HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 08/15/2011 - Reg Mins 08 15 11 (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 1 of 19
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 August 15, 2011,
Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Pastor Jacob Elzey, Vision Baptist Church, Milton, Georgia.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe 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, Councilmember Longoria, and Councilmember Tart.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Approval of Meeting Agenda (Agenda Item No. 11-169)
Motion: Councilmember Tart moved to approve the meeting agenda with the following changes:
1. Under consent agenda, add:
Ratification and Approval of Letters from the Director of Community
Development, Lynn Tully Dated July 19, 2011 Regarding the City of
Milton's Mayor and City Council's Decisions made at the April 26,
2010 Regular City of Milton Council Meeting Regarding Denial of
U09-04, 14495 Hopewell Road, Milton, Georgia 30004; Denial of
U09-03, 2880 Mountain Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 and Approval
of Use Permit U09-05, 13320 New Providence Road, Milton, Georgia
30004.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
(7-0).
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.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 2 of 19
• 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 public comment.
CONSENT AGENDA
City Clerk Gordon read the Consent Agenda items:
1. Approval of the July 11, 2011
(Agenda Item No. 11-170)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of the July 18, 2011
(Agenda Item No. 11-171)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
Work Session Minutes.
Regular Meeting Minutes.
3. Approval of Financial Statements for the Period Ending November, 2010.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 172)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
4. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and The Tomal
Corporation d/b/a Wildcat Striping and Sealing Co. for Guardrail Replacement on the Cogburn
Road Bridge.
(Agenda Item No. 11-173)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
5. Approval of an Agreement between the City of Milton and Onsite Civil Group, LLC for the
Topographic Survey for Bell Memorial Park in the Amount of $5,400.00.
(Agenda Item No. 11-174)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
6. Approval of a Temporary Access Agreement between Birmingham United Methodist Church
and the City of Milton for the 2011 Milton Roundup.
(Agenda Item No. 11-175)
('Tom Gilliam, Parks and Recreation Department Program Coordinator)
7. Ratification and Approval of Letters from the Director of Community Development, Lynn Tully
Dated July 19, 2011 Regarding the City of Milton's Mayor and City Council's Decisions made at
the April 26, 2010 Regular City of Milton Council Meeting Regarding Denial of U09-04, 14495
Hopewell Road, Milton, Georgia 30004; Denial of U09-03, 2880 Mountain Road, Milton,
Georgia 30004 and Approval of Use Permit U09-05, 13320 New Providence Road, Milton,
Georgia 30004.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 3 of 19
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the Consent Agenda as recommended
by staff. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS (None)
FIRST PRESENTATION(None)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. An Ordinance of The Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia, to Fix The Ad Valorem
Tax Rate of the City of Milton for Fiscal Year 2011; and for Other Purposes.
(Agenda Item No. 11-163)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-08-1.1.0
(First Presentation on August 1, 2011)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
Stacey Inglis:
• Each year I am required to publish the current year digest and five year history.
• I ran the notice in the paper but I used the preliminary tax digest numbers.
• I have received certified information from the Georgia Department of Revenue so the new
numbers will be slightly different.
• The total taxable property value for motor vehicles and real and personal property is
approximately 1.9 billion dollars.
• That represents the decrease of 4.62% over the 2010 digest.
• The total taxes to be levied will be roughly 9 million dollars.
• That 9 million breaks down to 8.3 million for real property, $189,000 for personal property, and
$495,000 for motor vehicle taxes.
• The bill date will be September 1, 2011 with October 31, 2011 due date.
• We might have a budget shortfall in the real property tax digest line.
• We projected a collection of 7.5 million dollars at a collection rate of 90%.
• We typically have a collection rate of about 87%.
• We have collected close to 1.4 million dollars in delinquent taxes.
• There will be a budget amendment at the end of this fiscal year to account for that.
• The property values for 2011 have decreased more than what we had anticipated.
ZONING AGENDA
RZ11-14NC11-03 —14375 Providence Road by Segars & Snidow, LLC from C-1 (Community
Business) and AG -1 (Agricultural) to C-1 (Community Business) and AG -1 (Agricultural) for an
Existing Building for a Total of 3,085 Square Feet and a Three Part Concurrent Variance to
Reduce the 50 Foot Buffer and 10 Foot Improvement Setback Along the West, North, and East
Property Lines to 0 Feet, 0 Feet and 20 Feet Respectively [Sec. 64-1141 3.a.].
(Agenda Item No. 11- 164)
ORDINANCE NO. 1.1-08-111.
