City Council - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

You ready?

Test one, two, test. One, two.

Good evening. Um, I would like to welcome Billy Lowe, lead pastor with City Church, who will lead us in tonight's invocation. All right. Well, let's pray. Father, in Jesus name, we thank you. Thank you for this night. Uh, thank you for the safety that we've had, especially with the weather and our first responders with the fire that just happened. Lord, we pray that you would continue to protect them. And as always, we ask that you would give this council wisdom as they make decisions for this city. That you would be honored in Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Thank you.

I'd like to call the regular meeting of Milton City Council for Monday, February 2nd, 2026 to order. The city encourages you to re to review tonight's agenda carefully. Each citizen who chooses to participate in public comment must complete a comment card and submit it to the city clerk prior to the agenda item being called. While the Milton rules allow a speaker to turn in their comment card up until the clerk calls the agenda item. Once the agenda item is called, no more comment cards can be accepted. Will the city clerk please call the role and make general announcements?

Good evening, mayor and council be happy to call roll for the February 2nd, 2026 regular meeting. I would like to remind those in attendance to please silence all cell phones at this time. As the mayor mentioned, if you would like to make a public comment, you are required to complete a public comment card prior to that agenda item being called. All speakers will identify themselves with name, address, and/or organization before beginning your comment. If you're representing an organization, a notorized affidavit is required stating you have the authority to speak on behalf of that organization. Please review the agenda and if you'd like to make a comment, bring your cards to me now. Mayor and council has a call role this evening. Please confirm your attendance. Mayor Pton Jameson here. Council member Brian Dolan here. Council member Doug Haney here.

Council member Juliet Johnson here. Council member Carol Cooker here. Council member Jan Jacobus and Council Member Phil Kramer. Mayor, you do have a quorum. Would everyone please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America? Do we have an executive session, Steve? Okay. Uh, I'll open it for a motion. Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as proposed. Second.

Okay. I have a motion from Council Member Cranmer and a second from Council Member Jacobus to approve the meeting agenda. All in favor, please place your votes.

Bill Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Okay, next is public comment. Do we need public comment? We do not have any general public comment, mayor. Okay, so I'll wave the public comment rules and I will now ask you to call the next item.

I'm sorry, mayor. We're going to go right into the consent agenda. And that first item is approval of the January 21st, 2026 regular city council meeting minutes. This agenda item number 26043. Our next item is approval of the January 9th, 2026 special city called council meeting. It's agenda item number 26044. Our next item is approval of the financial statements and investment report for the period ending November the 30th, 2025, agenda item number 2645. Next is approval of an administrative servicesonly agreement with Guardian Life Insurance Company of America for the provision of dental coverage for Milton employees in the calendar year 2026. Agenda item number 26046. Our final consent agenda item is approval of a construction services agreement with RGC Construction LLC to construct a pool patio cover addition at the Milton City Park and Preserve. Agenda item number 26047. Mayor Jameson.

Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as read. Second. Okay. I have a motion from Council Member Haney and a second from Council Member Johnson to approve the consent agenda as read. Voting is now open. Please place your votes. Okay, that passes unanimously. There are no reports and presentations. There's no first presentation. No public hearing. And now we will now move on to the zoning agenda. Will city clerk read their zoning rules and please sound the first item.

