HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 01/23/2012 - Mins 01 23 12 Reg (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 1 of 16
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 January 23,
2012, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION
Pastor 011ie Wagner, Alpharetta Presbyterian Church.
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 Kunz, Councilmember Lusk,
Councilmember Hewitt, Councilmember Longoria and Councilmember Large.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Approval of Meeting Agenda (Agenda Item No. 12-020)
Motion: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the meeting agenda as amended by staff adding:
1. Add an Executive Session to discuss litigation.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Lusk 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.
• 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.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 2 of 16
There was no public comment.
CONSENT AGENDA
City Clerk Gordon read the Consent Agenda items:
1. Approval of the January 9, 2011 Regular Council Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 12-021)
(Sudie Gordon, City Clerk)
2. Approval of Financial Statements for the Period Ending August, 2011.
(Agenda Item No. 12-022)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
3. Approval of Preliminary Financial Statements for the Period Ending September, 2011.
(Agenda Item No. 12-023)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
4. Approval of a Contract between Rick Pruetz, FAICP and The City of Milton for the Purpose of
Providing Professional Planning Services for a Transfer of Development rights Feasibility Study.
(Agenda Item No. 12-024)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
5. Approval of a Hosted Application Services Agreement between Guardian Tracking, LLC and
The City of Milton.
(Agenda Item No. 12-025)
(Deborah Harrell, Chief of Police)
6. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Kittelson
& Associates for Hopewell/Francis/Cogburn Roundabout Peer Review.
(Agenda Item No. 12-026)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember
Large seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. A Proclamation Recognizing Milton's Cuisine and Cocktails Being Named a Top 100
Restaurant.
(Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood)
Mayor Lockwood presented a Proclamation Recognizing Milton's Cuisine and Cocktails Being
Named a Top 100 Restaurant.
2. A Proclamation Naming February "Have A Heart for North Fulton Community Charities".
(Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood)
Mayor Lockwood presented a Proclamation naming February "Have A Heart for North Fulton
Community Charities".
FIRST PRESENTATION (None)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Pap -e 3 of 16
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
ZONING AGENDA
1. ZM11-03 — 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)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-01-126
(First Presentation at the December 5, 2011 Regular Council Meeting)
(Deferred at the December 19, 2011 Regular Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field:
Thank you Mayor and members of the City Council. Tonight I will be using a power point, so I will
direct your attention to your screens for this. This is Zoning Modification 11-03. The request is to
reduce the minimum rear yard from 50 feet to 10 feet along the west property line to allow for
placement for an accessory structure being a garden shed. The parcel location map is in front of you to
show you the location of this site. The subject site is located in Vickery Creek Subdivision. It is zoned
Community Unit Plan, CUP. Any changes to the approved zoning conditions require a zoning
modification. That is why we're here this evening. Currently, there are fifteen homes occupied, ten
under construction, and I believe the total subdivision sites comes to 46. The next one is a site plan
showing in red, the location of the garden shed. The applicant is requesting a reduction of the minimum
rear yard requirement on the west side of the property from 50 feet to 10 feet so as to allow for the
completion of his garden shed. In terms of community input, the community zoning information
meeting was held on November 30, 2011 in addition to the applicant, five people were in attendance all
in opposition. The concern stated was that there was a potential of setting a precedent for further actions
of this type. In terms of the staff analysis, when staff inspected the gardening shed under construction, it
determined that it was located within the 20 foot drainage easement as shown on the subdivisions
recorded plat. Therefore, the applicant has agreed to raise the structure on pillars to allow for the free
flow of water. Also, the applicant intends to finish the exterior of the shed with matching architecture
and materials of that of the house. The applicant has also agreed to screen the structure from any 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 on which to locate the shed. Here is a picture from the street
showing that the shed that is in the rear has evergreen plantings in front so it is already screened. Here is
a picture of the shed. Staff recommendation is approval of ZM 11-03 with conditions as follows:
1. The applicant must modify the minimum rear yard along the west/south
property lines estate: 50 feet except for lot #39 (12792 Donegal Lane) which
shall be 10 feet only for the existing accessory structure 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.
The meeting on December 19, 2011, the City Attorney was asked if the requested zoning modification
could be heard as a concurrent variance instead. The City Attorney will provide you with his opinion on
the matter. That is my presentation.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 4 of 16
City Attorney Jarrard:
Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, that was in fact a request that was made of me. I have tried to
communicate my opinion back to the council, and in fact I have the opinion that I have provided now.