(First Presentation on August 1, 2011)
(Tom Wilson, Interim Community Development Director)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 4 of 19
Tom Wilson:
Good evening Mayor and Council. This document before you tonight was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on July 26, 2011. At that time, they conducted extensive deliberations regarding the
requests. The following primary issues were discussed. The primary among them were buffering and
protection along the west property line adjacent to Pleasant Hollow Farms subdivision. The adjacent
property owners within Pleasant Hollow Farms subdivision were concerned about additional noise and
light from additional parking in the rear of the existing building. They were also concerned about what
types of uses might be on that property in the future and how they might control them. The Planning
Commission did recommend approval of RZ 11-14 and approval of concurrent variance of VC 11-03
parts one through three. They also have provided you with a set of alternate conditions which we will
go to in just a moment. The proposal before you will permit a use that is suitable in view of use and of
the development of the adjacent and nearby properties. The proposal will not adversely affect existing
use or usability for adjacent properties if the recommended conditions are approved providing buffers to
the adjacent properties to the west and to the north. The subject site may have a reasonable use as
currently zoned C I. Theft is not anticipated as any significant impact on existing streets, transportation
facilities, utilities or schools as proposed. The proposed development is consistent with the following
plan policy with the recommended conditions: To encourage the preservation of natural resources and
preserve contiguous green open spaces. Although the proposed zoning for C 1 community businesses
are inconsistent with the future land use map, commercial zoning and associated building was approved
by Fulton County Board of Commissioners in 1962 and the zoning exists on that property today. The
proposed use will not be environmentally adverse to the natural resources or the citizens of Milton. In
conclusion, although the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the future land use plans
recommendation agricultural, it is staff's opinion that by rezoning the property to Z1 and AG1, this
corrects the nonconforming structure use of the property and provides buffering to the site from the
adjacent properties. Therefore, staff recommends approval conditional RZ11-14 to rezone from C1
community business and AG 1 agricultural to Cl community business and AG 1 agricultural to allow the
existing storage building for a total of 3,085sq ft in the AGI agricultural portion and undisturbed buffers
and plant where sparsely vegetated as depicted on the site plans. It is also staff's recommendation that
parcel one through three of concurrent variance 11-03 be approved conditionally. We can now turn our
attention to the site plans. The page numbers are in the bottom right hand corner and let us start with
page one of four. This is the existing zoning conditions that are out there on the ground today. If you
will notice the big X in the middle of the page, that is property that you reviewed last month and you
down zoned that from commercial and moved it to where it should be. You zoned it O&I. What we are
looking at today is a smaller rectangle on the left. The size of that rectangle right now is .26 acres. You
will see that the one story brick and metal building is not exactly on that parcel, therefore we have a
problem with a noncompliant building and use operating outside of its zoned commercial C 1 area. If we
will turn to page two, the recommendations that are before you tonight. What you see is the smaller
rectangle area as it exists today. We are recommending that we enlarge that area by a total of .3 areas,
that is the darker red that you see around that, that would allow the building to be compliant and on the
C1 zoning parcel. It would also include enough area behind that building for the required parking. To
the left and above that, you will see a brownish area, that is .49 acres. It is also part of the same parcel
of land. We are recommending that we rezone that from agricultural to agricultural so that we can pick
up conditions of zoning. We will condition that parcel to be the buffers that are required to buffer this
property from the adjacent residential people. If you will turn to page three, you will see the buffers
illustrated. The buffers that would normally be on the C1 property, we have moved over to the AG1
property. The reason we did that, was to minimize the square footage of commercial in this area since
this is primarily an agricultural area. Now let us take a look at the list of
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Paae 5 of 19
variances that has to go along with this. There are three variances that go along with this and they are all
along the driveway in the area between the C 1 portion and the one story framed residences to the west of
that. There should be a 50ft buffer along that fault line to buffer the Cl use from the residential use.
Those buffers are not there now, there is no room for them to be there and they just simply are not there.
That is why we have moved the buffers over to the agricultural property to protect those neighbors over
there. To the left of that line is the Pleasant Hollow Farms subdivision and there were people present at
the planning commission meeting who were very concerned about the noise that could be generated by
the parking lot required for this building and that would be behind the building. Our condition of
zoning, we have asked the parking not be built until it is required or needed. The total requirement for
this parking is 16 spaces, however, right now it is just used as a storage or sign company. There may be
one or two cars on that property once or twice a week at most. It is very low key. Nevertheless, in the
future that use could change to be something else and the department may need to be built. We did
require that they preserve the land and the position for that parking lot although we are asking that it not
be built until it is needed. Are there any questions about that so far?
Councilmember Lusk:
On the parking requirements, we are still talking about five spaces per thousand...
Tom Wilson:
It is four spaces per thousand, that is our current standard.
Councilmember Lusk:
Is this the same on other site plans considerations or parking requirements calculate five spaces per
thousand?
Robyn MacDonald:
I believe with the adoption method if the reduction was done after the submission of this ... this has been
held a couple of months to allow them to revise the site plans, so technically at the time of submission it
was five.
Mayor Lockwood:
To clarify, the number of parking spaces shown here, is that based on five per thousand square feet or
four per thousand square feet?
Robyn MacDonald:
Five per one thousand, but that was prior when this was submitted originally, the application prior to
your adoption of the change...
Tom Wilson:
So we could reduce it by three spaces.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
So the requirement would therefore under the newly adopted would be 13 required spaces, required
assuming open ended C I?