Thank you, mayor. When the mayor and city council consider zoning agenda items, including zoning petitions, zoning modifications, use permits, variances, ordinances, resolutions, and text amendments, the following procedures apply. The applicant and supporters with a total of 10 minutes will have a total of 10 10 minutes to present. The opposition will also have 10 minutes to present and may use any remaining time for rebuttal. The applicant may reserve time for rebuttal and as the party with the burden of proof may make closing remarks if time remains. All speakers will be called in in which the order the speaker cards were received and they will state their name, address, and organization. The peling commission has reviewed the items and forwarded its recommendations to the council. No materials may be submitted at the meeting unless requested by the council. All materials should have already been submitted to the community development department and included in the council packet. Any opponent of reasonzoning action within the two years prior to filing the opposition has made cont camp campaign contributions totaling $250 or more to a local government official considering the application. They must have a disclosure with the governing authority at least 5 days before the planning commission meeting. Failure to comply with state law constitutes the misdemeanor. Therefore, if you have contributed $250 or more to a council member and have not filed the required disclosure, the city attorney strongly recommends that someone else present your position. Mayor, that zoning item tonight is consideration of U25-03, VC25-01 located at3010 Morris Road and tax parcels 225441150423 and 22544111 54456 I'm sorry 50456 zoned T6 Deerfield formbbase code by Deerfield CC C Development LLC to

request a use permit for multifamily in order to accommodate a mixeduse development on 24.92 acres to develop multifamily residential units, townhouse units, loft apartments, and retail space along with two existing six-story buildings and a concurrent variance to reduce the number of parking spaces required by section 9.1.2 of the UDC. Agenda item number 26037, Bob Ishmami.

Good evening, mayor and council. Robert Pashi, director of special projects. It's wonderful to be here tonight. Um, weather's been holding up, too, which is good. Uh, we're here tonight really to present um a project that's going to be uh proposed here in Destination Deerfield. So, it's it's pretty exciting night to actually see these projects coming to fruition. Uh, we've been working many years on this. Um, really been looking at Deerfield since we started as a city last year. We really pushed very heavy with the implementation plan. Um, and and it's a unique character area within the city. It's our largest commercial area within the city. Uh, it's part of our urban growth boundary. So, um it's it's a pretty pretty dynamic to see this this portion of the city actually um start to start to get redeveloped. Um the mayor said it very strongly at the state of the city. I thought it was really well spoken. He said um that it's everything in Deerfield was developed with a a great deal of intentionality. I thought that was really important that we really did this um thinking very intentionally. Uh we had a dynamic vision um for the for the area and for this district including the new city park which is which is being proposed right within the in the core of the district. Um the implementation plan council really gave us direction to have very strong communications. Um, and thanks to Greg's team and keep saying thank you to Greg because I we did a very strong communications effort. I just want to remind the council that that was part of this plan. Um,

community input was probably of utmost um top priority and we we've done that. We've done several several uh community events, surveys, sharetses, uh popups. We really engage the community and that's this has really been driven by the community. So everything you're about to see tonight, all of the the little nuances and and facets of this development, but really as a result of what the community told us, the community that lives there, most of them we really concentrated on the people that were in Deerfield, and they they gave us all this feedback, and that's really important because I think that it's really their neighborhood. Um, and one of the biggest community inputs that they had was amenities, the public realm. uh what's in it for us? You know, Bob, what do we get out of this? You know, you're standing before us telling us you want to develop and redevelop and revitalize. What what do we get as a community? And and I thought that was a really important thing um because they really wanted a series of um amenities such as trails, uh increased open space, usable public open space, uh and and civic uses. You know, they'd like to have a civic presence. They want to have presence of of Milton buildings that we can use as a city in in the district. which was nice feedback and um there was a directive by council and we we honored it all from day one which is no change in densities. So there are no changes to any of the densities that were in the deerfield uh in in the Deerfield formbbased code uh and we we maintain that. So everything you see tonight is all those base densities. the incentives