My recommendation was pursuant to the Milton Zoning Code that a concurrent variance was not
appropriate because the way the language in the code is framed, the concurrent variance is supposed to
travel with a zoning modification. The curious part here, is that the zoning modification and the
concurrent variance would be for the same relief. Therefore, the applicant would be seeking to basically
have the same relief administered by two different standards because the reason or the rational that you
could provide a modification to the zoning conditions, and the bases of a concurrent variances uses two
different standards. One is much more liberal than the other and the conditions require to be satisfied
for a variance that is much more strict such as it cannot be a self imposed hardship, etc. The underlying
rational for why the request was made of me is more important. The reason is that if there is a relief that
provided some sort of relief from this situation that makes sense, is there a way to provide that relief
without setting a precedent that is unwanted by the Council. In that situation, my answer is you could
do that. I wouldn't go down the variance path. If you wanted the structure, a motion to approve this
zoning condition change such that you, within the context of the motion itself, state that this is to have
no precedential affect on future zoning modifications in the city of Milton or in this subdivision. You
can UU that, and o1 course governments do that all the Unle. That is why I tlliAk the request was made of
me. My advice is don't treat this as a concurrent variance, treat it as a zoning modification. If you want
to provide relief in this situation, do it with a well stated motion that specifically limits the precedential
affect of the motion.
Mayor Lock::,00d:
Are there any questions for staff or Mr. Jarrard before we open it to public comment?
Councilmember Lusk:
Of this drainage easement that we spoke briefly amount at the last meeting, is this surface drainage or
piped drainage?
Kathleen Field:
I believe it is surface drainage. We did consult the site reviewer and this was his recommendation that
we lift it up 12 inches to satisfy the drainage.
Councilmember Large:
It is a public drainage easement as opposed to a private drainage easement?
Kathleen Field:
It is on the subdivision plat.
Councilmember Large:
Because something like this normally conveys water from other lots, in my experience it would be a
public drainage easement and this would be an encroachment into the easement. I was wondering if it
could be a private drainage easement just like a private ingress/egress easement is for access on a
driveway. If it is a public drainage easement, then Milton has rights to that easement and it might be
something that we want to address as far as the modifications.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 5 of 16
City Attorney Jarrard:
Let me take a shot at that, and Carter you may be called upon immediately to chime in. Different
jurisdictions do it different ways. Some reported drainage easements will provide on the plat that they
adhere to the benefit of the local government and upon recordation of the plat, that is where they go,
they invest in local government. I don't know that Milton does it that way necessarily, it may be that this
private drainage easement although with an admittedly public purpose may adhere to the benefit of the
HOA and that may be who has the right to enforce an encroachment into their easement. That may be
an issue that the HOA has to address if they feel like it is an improper encroachment and it might not be
a city of Milton issue. To the extent that it is an HOA controlled easement, they may take an acceptation
to allowing this in there. I think from the cities perspective, I think the issue was what could the
applicant do to mitigate the effect of the structure and the easement? I think that has been resolved to the
Community Development satisfaction.
Councilmember Kunz:
There were a lot of play area structures on the backs of a lot of the properties in that subdivision. This is
strictly just for the shed alone, is that correct?
City Attorney Jarrard:
That is correct. It would be very limited relief.
Mayor Lockwood:
I will open it up for those speaking in support of this application.