Tom Wilson:
It is not required but it is not needed right now.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 6 of 19
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
From that 13, would it be fair to assume that there is also a 10% variance that doesn't require a variance
so another 1.3....
Tom Wilson:
That is correct. It could be a 10% administrated variance that would be reduced by one space which
makes it possibly 12 spaces.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Which is still significantly more than what is there currently, but just so we have those numbers. Thank
you.
Tom Wilson:
You will notice in the conditions of zoning in your package, condition 1 a, we have restricted the uses by
everything that we felt was inappropriate for that area and we will look at it. The applicant approves
that these uses could be restricted from the general Cl uses. Also, beyond the recommended conditions
that are recommended by staff, there is attached an alternate set of conditions that were provided to you
by the planning commission. The planning commission has included a condition that says that in the
event of the current use of the property has changed, the city would be given the opportunity to consider
additional conditions as the use changed. It is a little complicated from my perspective because there is
nothing that would bring that back to you. The zoning case would be closed, your action would be done.
There is no action that would bring that back to you. I don't recommend that, I recommend the same
conditions but the ones that are labeled for the recommended conditions. What I asked the planning
commission is why they took that route because it is essentially the same thing as zoning the property to
its current use. If it is zoned to its current use, any change would bring it back as a rezoning. The
planning commission said to me that they wanted to send the message that they were okay with different
uses, but they wanted to see the parking requirement for each one that might occur in the future. My
recommendation is to use the recommended conditions.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Just to confirm when you talked about the mechanism, the mechanism that would exist would be if it
was zoned for the current use, the mechanism would require it to come back for a rezoning.
Tom Wilson:
It would.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
So that would be the way to handle that if it were to be contemplated?
Tom Wilson:
That is certainly one way to handle that.
Mayor Lockwood:
So you are not recommending that?
Tom Wilson:
I am not recommending that.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 7 of 19
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
What I heard you say was that you were not recommending was the inclusion of this particular language,
not necessarily consideration for zoning of current use... it can be rezoned?
Tom Wilson:
To be clear of what I am recommending, I am NOT recommending that language might change that
required it to come back. I am recommending a list of retail uses that are not excluded in condition la.
That is my recommendation. Not to rezone it to its current use, but all retail uses that are not exempt.
Councilmember Thurman:
It looks like to me that one of the major issues is the parking and the fact that a bunch of trees would
have to be taken out to put that parking in. Is there a way to restrict it to uses that only allow for a
certain amount of parking?
Tom Wilson:
All of the uses require the same amount of parking. Not all uses may not need the same amount of
parking. If I understand what you are asking, could you somehow set the number of parking and then let
the uses that can function with that minimal amount of parking, yes I do believe you can do that. I do
not know that you can do that tonight because if you reduce the parking to something less than that is
required in the zoning ordinance, that is essentially a variance and we have not advertised for a variance.
Our citizens would need to have that advertisement in advanced so that they can come and speak to that
variance.
Councilmember Thurman:
Last question, the planning commission is recommending a berm. Looking at the topographical map,
I'm not sure where you would put a berm that would do any good. It looks like the structure itself is at a
high point, so I don't know what a berm would do. What are your thoughts on that?
Tom Wilson:
I did not think a berm would be effective because what we were trying to block between the residences
that is down there on the west side of the property in the parking lot which his up higher, about 10 or 12
feet, and there is nothing between that property and the parking lot except the buffer. If you plant along
the top edge of that buffer you would want to get far more height on your plant materials than you would
on a berm. Remember, a berm is six times wide at the base as it is high. You would have to take out
practically every tree in there, which some of them are small and some are nice. I don't think you would
get the bang for your buck by building the property.
Mayor Lockwood:
To Councilmember Thurman's point, with the trees, any of the trees that come out, they will have to
recompense on site.
Tom Wilson:
I have a list of the trees on the property. There could be as many as 32 recompense two inch caliper
trees per the tree ordinance.
Councilmember Lusk:
Council submitted this letter. Is this part of the recommended conditions?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 8 of 19
Tom Wilson:
The letter that you're holding from Rolader is an agreement between property owners to the west and
Mr. Segar. It has not been reflected in the conditions, this is something new that has come in and so I
believe the intent is this would be in addition to the recommended conditions. Meaning, not only would
we have the buffer, but there would also be this check at the time that this parking lot was built. This is
not a condition of zoning therefore I am not the enforcer of this agreement. We could install it as a
condition of zoning and then I would be the enforcer of this agreement. But that is not the way it is
written right now. I am quite happy just having the buffer planning to buffer standards. This is in
addition to that.
Councilmember Tart:
Mr. Wilson, we would not be able to include as a condition the reduction of parking spaces, that would
just be done by staff as administrative?
Tom Wilson:
10% reduction is administrative and is done by staff. If you reduce it further than that, we will need to
go back and advertise a variance and come back and visit you so that you would have the ability to
approve that.