does um in in order to get the developer to do the incentives at really no cost to the city. What we did was we said, "Okay, we'll we'll vary the ratios." Uh we had a 50/50 ratio and we varied that ratios. We gave incentives, you know, like 5% for each incentive. Um which would then rebalance those ratios from residential and commercial. So that then the but that the developer would have to uh implement that and pay for it and maintain it. So you'll see the conditions tonight say that they have to not only install it but they have to maintain it. So again no cost to the city going forward this which is key. Um, this is the first application before you, but it's really one piece of a big puzzle because we're looking at this as multiple sites in the district. So, it's it's it's not really a standalone. It's part of all the other projects that will come behind this one. And they are coming into the department for review. Um, which I was pretty happy to see, which means the incentives are really working. Um Tracy was talking to me before I got up here and she said, "Bob, they're really they're really all interdependent on each other." So I that was a good phrase. I wanted to make sure the council remembers that it's not just this project, it's all the other ones that come. They're all interdependent on one another. The way we vision this was that they would all be linked together from a pedestrian standpoint, from a amenity standpoint, from a retail establishment standpoint, you know, just standalone retail in one district might not survive. But when you have five of them and they're all interlin, then they will survive because then people can walk from one one uh development to the

other. And that's how we've planned this out. And um so I think that's really important. The owner on this one is really um pretty good. I just want to put a word in because he is the owner. He's owned the property for a long time. They maintained it even though the buildings are vacant. They have maintained that site and that building. Uh the two buildings that are there. And I think that that says something that we don't have an absentee owner. We don't have somebody who's um just coming in to develop, make money, and leave. I mean, he really wants to own this property long term. It's part of his family and he wants to keep it. Um, we do we are working with the DRB to ensure that we have great architecture, which is very important. Even the planning commission said we really want to make sure we have great architecture, pedestrian connectivity, and multiple access points on this site and they're all existing, which was very nice, too. We don't have just one entrance in and out. That's another key facet to keep in mind on all the the ones that come behind us. We have a good balance of uses. We have retail, we have office, we have town houses, and there is a multif family component. And that's that component needs a use permit. And that's the reason why we're here before you tonight is for that use permit. It's 140 units, mostly one and two bedrooms. There's no threebedrooms units. Robin's going to go through all of this in detail, but um the key here, the key component is on this site, we're maintaining the existing 260,000 plus square feet of existing office. And that office is mostly vacant right now, but we all the studies we did, when we put all of these other components on a site into a mixed use and it's it's kind of blended just right with the right ratios, it will reactivate those commercial office buildings. And that's the secret is that we're not getting rid

of those. We're here to reactivate those. Standalone commercial um just doesn't work anymore. Nowhere in the country is it working. So, what we did was part of the study was to make sure what what does it take to reactivate those and not get them to be torn down. And the owner has been uh very respectful about keeping those and trying to reactivate them. He's also voluntarily doesn't need it, but he's also put a 2500 foot civic building that he's going to build um at no cost to the city and uh and and turn it over to the city for use. And it will be up to this council to decide what use to put in there. Could have a visitor center, could have a museum, could have anything you want it to be. It's up to the council, but it'll be um about 500 square feet is the bathrooms. Those are public. You have about 2,000 square feet of uh building that they will build the shell and then we'll just sit down and figure out what we need to do as a city to uh what kind of use we want to do to populate it. Also, the last item I just want to touch on is um in addition to the trails, which are part of the incentives, the owner has um worked with us because I wanted a a boardwalk connecting this site to the Verizon site and there's a big lake, Lake Deerfield, and we really wanted that to be developed on a boardwalk so people can connect from a pedestrian standpoint from this development to the next one and have on street parking in along on Mars and he has uh um voluntarily has said okay we will pay for that improvement. So that's another improvement that I think is really nice that the city is not going to have to bear uh cost on and finance and they will do it and they will maintain it. So I thought that that connection was vital uh in my plan you know to make sure the plan connecting the two is is is

validated. Okay, with that, I'll turn it over to Robin and she's going to go through all the details of this plan. Uh, it's quite a presentation. You all know it's bad when I bring my water up there with me. Try not to make it too uh uninteresting. So, um, as Bob did a great job of introducing the process, what went into from a 5,000 foot level, I'm going to get into more of the granular, uh, aspects of it. So, as you can see here on the location map, we have the site with the two existing office buildings and it's flanked by Deerfold Parkway, Web Road, and Morris Road. As stated before, the applicant Deerfield CC Delaware LLC and they are requesting a use permit for multif family as called out in the UDC in section 8 in order to accommodate a mixeduse development on approximately 24 25 acres to develop um residential, multif family, townhouse, loft apartments, and retail space along with the two existing sixstory office buildings. and the applicant is uh requesting a current concurrent variance to reduce the number of parking spaces. The subject site is zone T6. There's not any kind of reszoning to this request. It's just a use permit. So, just to remind you a little bit, I like to compare it to a cake that the underlying