Gerald Hudgins, 12792 Donegal Lane, Milton, GA:
You have all asked some very good questions and I would like to go through and answer those. How did
we get here? We got here because I have a lifelong hobby of gardening and my granddad spent a lot of
time with me in the greenhouse together. There was a magazine and there was an image on the front
cover that got us very interested in trying to build something of extremely high quality similar to this in
the backyard. This is a single family residence and we requested approval on April 14, 2011 and we
received approval from the HOA. The HOA was aware of the entire plat and drainage easements, and
just to answer the question, yes it is just a surface drainage. I have been taking pictures nonstop since
November and December on each of these heavy rains. There is no sheeting or significant water rolling
down through there. My opponents may try to lead you to believe that, but there are no significant water
runoff issues down there. We do have playground equipment in the yard as well. The shed is already
eight inches off of the ground. We only need four more inches to raise it up off the ground. Opposition
may say something about it being on cinderblocks. We do intend to remove those, and like any shed
that you would see that sat on top of blocks that would allow for free flow of water to go under the shed
so there wouldn't be any impeding. It would impede less water on those blocks than on those
playground equipment and things that are in peoples yards. That is not an issue there. Just in case there
was any question about the approval, this is the HOA approval. You will see our developer Tom Sharp
approved it as well as his management company. The approval was there, it says "Congratulations we
send the official approval with modifications to the request that you sent". The approval is dated April
14, 2011 which was quite some time ago before any of the current homeowners were actually in the
subdivision. The personal research that led me to make this terrible error is I did not want to violate
anything of Milton because I know the importance of doing that. I did research it and I found out that no
permit was needed on anything 120 square feet or less. Also, you see the guidance there about
accessory structures. I have been told by Robyn who has showed me the error of my ways that I guess
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 6 of 16
my interpretation of these standards is not correct. That is how I got to where I am. I did not set out to
try and pull one over on Milton. As you can see, going back to April, I started the process off with our
HOA and showing them the plat and asking for their approval. I was also having another permitting
issue reviewed by Milton and as the permit guy that was out there on site, I asked him about the shed
and he didn't say anything about it. My wife was there as well and he said that it shouldn't be a problem
but to be aware because you have playground equipment out there as well. He did warn me about the
drainage easement issue, but he wasn't going to make an issue out of any type of drainage. The
minimum landscape strips and buffers, that was one other issue. This is from the screen shot that gave
me the impression about the 10 foot issue. This is an aerial view showing where the 50ft buffer is. It is
very close to my house, right at the deck line. There really is no additional space without pulling it
closer to the road, which I think there would be more opposition there if it were pulled closer to the 50ft
buffer. The idea was to set it near the rear of the lot. There is a little bit of a slope there and it is on the
easement. We talked about the standards and what it would look like. The idea is to have it look like
my actual home with the cedar shingles, the same design and style to resemble that. I did a CGI to give
you a general idea. For a moment, I am going to stop so any others can speak and I can save the rest of
the time for rebuttal.
l:�ayor Lockwood:
Let's move to those in opposition.
David Marsden, 12802 Donegal Lane, Milton, GA:
I am Gerald's next door neighbor. The first question I have, is do I repeat everything that we said at the
first meeting? I will review it. There are a few points as to why we don't want it. It goes against the
original intent for the agreement with the neighbor. I spoke with Eric Seba, he was on the HOA and he
was there when the neighborhood got put together. They had certain things that they agreed upon. It
was supposed to be an 80-90ft setback and obviously only 50 feet happened. We were supposed to have
a horse fence and the homes were supposed to be four sided brick throughout the neighborhood. All of
those agreements have gone away. We don't have the fence, we don't have the drainage. He is very
concerned that if we approve this, the next thing you know all of the houses along their neighborhood is
going to have a shed in the yard. The precedence that is set is not a good one. We are also concerned
with the maintenance after new owners may come in. Gerald is there now, I'm sure he will build a nice
shed and he will take care of it, but the next person might come in and it goes bad and we have an ugly
shed. Initially when this first came out, there were about 15 homes in the neighborhood. Obviously five
of us came in opposition that is a third of the neighborhood that is in opposition. We are growing fast
and there are 10-12 homes that are under construction at the moment. I don't want to set a negative
precedence. Obviously, there is no hardship for this. Gerald just wants to do it for his hobby which is
fine, but we all have very large homes with more than adequate three car garages and full basements.
To state that he needs the extra room is unnecessary. I feel like it is legislating for one particular lot,
such as a spot zoning. No one else in the neighborhood has requested this, why does one person have to
request it? The water runoff issue, he says there isn't one. I think there is one and I have it in my yard.