Mayor Lockwood:
As an incentive to the property owner, would he have to put in the five spaces per thousand square feet
right now or is there any way he could put in less? The reason I ask, is if he decides that it would also
benefit him because he wouldn't be recompensing so many trees.
Tom Wilson:
Whatever parking ratio that is in effect at that moment is what we would propose. That would be most
likely what we would do.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
So just to confirm and make sure I'm clear, we would need to propose a deferral to then add a variance
if we wanted to consider something other than simply administrative reduction of parking. So if there
was going to be consideration it would be a deferral, to then add that variance to further reduce the
parking as I understand it.
Tom Wilson:
That is correct.
Councilmember Thurman:
Or he could ask for a variance at which time the use changed and he would need to put in the additional
parking.
Tom Wilson:
He could at that time ask for a variance to reduce it beyond lower than the four per thousand and the
10% variance. He could ask for a variance at that time.
Mayor Lockwood:
That would allow him to not have to recompense. At this time, I will open up the floor to those speaking
in support of this application.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Pate 9 of 19
Don Rolader,11660 Alpharetta Highway #630, Roswell, GA:
Mayor, members of the council, I am Don Rolader. I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant, Segar
and Snidow. Mr. David Burre is here with me tonight. I want to see if I can make this brief and keep it
simple. Our theme remains the same from Jimmy Buffett's Margaritaville song, how it got here, we
haven't a clue. Evidently, in 1962, the Fulton County Commission and the property owner Mr.
Castleberry decided it was a good idea to zone this property C1 unconditional, so they did that. We
went in with staff last fall and said that Mr. Segar wanted to add on to his office, can we get a permit?
We started looking and then Mr. Burre got involved and when we took the legal descriptions from the
1962 and 1970 zonings and put them on top of the two properties, they weren't even close. Mr. Segar's
office was worse. About 20% of his building was within the zoned property, the most of the commercial
zone set right in the middle of Haystack Lane and affected three or four of Mr. Segar's residential lots.
You people fixed that for us earlier this summer and we appreciate that. This is nothing but a cleanup
mission. They did better on this commercial track that has been zoned since 1962. Only about 12-14%
of the building didn't fit on the property. What we did was tried to fix that one as well. We have drawn
with staff's support and assistance, the minimum variances that we could do to make this work and the
minimum impact on this property to make it go like it ought to go. We have looked at the staff
conditions that Mr. Wilson recommends and they make this work. We have one correction that we
would ask you to make. It has to do with our letter of agreement with the homeowners. The Planning
Commission meeting went nearly 3 hours. A couple of the people in this subdivision next door were
concerned and didn't understand it. Mr. Segar and I met with them on the property since Planning
Commission and walked out in the backyard of this property and stood in what would be the parking
area and said, tell us what we can do for you. We all discussed what should happen and what should go
on. What we arrived at was this number three in my letter, about the should the use of the property
change that we'll design a combination of items to screen that parking and we will present it to the
neighbors before we present it to the city. I would kindly ask that in your condition recommended by
staff, 3f, that we strike the words "four rows of five foot tall evergreens" and at the end of that, you
incorporate all of this paragraph number three from my letter. I have represented and promised involved
homeowners that we would agree with them and we would make it part of the conditions on this zoning.
I ask you to please support me on that and not make me out to be a storyteller. In a nutshell, that is all
we have done. We came in trying to expand Mr. Segar's office and we wound up rezoning two
properties just because of accidents that were made long before I was authorized to practice law. Mr.
Segar in good spirit has gone through this process with the city to ask for your final approval tonight.
He is one of the most affected neighbors. His home is in the back of this property and his back deck and
pool went straight into the back door of it. He is as affected as anybody. We would also suggest to you
that we are more than happy with whatever minimum parking standard you decide to assign to us. If
you decide that four per thousand is proper and 10% administrative variance is proper on top of that and
the city attorney is in support of that, we have no objection to it. Our goal is to never have to build any
parking there. If our tenant keeps living and keeps paying rent, we want to leave it just as it is because
it's not bothering anyone. Other than that, we would ask that you approve staff conditions. We need
some approved uses of this property. The staff has done such a good job, I haven't sat down and asked
myself what do we have left? I know the sign company is there and they can be there. That is why we
ask that you approve it on staff conditions, deleting those few words, and adding our homeowners
concerns that was in paragraph three of my letter. In a simple nutshell, all we are trying to do is stick to
what was broken. We don't have any new thoughts or creative ideas. We wanted to conform this the
best it can with the remainder of Providence Road and be a benefit to the Hayfield Subdivision which
we have been blessed with the sale of two lots since this process started. One of the two homes is now
under construction. That home will be valued at an excess of 1.2M dollars. We expect the second home
to commence construction before October 1St and we have serious interest in the third lot. We don't
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 10 of 19
know why we have suddenly gotten lucky, but we are deeply appreciative to Mr. Segar who owns the
subdivision as well and he won't do anything to mess up the lot sales. He and his bank were seriously
interested in getting this property moved. If you have any questions of either Mr. Burre or I, please let
us answer them. Any comments that we can address we are happy to, other than that we will close our
presentation and save the rest of our time for rebuttal.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have any other public comment in favor of this application?