zoning, the T6, is the cake itself and the use permit is the icing that goes on top. So um they are uh two different things but they work together to make a great

stay with it. So anyway, uh, prior to the adoption of the Deerfield formbbased code in April of 2013, the subject site was zoned OI office institutional pursuant to Fulton County in 1997 and it was approved for a total of 400,000 square feet within four six-story buildings. So obviously you see there are not four buildings, there's only two that were built. So it wasn't built to its capacity. And currently there is 265,514 square feet that was completed in 2000 prior to our incorporation. And currently uh the two office buildings are partially occupied. Here is a general site plan of the site. Um, I'm going to go through it and kind of emphasize different parts of it as we go through the uh presentation, but I can just show you right now the existing two office buildings are here and rest. Here's a color rendering of both existing and proposed uh structures. Here we have the multifamily units along Morris. Um here we have retail and then the lofts above and then along here are the town homes and then additional uh retail commercial buildings as well as the green and just a really great open space for the public. I just want to emphasize um that the applicant is keeping a lot of the existing um parking and the blue is representing new parking spaces that are being proposed. Um also just to remind you that this was built, you know, 25 years ago and the tree canopy that's already out there, especially in the

parking lot, is pretty magnificent. So, we're really happy that uh they're able to help preserve some of that tree canopy out on the site. In the current request, um here is a chart that outlines each of the different uses. So, we have new retail around 248 24,800 square feet is proposed that's allowed by right within the Deerfield formbbased code. the office that exists also is allowed by right and then loft over retail and we have a uh regulation that you can't do any more than 10 units in a development and again that is by rights and lastly for the by right uses are 20 town houses that are being proposed. The last item that's highlighted, the multif family, the 140 elite units is required to have a use permit and that is a primary reason we are before you tonight. Again, as a reminder and Bob alluded to, the Deerfield formbbased code was amended in May of 2025 based upon the changes uh as a result of the destination Deerfield plan. And within that plan, they included incentive provisions for mixeduse developments. The applicant proposes to use available incentives to modify the byright 50% um non-residential and residential ratio while remaining below the maximum 65% um residential and 35% commercial ratio allowed in the T6 district. So, I know it sounds a little confusing, but I'm going to step you through uh that process. Again, the applicant is asking for two incentives. There's um kind of a a

toolbox of incentives, and they're choosing to use the public civic space and the public access trails and trail head. And each of those um incentives allow up to 5% increase. So discussed below in more detail the calculated ratio for the project is 56.8% of residential and 43.2% of commercial ratio which is within the allowable range when incentives are applied. So let me just also clarify obviously residential is pretty straightforward but when I speak about commercial that includes office, retail, restaurants you know it's an umbrella of uses. So, please um just understand that I'm not talking about just a retail use, but there's a whole plethora of items that are included. So, here we have on the left on this map, it is highlighted in green and these are the areas that the applicant is proposing for public civic space. Okay. So, the proposal increases on-site civic space from the required 10% of approximately 2 and a half acres to at least almost 5 acres. In actuality, the site plan indicates a total of 24% which is just over 6 acres of civic space. Okay. In regards to the public access trails and trail head, um the applicant, as I mentioned before, would receive additional 5% um ratio split. The construction of a trail traversing the site and connecting multiple street frontages. So you see in the brown here, this is Deerfield at the entrance and the path comes along here and behind the town homes and meanders down over to