The only way you're going to see it is if you come out and see it yourself. There are ripples when we
have a big storm and it ripples right where the drainage easement is. We are opposed to it and we don't
want to set that precedence. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Lockwood:
We will allow the remainder of the time to the applicant.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 7 of 16
Gerald Hudgins:
I wanted to point out that David is correct. A representative from Andover came at the last meeting and
pointed out that he was opposed to it. After the meeting, I went through Andover and found a number of
sheds that were visible from the road. I did not even know this, but just two lots up from my house,
there is a shed in Andover that is visible from Donegal lane. Andover has several sheds as well as one
backed up to Vickery Crest property line. This is just small sampling of sheds in Andover. This is a
home in Andover that actually has a barn that is visible from the street. This is an aerial view of my
garden shed. Only four Vickery Crest lots actually back up to Andover. I wanted to point that out
because at the last meeting it was as if we were just going to have an entire line of sheds just built up
and down the road even though there are only four remaining lots that would be an issue. This is the
view that I had of my backyard prior to deforestation of my neighbor's backyard, that is what it used to
look like. If there is any water runoff, it is because all of the trees have been removed. Do you see the
deforestation? The arrow is point to where all of the trees were removed, that just happened not that long
ago. This is the view that I have now of all the trees that were removed. I think Milton is pro tree, and I
tried to preserve the trees. That is why I have the limited space that I do have left to put my shed tucked
back into the small area. By deforesting it, that is now the view I have of my neighbors trashcans and
truck and so on. This is another view of a home that we have directly behind Vickery Crest. We now
have the lovely view of this which is I believe a sunroom. This is a home that just sold with the
greenhouse featured in the listing. The scare tactics of there being sheds everywhere, there aren't many
people I know that enjoy gardening that want to go this far to actually build a shed that would go to this
great extreme. I promise you and pledge to you tonight that I will do whatever it takes to make sure that
I don't create a water problem and if the homeowners are that concerned about it, I will make sure that
just as I did on this one, the HOA continues to review these modifications as closely as they reviewed
mine. They did not do it lightly, they reviewed it closely to make sure it would be of the standards and
so on. I ask for your approval to enjoy the land that I have and to go forward from there. The last point
that I was trying to make here is that my shed is not what I would say is a detriment to anyone's view
when there are a number of other obstacles, particularly at the shed that Andover already has right
behind me. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
If there is no more public comment, I will close the public hearing and open it to questions from the
council to the applicant and to staff. I have a question, in hearing about the runoff problem, and I will
direct this to staff, in looking at the drainage easement and the shed that will be raised, in your opinion
does the shed, whether being there or not, have any direct impact on the drainage problem?
Kathleen Field:
All I want to say is that we did have it reviewed by our engineers within the department and this was
their solution to alleviate that issue of the drainage. The solution is to raise it up 12 inches which the
applicant has agreed to match. That was our solution.
Councilmember Large:
The shed, it's not on a permanent foundation and it's not slab, is that correct? It has a framed wood
floor?
Gerald Hudgins:
It is not on a slab. In gardening, you want to allow any water from the plants to be able to run off into
the ground. We will just have a gravel floor. The gravel will be there to create a nice humidity and
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 8 of 16
moisture in the greenhouse. I did forget to mention that I handed you 6 additional letters of support,
those are from the neighbors in Andover and in Providence, directly behind me. They were pretty
amused that I was knocking on their door asking for this approval. They were amused that a simple
garden shed would get to this point. To answer your question, no.
Councilmember Large:
So the gravel will be on the ground and the base of the shed will be 12 inches up off of the ground?
There will be an opening?
Gerald Hudgins:
Right, it will be open so things can just flow under.
Councilmember Large:
All the way around except where the blocks will be placed?
Gerald Hudgins:
It would only be, because the shed is small, there would be one block at each corner and there would be
one right in the iiiiddie i;r support. You are looking at a block every few feet. Any water could not only
flow around the shed, it could flow under the shed. I also thought that if it would help with this supposed
drainage issue, possibly I could build a berm to direct the flow in front or behind the shed. As you guys
know, it has been raining and raining here. Every time I go out there to take a picture, it's like I'm
taking a picture of nothing. If I showed that to you, you would only be able to see pine straw. You're
not seeing any kind of water and all of that. One guy even said to take the picture in the dark in the rain.
Councilmember Large:
I am a homeowner and I am a do it yourself type of person, and I have had a lot of experience with other
homeowners where they build a fence and it is at a setback and there are variance processes and I have
been through this before. I do believe that a property owner should have reasonable use of their
property. Since you can actually raise the shed, how do you get it up?
Gerald Hudgins:
I only need to go 4 inches to meet the 12 inches.