City Clerk Gordon:
No, sir.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have anyone speaking against this application?
City Clerk Gordon:
No, sir.
Mayor Lockwood:
I will now close the public hearing and open it to Council discussion. Do we have any questions from
Council?
Councilmember Tart:
I have a question for Mr. Rolader. You mentioned inserting number three from the letter that was
presented to us tonight. What about the additional conditions of restaurants, gas stations, and
convenience stations?
Don Rolader:
I believe they are already in the conditions that Tom has proposed. I have no objection to you doing
anything... Tom even added a few.
Councilmember Longoria:
You promised the citizens that you spoke to that you would get the conditions of item three added to
what we are going to approve today? Regardless of the fact if they were in or out, you guys would be
free to make good on your word, you promised that you would make this part of your deal, is that
correct?
Don Rolader:
That is correct. They understood that this was far better than a berm. They understood that it was better
than five or four rows of trees. Once we stood out there on the ground and looked at their houses and
this property, everyone got it.
Councilmember Hewitt:
With that being said and the third paragraph being added in from the Rolader letter, that makes you the
enforcer?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 11 of 19
Tom Wilson:
It does, but I am perfectly okay with that. I am perfectly comfortable with the elimination of four rows
of trees.
Councilmember Lusk:
Page 26 through 31 you have recommended conditions. Three or four pages from the back of the staff
report, you have recommended conditions RZ11-14NC11-03, are there any differences in those two
documents?
City Manager Lagerbloom:
I think what Bill is referring to is the structure of which this was put together. The first part is an actual
part of the staff report, and the ones you are seeing later that follow the ordinance, they are part of the
ordinance.
Tom Wilson:
That ordinance will change with that amendment that we just made for condition f, if you approve this
with the recommended conditions.
Councilmember Thurman:
Just for clarification, based on what we discussed here tonight, we would delete your recommended
condition 3.f and in its place add....
Councilmember Tart:
No, we would just add to 3.f.
Councilmember Thurman:
Then we would just add their agreement as an additional condition to the zoning?
Tom Wilson:
We would, on my condition f, we would strike in the second line "four rows of five feet tall evergreens"
and we would add at the end of f, Mr. Rolader's paragraph three from his letter. I think it covers it on all
sides.
Councilmember Thurman:
Do we add his letter to be a recommended condition of it or just that one paragraph?
Tom Wilson:
Just that one paragraph.
Councilmember Longoria:
Wouldn't we just strike the "four rows of five foot evergreens" and add after h, item 3. Those items
aren't connected, are they?
Tom Wilson:
No, they are all buffering. We can do it either way, whichever you choose.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 12 of 19
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
In terms of parking, I continue to be concerned about parking and we have heard from citizens and the
applicant that they are willing to consider reduced parking on the property. Obviously the conditions
help to capture the spirit of the intent without at least addressing the reduced parking, it does leave in
place the concerns that the citizens have which we have now recalculated to be maybe 12 parking spaces
that would be "required" but we haven't done anything to capture that. I would still like for there to be a
consideration for adding a variance because there seems to be an understanding that the parking is really
one of the big concerns. I think the reality that without knowing what that eventual use would be, we
could end up as a community, including the citizens with more parking than what is intended, because
obviously we all know that the properties can change hands. I would like to offer up as a consideration
that we would defer by one period simply so that we could add the variance of reduced parking to be
considered which would meet the needs of both the applicant as well as addressing the public's concerns
has had been noted at the prior meetings and it would still accomplish what was being discussed today.
As part of that, Tom, my question is there anything from the timing perspective? It is my understanding
that there is no construction under way and there is no negative to having a 30 day deferral until our next
meeting other than allowing for advertisement?
Tom Wilson:
It would be negative to me and to the City of Milton, but I don't know about Mr. Segars.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
But there is no construction, there is nothing pending currently, is that right?
Councilmember Longoria:
He just told us that they would assume not build any parking spaces.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Right, so by having a variance to allow for that, we would make that a formal part of the record if we
deferred and add a variance that would allow for that reduction of parking.
Motion: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Zoning Item RZ11-14NC11-03 with the following
changes:
2. Modification of Condition 3F. - Strike the second line verbiage that reads "four
rows of five foot tall evergreens".
3. Modification of Condition 3F.- Add paragraph three from Mr. Rolader's letter
dated 08/11/11 reading "Should the use of the property change and property
owner be required to install parking in the rear, property owner shall design a
landscape plan and lighting plan to screen the parking lot for residents to the
North and West. Property owner shall install low level lighting, and develop a
landscape design including walls, wooden fencing, trees and shrubbery to
effectively screen abutting neighbors' views of the parking lot. Property owner
will submit the design plans to the neighbors signing below prior to submitting
the plans to the City of Milton."
