.
• We should be proud that someone looking in thinks so highly of our city.
Councilmember Zahner° Baileys
• Merry Christmas to everyone.
• Milton is a great place to live and I am excited about such a great report.
STAFF REPORTS
City Manager Lager -bloom:
• We had talked about grant funding for the Hopewell House in a previous meeting.
• There are some places that are changing their budgets to accommodate Milton's needs.
• We are looking for the ability to tap into the CDBG funds that Milton is owed.
• Another grant is the Senior Services North Fulton and they are putting together a program budget
to program and operate senior services at the Hopewell House.
• The house would still be available for any type of use on evenings and weekends.
• We are talking about grant funding to be around a half a million dollars.
• I want to make sure that this facility would be a good facility to apply these funds to deliver
some of those programs.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
December 19, 2011
Page 38 of 38
We will look into the parking issue that Councilmember Thurman is concerned about.
Merry Christmas.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (None)
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 11-285)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 10:22 p.m.
Councilmember Tart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Councilmember
Longoria was absent/excused from the meeting.
Date Approved. January 99 2012.
- J22i 6,�4,1?l -
Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk Joe LockwoKd, Nrayor