Councilmember Large:
You will still need to raise it, so would you jack it up to do it? The question is, how difficult would it be
for you to slide it the 7 or 8 feet towards the street in order to get it out of that drainage easement? It
would still be in the setback and would still require a modification because it is in the setback, but I
believe that a 50 foot setback for a principal residence is reasonable, but for a structure especially one
that is only 80 square feet, that there should be some mechanism to allow homeowners some reasonable
use of their property to do something like this. Obviously the HOA does not prohibit free standing
sheds. I would think that would be an issue right now. The fact that it is in a drainage easement, we're
talking about whether or not it is a public drainage easement or a private drainage easement. That would
be my only question to you.
Gerald Hudgins:
The first thing is that I would like to remind you that this is a temporary structure. I would even ask if
for some times that people bring in small playhouses. Would a playhouse sitting in that same location
be of the same magnitude if you had a child's playhouse sitting there?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 9 of 16
Councilmember Large:
If it were in a drainage easement, most localities would consider within an easement like that as an
encroachment. You would have to have some sort of agreement as far as that encroachment were
concerned. The fact that if there was something that needed to be done within that easement you would
be responsible for removing the encroachment. Just like you said, I have seen structures that are this
size and larger. Right along highway 9, they built little playhouses that they pick up and haul in and set
it down. I realize you have it setting there, but the fact that it is not on a slab or anchored, if you got it
out of the drainage easement then you could actually put it down on the ground and you wouldn't have
the problem of the water if there is water flowing along. We had our biblical event several years ago
when it flooded, and if you did this you wouldn't have the issue of possible surface flow going through
your nice garden shed. That is the only point that I want to bring up.
Gerald Hudgins:
With all due respect, I don't mind the water flowing under it or through it and I think piers, even if they
were round piers, would allow for easy movement of water. 12 inches would be a significant rainfall. I
think bringing it forward would raise additional issues and say that now I am bringing it even closer to
the road. It is possible theoretically, but ideally if I could leave it and prop it up on the piers to allow for
free movement of water under it, that would be preferred. I also wanted to address the issue that yes, we
do have basements. I swear I can't get plants to grow in basements in the dark. I have tried, which is
why I thought I would build a garden shed where there is daylight. I have tried the florescent lights and
so on, but I haven't had any real luck with that.
Councilmember Large:
To the neighbor, David, do you live to the left, right or behind?
David Marsden:
I live to the right of the property on the opposite side of the property from where the shed will be.
Councilmember Thurman:
I did want to ask staff one thing to confirm. You said that you really felt like, based on a 50 foot
setback, there wasn't another place that it could adequately be put without having to get a variance or a
zoning modification, is that correct?
Kathleen Field:
That is correct.
Councilmember Thurman:
So he really does have a hardship based on his lot that would not allow him a place to put the structure.
Kathleen Field:
Yes.
Councilmember Large:
The only other point that I wanted to make is if you do consider this a temporary structure since it's not
on a foundation, it does give the applicant some flexibility, even if it is placed where he wants it right
now. It's no different than if it were a playhouse that he brought in for his kids to play in or a big piece
of play equipment.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 10 of 16
Councilmember Lusk:
About the playground that we see in the one photo, I see a slide and what appears to be a swing and
additional playground equipment. Are you saying the additional equipment is in your neighbor's yard?
City Manager Lagerbloom:
I'm sorry for interrupting, but because this is a zoning matter I would really like to have this recorded
and I'd like to ask the applicant come back to the microphone.
Gerald Hudgins:
I do not have a trampoline and I don't ever plan to buy one. I have already had one child with a broken
arm, so I'm fine there. To answer your question, we quite frankly aren't happy with looking at the play
equipment that we do have. We are discussing selling both of those items. Personally, we have a large
investment in our home. We don't want to do anything that would significantly detract from value of
our own home and real estate investment. I also had mentioned that this shed is not an investment by
any means, it's a hobby. But yes, there are two play sets.
Councilmember Lusk:
I `x'o'ald like to restate my question. You have one photo here that is a view looking north along the rear
property line from behind the shed and I see a lot of play equipment. Is all of that your equipment?
Gerald Hudgins:
The green slide and yellow slide in the photo, those are ours.
Councilmember Lusk:
Is there additional equipment to the north of that?
Gerald Hudgins:
Not unless it's in the neighbor's yard. They also have a play set and they have a trampoline.