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 13 of 19
Second and Vote: Councilmember Tart seconded the motion. The motion passed (6-1) with
Councilmember Zahner Bailey in opposition.
2. ZM11-02 —170 Cox Road by Wall to Wall Soccer Centers to Modify the Following Conditions
of U86-64. Condition La. as follows: Two Recreational Soccer Fields, Six Mini -Soccer
Fields, a 1950 Square Foot Clubhouse and a 2500 Square Foot Storage Building Including
Restroom Facilities; to Modify Condition 2.a. to Modify the Site Plan Submitted to the
Community Development Department on July 5, 2011; to Modify Condition 3.g. as Follows:
Limit the Free -Standing Project Identification Signage on the Entire Property to No More Than
One Unlighted, Double -Faced Monument Sign Adjacent to Arnold Mill Road or Cox Road,
Having No More than 32 Square Feet Per Face and Further Not to Exceed 6 Feet from Finished
Grade Measured from the Base of the Sign structure.
(Agenda Item No. 11-165)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-08-112
(First Presentation on August 1, 2011)
(Tom Wilson, Interim Community Development Director)
Tom Wilson:
Mayor and Council, the Community Development department has recommended approval conditional of
zoning modification 11-02 and approval condition of changing conditions la, 2a, and 3g as requested.
The subject site was currently zoned AGI agricultural with a use permit for recreation pursuant to U86-
065 approved by Fulton County Board of Commissioners, three recreational bills, a 1,950 square feet
club house and a 2,500 square foot storage building including restroom facilities. The approved
condition includes exterior lamination on the site not to exceed 1.2ft angles on the property line adjacent
to a residential use or zoning district and that the light source cannot be direct visual from adjoining
residential properties. According to the letter of intent, the existing clubhouse and storage building will
be preserved and renovated as well as two soccer fields. The applicant is proposing to develop six mini
soccer fields that have semi-permanent half walls around each mini field. These can be removed for
required maintenance of the proposed artificial turf. The site plan indicates of the subject site a total of
96 parking places that are currently developed on the property parking lot. The applicant has received a
letter of permission for the school that is located to the west within the city of Roswell and to use their
parking lot during the weekends and evenings to an existing driveway that adjoins the subject site. This
provides an additional 46 parking spaces for a total of 142 spaces to be utilized at this site. The city of
Milton zoning ordinance requires 50 parking places per field. The six mini fields are located within the
area of a regular soccer field. We consider that a single field for a total of 150 parking places. As I said,
there are 96 parking spots built on the property and 46 at the school next door for a total of 142 spaces.
That is eight less than the 150 that I calculated for the fields. The applicant can also request an
administrative variance to reduce that by 15 parking places that gives them more than the minimum
necessary for operating that. I have the applicant that would like to speak more about the parking
requirements for those fields. We can take each condition one at a time. Condition 1 a, the existing 1 a is
for three recreation fields, 1,950 square foot club house, 2,000 square foot storage building with
restroom facilities, the proposed condition is for two recreational soccer fields and six mini fields with
the same 1,950 square foot clubhouse and 2,000 square foot storage building. The purpose of this
modification is to change the type of field that would be developed on the site. The applicant stated that
the operation of the fields, there would be no more players utilizing the field than a single field. The
staff supports the change of the number and types of fields. Condition la as it exists right now allows
for this facility to come back in and seek a new use permit after 10 years. It doesn't require it, it just
allows for it. Researching the zoning documents, there has never been a second request, all the way
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 14 of 19
back to 1986. I recommend that we eliminate that part of the condition all together since it is not
required for this. Existing condition number 2a is just the site plan condition. He is proposing that they
will modify the site plan with the revised site plan in exhibit a. The exhibit a refers to the area of
photography as submitted in his package. The site plan is also in your package. Staff supports that
change. The site plan indicates compliance with the existing conditions and zoning ordinances where
applicable with the exception to request for an administrative variance for a parking reduction. The
proposed use is conditional with the original request for the special use permit for recreational soccer
fields. Therefore, staff recommends approval conditional of condition 2a for the revised site plan
submitted on July 5, 2011 and exhibit referencing the area of photography. The last condition he seeks
to modify is condition 39. As it is written today, they list the free standing project identification
signage on the entire property to no more than one unlighted double faced monument sign adjacent to
Arnold Mill Rd. or Cox Rd. having no more than 20 square feet of surface area per face and further not
to exceed four feet in height. That is more restrictive than current Birmingham overlay standards. It is
restrictive in that this property has two frontages, would normally be allowed two signs but is limited to
a single sign. The maximum height in the Northwest Fulton overlay district right now is six feet from
grade and 32 square feet. The applicant is asking that he simply be allowed to have that minimum size
that is allowed in the Northwest Fulton Overlay district. He is not asking the second sign, but just to
alinw the cinale cian to he the ci�a and haiaht that is allnu7erl in tdhe rdictr;nt
...- -- -a-- -a- — -- ,....» .--- b............ »..- .. —1--
Councilmember
....,... -
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Can you confirm, I thought you said 32 feet and then I thought you said 20 feet.