Councilmember Large:
I think that is the point that Councilmember Lusk was trying to make, that there is that kind of
equipment in the neighborhood.
Councilmember Lusk:
Would you say that all of that is in the drainage easement?
Gerald Hudgins:
Yes, unfortunately we all have that 50ft setback and there is no way for us to have playground
equipment unless we all are violating the 50ft setback. When I first talked to Robyn, that was one of my
huge concerns. When Robyn pointed it out, I asked if we were all in violation of a 50ft setback because
we have to have somewhere to put play equipment? My understanding is that staff wouldn't make a big
deal about play equipment.
Councilmember Kunz:
With the purchase of this structure, I assume that this would be have some sort of positive effect on his
property value if it was built well, have we determined yes or no on that?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 11 of 16
City Manager Lagerbloom:
I don't know, if it were less than 100 square feet I don't think it would be something that was assessed
or not.
Mayor Lockwood:
I will open this up for a motion and a second if we have no more comments or questions.
Motion: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve ZM11-03, Agenda Item No. 11-271 to grant a
change of zoning conditions such as will reduce the Minimum Rear Yard setback from 50 to 10 feet
along the west property line on 12792 Donegal Lane, for the following reasons:
2. This change of conditions will authorize a use that is suitable in view of the
use and development of adjacent and nearby property;
3. This change of conditions will not adversely affect the existing use of adjacent
property;
4. This change of conditions is not materially inconsistent with the policies and
intent of the land use plan;
5. The anticipated use of this gardening structure, along with its relatively small
footprint and accompanying vegetative screening, provide supporting grounds
to approve this change of conditions.
As further part of this motion, I wish to specifically set forth in the record that this change of zoning
condition is based entirely on the particular facts in the record and will have no precedential value with
respect to any other future request for change to zoning conditions by any applicant.
Second: Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion.
Motion to Amend: Councilmember Thurman moved to add the following proposed staff conditions to
ZM11-03:
1. To have a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet.
2. To have a minimum side yard (interior) of 5 feet.
3. To have a minimum side corner yard (corner) of 20 feet.
4. To have a minimum rear yard of 25 feet.
5. To have a minimum rear yard along the west/south property lines of 50 feet
except for lot #39 (12792 Donegal Lane) which shall be 10 feet only for the
existing accessory structure depicted in the site plan dated November 3, 2011.
6. To have a minimum setback along Hopewell Road of 50 feet.
7. To have a minimum lot width of 90 feet.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 12 of 16
2. RZ11-19NC11-05 — 15260 Hopewell Road, Applicant: Reunion Park. A request to rezone
from AG -1 (Agricultural) to C-1 (Community Business) and AG -1 (Agricultural) for an existing
1,180 square foot building for general retail uses and an existing 1,835 square foot single family
residence to remain with the following four-part concurrent variance:
1) To reduce the 50 foot undisturbed buffer and 10 foot improvement setback to a 10
foot landscape strip along the south zoning line of Parcel 1 intersecting with
Hopewell Road and running North 68 degrees 21 minutes 12 seconds West a
distance of 89.69 feet (Sec 64-1141(3)(a));
2) To reduce the 50 foot buffer and 10 foot improvement setback to a minimum 40
foot buffer along the south zoning line of Parcel 1 (parallel to Thompson Road),
running from the corner of an existing driveway North 80 degrees 44 minutes 27
seconds West 190.43 feet to the westerly 10 foot improvement setback line (Sec
64-1141(3)(a));
3) To delete the 50 foot buffer and 10 foot improvement setback along the southwest
zoning 'line of Parcel 1 running from Hopewell Road North 68 degrees 10 minutes
12 seconds West 89.69 feet and North 21 degrees 34 minutes 48 seconds West
35.46 feet to the northerly line of an existing driveway for Parcel 2 (Sec 64-
1141(3)(a));
4) To reduce the 25 foot setback for parking adjacent to residentially used
property to 10 feet along the south zoning line (Sec. 64-1433(f)(1)).
(Agenda Item No. 12-011)
(First Presentation at the January 9, 2012 Regular Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
Kathleen Field:
Mr. Mayor, this is to notify you that staff did receive a request from the applicant of this petition for
withdrawal without prejudice. Staff does concur with this request. Deborah Anthony, the attorney for
the applicant, is here tonight to present personally to you this request for withdrawal.