Tom Wilson:
It is currently restricted to 20 feet and four feet high. The request for 32 feet and 6 feet high which is
consistent with the Northwest Fulton Overlay district.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
So currently the sign that is in place is 20 feet?
Tom Wilson:
That is correct. Having said all of that, staff recommends approval of this modification with all three
parts.
Mayor Lockwood:
Any questions for Tom before we let the applicant speak?
Councilmember Thurman:
So this is a zoning modification not a rezoning, so it did not go before the planning commission. Is that
correct?
Tom Wilson:
That is correct.
Mayor Lockwood:
I will now open this for those in support of this application.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Paae 15 of 19
Jon Conway, 1062 Dogwood Forest Dr., Marietta, GA:
Good evening, I am the owner of Wall to Wall Soccer Facilities. Our plan for this site is to upgrade an
existing well used and well loved facility that is in need of some reenergizing. It has been a soccer
facility here for a long time. What we are proposing is to provide some upgrades to the existing use.
There is a full size grass soccer field which will remain intact and a smaller soccer field. The smaller
one is half the size of a full sized field. I request permission to install six artificial turf small sided game
fields on the middle field of the property to attract youth leagues, adult leagues, and coaching
opportunities to man this facility to provide opportunity for athletic participation for citizens of Milton.
It is a facility that we found has a great fondness in the community. In the recent years it has become a
little bit neglected. Our plan is to breathe a little bit of life and energy and upgrade it to its current and
future use. With regards to the parking question, the current use or recent user has been the YMCA
primarily for its youth soccer facilities and programs. We spoke with staff about use of the fields. The
weekend use is a game use. Practice use is different. There can be as many as four teams that splits a
field into four and they can use it for practice use. Our proposal is to have normal parking demand and
normal users per hour that is currently in place. The use patterns will change. We will have more adult
use than what is currently in play. The later session will become a busier session than the traditional
after school session that the YMCA might use. Based on its current use patent of a typical youth soccer
program with field 1 being a smaller field, two teams of 14 players, field two four teams of 16 fields,
etc. We estimate about 134 players or users per hour in that early evening session and as many as 114 in
that later session. We propose primary evening users will be adults. The 5-6:30 is less appealing
because of traffic and those things. We anticipate no more than 108 users in the early session. We have
142 parking spaces at our disposal at the facility on site and our neighbors lot. We are excited for the
opportunity to bring some fields and some athletic facilities for use. We are very excited for this
opportunity to speak to you all tonight.
Mayor Lockwood:
Is there any more public comment on this?
City Clerk Gordon:
No, sir there is not.
Mayor Lockwood:
I would like to close the public hearing. If anyone has any questions we can address them now. I would
like to start out by saying thank you to you and your partners for breathing some life. I know in Milton
it is a big concern for everyone to have more park space and we want to continue expanding our parks
programs. We definitely need more fields and thank you for that opportunity. I'm sure a lot Milton
citizens will get some value out of this.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Thank you for your presentation. In terms of the Porter School and that agreement, can you confirm the
accessibility from one lot to the other from a public safety standpoint knowing that young people are
involved? I believe it is easy to get from one to the other but I'd like you to speak to that.
Jon Conway:
There is currently a cut through driveway between the school and the facility where vehicles can travel.
It will be closed during the day, but we would open it in the evening. The parking would be used at the
Porter School when school is not in session. It is a well defined access area.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 16 of 19
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
With regards to the 10% administrative request, will you state whether or not your intention is to pursue
that 10% reduction?
Mayor Lockwood:
The staff is allowed up to 10%...
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I assume right now you have pursued it because you are here tonight.
Jon Conway:
Yes, that is my intent.
Councilmember Thurman:
The only question I have is have you heard anything from the neighbors behind there?
Jon Conway:
Yec I have spoken -ritl. them anvil they are appreclat'.ve that It :[� n't rl m t;r� rl� „rTa ;r, „oa Ti—, 1,.,
_ rva. v.. ' rr. J . a dr Lic change in. Se. 11.x'' 11UV V
grown to appreciate what could be next door and are happy that it is for sports.
Councilmember Lusk:
I just want to commend you for doing this and I look forward to playing on these fields.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I would like to put forward a motion.
Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve Zoning Agenda Item ZMII-02 with the
following conditions as recommended by staff:
1. To the Owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a. Two recreational soccer fields, six mini -soccer fields, a 1,950 square foot
clubhouse and a 2,500 square foot storage building including restroom
facilities.
2. To the owners agreement to abide by the following:
a. to modify the site plan with a revised site plan and "Exhibit A"
referencing aerial photo submitted to the Community Development
Department on July 5, 2011.