Deborah Anthony, 5780 Windward Parkway Suite 300, Alpharetta, GA:
We have decided to regroup and see if we can find a way to make this building remain and one of the
things that has been recommended to us not only by some of the people in opposition but also staff, but
that we look at the historic district ordinance so we are waiting for that to be finalized and see how that
might fit in to possibly save this building. For those reasons, we respectfully request that we be
permitted to withdraw under Section 64-2061 of the Milton Code of Ordinances.
Mayor Lockwood:
Thank you. Since we do have a public hearing, I would like to allow anyone who came to speak tonight
to speak. Since we have none in support, we will hear from those in opposition.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 13 of 16
Jason Anastacia, 15285 Bell Park Road, Milton, GA:
Now that the applicant has withdrawn, my comments are limited. I reserve until they come back with
another application.
Joan Borzilleri, 540 Kings county Court, Milton, GA:
Please deny the C-1 zoning change for this property for the following reasons: This constitutes spot
zoning as it introduces commercial retail into an area currently zoned AG -1. Staff has recommended
that this zoning change be denied sighting the fact that among other things, the lot does not meet the
entry exit access criteria for a business establishment in Milton. The Planning Commission voted to
deny this rezoning request last month. This request is contrary to the comprehensive plan that restricts
commercial retail establishments in Milton's interior except for those allowed under the AG -1 zoning
category. It is precedence setting and nearby property owner told me last month that if C-1 is granted in
this instance, she would immediately ask for C-1 zoning for her 10 acres since commercial property so
close by would diminish her residential property values. This particular corner is extremely dangerous.
I live 4/10 of a mile from the property and I go through this intersection three to four times a day.
Hopewell in this half mile stretch has a curve, a grade and Thompson road is offset so there are
effectively two intersections to navigate. This has been the site of multiple accidents over the past few
years. Please deny the C-1 zoning for this property. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
I will go ahead and close this public hearing. We have heard from the applicant that they would like to
withdraw this application. We can accept the withdraw, a motion to discuss and approve this
application, or we can motion and discussion to deny this application.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to accept the request to withdraw RZ11-19/VC11-05.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
3. RZ11-17 —To Amend Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 64 of the City Code) —
Signs.
(Agenda Item No. 12-012)
(First Presentation at the January 9, 2012 Regular Council Meeting)
(Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)
City Manager Lagerbloom:
This one is similar to the last one. We published it for January in hopes that we would get to a spot
where we could actually debate this one tonight. It got hung up in our legal office a little longer than we
intended, but it needs more review than we thought and I would ask that we defer this back to first
presentation. I think there is enough changes in the final document that I would like it to start the
process again. You would see this deferred to February 6th for first presentation, the 13th for our work
session, and come before you on the zoning agenda on February 22nd.
Robin Colletti,12635 Crabapple Road, Milton, GA:
I am here tonight to talk about the new sign revisions that have been made. We are very much in
support of those revisions. I am here to thank everyone for listening to us and the business owners and
also working with us. You guys have listened to us and guided us where we needed to go to fight our
cause. Mrs. Field for having a wonderful committee that did listen to us and worked with us. You made
the changes that would work for us in the Crabapple overlay district. I especially want to thank Robyn
for basically keeping me abreast of changes and answering my questions. I know it has been delayed
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 14 of 16
and I don't think any major modifications are being made that we are asking of, but I am encouraging
you all to please approve it when it is proposed. We are thrilled, thank you all very much.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to defer Zoning Agenda Item RZ11-17 to First
Presentation at the February 6, 2012 council meeting, for discussion at the February 13 work session
meeting, and for Zoning at the February 22, 2012 Council meeting. Councilmember Large seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of the Adoption of an Ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Milton,
Georgia to Amend Chapter 2 — Administration, Article VI — Financial Management Program, of
the City of Milton Code of Ordinances to Include Division 13 — Fund Balance Policy.
(Agenda Item No. 12-010)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-01-127
(First Presentation at the January 9, 2012 Regular Council Meeting)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
Stacey Inglis:
• What you have before you is a fund balance policy.
• This is something we need to adopt to adhere to the government accounting standards for
statement No. 54.
• They have issued this statement to clarify some of the misunderstanding that people have had
when reporting fund balances.
• They have come up with new standards on how to report the balances.