4. To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:
g. Limit the free-standing project identification signage on the entire
property to no more than one unlighted, double-faced monument sign
adjacent to Arnold Mill Road or Cox Road, having no more than 32 square
feet per face and further not to exceed 6 feet from finished grade measured
from the base of the sign structure.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
(7-0)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 17 of 19
RZ11-15 — Text Amendment to Amend Chapter 64, Article VII, Division 5 (State Route 9
Overlay District) as it Pertains to Outdoor Amenity Areas.
(Agenda Item No. 11-166)
ORDINANCE NO. 1.1-08-113
(First Presentation on August], 2011)
(Work Session August 8, 2011)
(Tom Wilson, Interim Community Development Director)
Tom Wilson:
Mayor and Council. You recently approved amendments to State Route 9 Overlay District at your April
25th council meeting with the exception of section 64-10-089 "outdoor amenities." Staff has
recommended a text amendment that requires all commercial or mixed use developments greater than
25,000 gross square feet to provide amenity areas based on their sides of development ranging from 5%-
15% of the gross land area. At the July 26 Planning Commission meeting, additional heads were made
by the Planning Commission to require a flat 10% of the gross building size of the commercial use over
25,000 square feet to be developed at outdoor amenity areas at which 50% must be contiguous. The tax
text amendment is shown on the red line indicating the changes recommended by the planning
commission. The resulting document requires all commercial or mixed use developments where
commercial use is greater than 25,000 gross square feet shall provide outdoor amenity areas. The
development shall provide a minimum of 10% of the gross land area devoted to commercial use as
outdoor amenity areas of which 50% must be contiguous. Examples of outdoor amenity areas include
but are not limited to private parks, plazas, fountains, public arts, and walking and recreational trails.
Amenity areas should not include parking lot islands or landscape strips. Detention ponds, bio swells,
and similar storm water management facilities may be included as outdoor amenity areas if approved by
the city of Milton design review board. We recommend approval of this. Mr. Lusk, you asked questions
at the last meeting if we had freed up any land by any of our actions in the City of Milton, specifically as
it was related to parking. We used to have 5 per 1,000 and today we have 4 per 1,000. Every parking
place that we have eliminated really frees up 300 square feet of land. We are only asking for 100
square feet back as an amenity area. We have more than covered that request. We also ask how this
was handled in surrounding jurisdictions. You have been provided with a document that shows
Alpharetta, Cherokee, Forsyth, Roswell, Suwannee, and Woodstock all require some sort of open space
or amenity areas. Alpharetta requires 15% in some areas and 10% in other cases. Cherokee County
requires 5%. Forsyth County requires 20%. Roswell requires anywhere from 5% to 30%. Suwannee
requires a functional town center community park or green space and Woodstock requires 20% open
space. We are in the middle of all of that. I would like to answer any questions you might have about
this.
Mayor Lockwood:
Any questions for Mr. Wilson?
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Thank you for this analysis. To me, what it says is that the middle between 5% and 30% may not be
10%, but I think it gives us the opportunity beyond tonight to look at some more creative ways to ensure
that we have more green space and more dedicated open space. In particular, the Highway 9 area needs
to see more of that and not less. My request is that as we proceed, we use this research to recognize that
our neighboring communities are actually requiring more green space. We have seen the need to retrofit
some space and I think we need to do more. I think there are some creative ways that we can do that in
terms of defining which are master plan areas and which are sub areas. I would encourage us as a team
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 18 of 19
as we proceed on the master plan for Highway 9, eventually for 140, but on Highway 9 and the LCI that
we use this data to see what we can do to further enhance Highway 9 that would benefit the businesses
and residential areas that surround that area.
Mayor Lockwood:
If we have no public comment we will close the public hearing.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Zoning Agenda Item RZ11-15.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of an Ordinance of The Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia, to Fix The
Ad Valorem Tax Rate of the City of Milton for Fiscal Year 2011; and for Other Purposes.
(Agenda Item No. 11- 163)
(First Presentation on August], 2011)
(Public hearing held on AuguSt 15, 2011)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
Stacey Inglis:
• For informational purposes, the tax bill property value for 2011 tax digest will be 1.9 billion
dollars with that multiplied by the 4.731 millage rate that is being proposed, you will have a bill
out of 9 million dollars.
• That 9 million breaks down to 8.3 million for real property.
• 189,000 for personal property.
• 495,000 for motor vehicles.
• The bill date will be September 1" with an October 31" due date.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item No. 11-163.
Councilmember Tart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
NEW BUSINESS (None)
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
STAFF REPORTS
City Manager Lagerbloom:
• Our Parks and Recreation director started today, John Rebar.
• The Community Development Director search is going well.
• Paving starts tomorrow on Webb Rd. We will be immobilized here for about a week and a half.
• During this paving process, there are some roads that will be completely closed for paving.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
August 15, 2011
Page 19 of 19
EXECUTIVE SESSION (None)
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 11-176)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to adjourn to Regular Meeting at 7:34 p.m.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Date Approved: September 19, 2011.
Sudie AM Gordon, Citt lerk
I _-
Joe Lockw6od,ayor
No Text