• You will see some difference in what we have done previously.
• What was in the packet is a little different with one minor change in the last sentence of the
policy.
• The original stated that we would look at this policy annually and as a suggestion of the attorney,
we are going to change that to when the need arises.
• In the second to the last paragraph, it states that anything in our fund balance that is over 21% of
our subsequent operating budget will be considered surplus, and we can use it for one time
expenditures.
• We currently do not have anything that states what surplus is, so this will clarify it.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to Approve Agenda Item 12-010. Councilmember
Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of a Resolution for the City of Milton to Partner with Fulton County Department of
Registration and Elections to Participate in the Voter Education and Outreach Program (VEOP)
to Educate, Register and Increase Voter Participation.
(Agenda Item No. 12-027)
RESOLUTION NO. 12-01.-207
(Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 15 of 16
Mayor Lockwood:
• Last Wednesday we had several members from our staff and some volunteers attend the Voter
Registration Training.
• I learned a lot about voters registration and how there are so many people that are not registered
at all to vote.
• The percentage of people that are registered and vote are even smaller.
• By approving this resolution, we are becoming a part of the partnership.
Councilmember Thurman:
• Is there a way to remove the people from the registration that have moved out of Milton?
City Manager Lagerbloom:
• I'm not sure but we can check with J.B. Reed.
Councilmember Lusk:
• What will they be doing to proactively register more voters?
City Manager Lagerbloom:
• They are trying to get people registered through community events and drives.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to Approve Agenda Item 12-027. Councilmember
Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS (None)
STAFF REPORTS
City Manager Lagerbloom:
• I will be out of the office for the remainder of the week.
• I would like for the council to come meet with me, either a one or two member at a time basis.
• I need that to occur next week or the week after.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Large moved to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss pending
litigation at 7:20 p.m. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-
0).
RECONVENE: Councilmember Hewitt moved to reconvene the Regular Meeting at 7:52 p.m.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
January 23, 2012
Page 16 of 16
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 12-028)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 7:53
Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Date Approved: February 06, 2012.
Sudie AM Gordon, Ci y Clerk Joe Loc wood, Mayor
STATE OF GEORGIA )
AFFIDAVIT RE: CLOSURE OF
COUNTY OF FULTON ) OPEN MEETINGS
Personally appeared before the undersigned officer, duly authorized under the laws of the State of Georgia
to administer oaths, Joe Lockwood, who in his capacity as Mayor and the person presiding over a Council meeting
of the CITY OF MILTON, and after being first duly sworn, certifies under oath and states to the best of his
knowledge and belief the following:
At its Regularly Scheduled Council Meeting held on January 23, 2012, the Council voted to go into closed
session and exclude the public from all or a portion of its meeting. The legal exceptions applicable to the exempt
matters addressed during such closed meeting are as follows:
[Check or initial as appropriate]
() Discussing or deliberating upon the appointment, employment, compensation, hiring, disciplinary
action, dismissal, periodic evaluation or rating of a government officer or employee [O.C.G.A.
§ 50-14-3(6)];
(X) Privileged consultation with legal counsel pertaining to pending or threatened litigation, claims,
administrative proceedings or settlements [O.C.G.A. § 50-14-2];
( ) Discussing the future acquisition of real estate [O.C.G.A. § 50-14-3(4)1;
( ) Staff meetings for investigative purposes under duties or responsibilities imposed by law
[O.C.G.A. § 50-14-3(1)];
( ) Tax matters made confidential by State law [O.C.G.A. § 50-14-2];
( ) Inspection of physical facilities under the jurisdiction of the CITY OF MILTON [O.C.G.A.
§ 50-14-1(a)(2)];
( ) Meeting with a governing body, officer, agent or employee of another agency at a location outside
the geographical jurisdiction of the CITY OF MILTON or such other agency and at which no final
action is taken [O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(a)(2)];
( ) Other. [Explanation and citation to statutory authority required]:
I certify that the subject matter of the closed meeting or the closed portion of the meeting was devoted to
matters of official business or policy, with the exceptions provided by law as set forth above.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me gNtl1
this 23rd day of January, 2012.
a��,8 A if
1") rt
!!nnd
Vl
Notary Public
� !C
My Commission Expires:
1
'
MAYOR J E VCKWOOD
•y\'
x //Q
f adq\ae