this is Morris Road here in the corner. And then they have constructed um some trail heads. There's one at the entrance here and then there's one at the entrance here as well as public parking uh designated for the area for the trail head and public restrooms uh for the use of the public. Here um is a elevation of the building where the restrooms would be located. uh they are adjacent to a civic building. The civic building um is not required to obtain the ratio incentive but will be built by the developer and available for use by the city. So now we're going to step into the site plan analysis and based upon the applicant's revised site plan submitted on January 9th. Um, I'm going to walk you through the different aspects of it. Within the Deerfield formbbased code, pursuant to section 7B, multif family is only permitted subject to a use permit as follows. With these regulations, the ratio of mixed use is 50% residential to 50% commercial. Development incentives can apply. That is to adjust the ratios like we just discussed. and then required commercial functions shall be identified and approved by the city council as part of the multif family use permit approval and shall be built concurrent with the multif family uses. So basically saying that we don't want the multif family to be built first and then it be an afterthought for the commercial uses that could possibly in other situations never be built. But and the way that the code is written, it ensures that it is done concurrently.

So again, just to look to explain about the density allowed in T6, it is 12 units per acre. And you're like, well, what does that mean? Well, for residential, it's pretty straightforward. Uh but for um res for non-residential for commercial each unit equals 2250 square feet of area of a building. So if you take 12 units times about 25 acres it equals 299 units 0.04 density units. And then down below you will see that in pink are the non-residential uses in retail is the 248.40 that equals to 11 just over 11 units. So basically if you just this is an easy number to understand if you divide 24840 by 2250 you get the 11 units. Okay. So then on the office there's already existing 118 units for a total of just over 129 units. When we go to the green which is the residential uses we have a total of um 170 units. And so when you add the 170 with the 129 you get 299.04. So basically as we walk through the density you can see that they're use utilizing all their density that they're allowed. They're not going over. They're not asking for transfer of development rights. They're just doing straight what is by right.

Now we're going to look at the distribution. Uh the non-residential is 43.2%. And the residential is 56.8%. So if you remember what the ratios were allowed, this is within uh the range that they can have based upon their incentives. Okay. Now, um just want to I'm not going to bore you with every single regulation in Deerfield formbbased code what needs to be done, but as we analyze the uh application uh the development the proposed development meets or exceeds the development regulations contained in 7A deerfield formbbased code. Um, and those include things such as building placement, form and function, the landscape standards, and architectural standards. And there's some other ones, but those are the primary ones. Again, to reiterate, um, the commercial retail is permitted by Wright. The existing office is permitted by Wright. And now I'm going to step through the discussion of proposed types of uses within the development that um there are development requirements or they need a use permit. So the first item in this list you can see is multif family. It needs a use permit. And then there's town houses. There are development requirements but town houses in this situation are allowed by right. Then again we have lofts 10 units. they are allowed by right so long as they meet the regulations um outlined in the UDC. So now we're going to have some nice pretty pictures uh supplied by the applicant and their architects. So here we have um the multif family building. Um there's two buildings uh total 140

with 70 units each side. And if you see this little L here, this is the perspective that's looking at this building right now of one of them at the entrance and Morris Road. Now, understand these are trees that have been superimposed onto the elevation, but uh if you were to go out to the site, you would see that it's much more buffered and there's a lot more vegetation. So, one of the requirements is for them to to keep that area, a 40 foot area to remain. We want it to remain the way it is to help keep that character along Morris Road. The applicant is proposing 84 onebedrooms um average of not less than 800 square ft. 56 twobedrooms average of not less than 1,200 square feet. The front of the buildings facing Morris Road are three stories in height and there are there is a fourstory portion on the interior of the buildings facing the office tower. So it kind of changes. Um there's three stories along Morris and then it gets a little bit higher just this area um becomes four stories which is permitted by right in the Deerfield formbbased code for this type of use. So the proposed development meets all of the requirements of for multif family units of the UDC. Staff wants to highlight one of the following requirements. Required non-residential functions being built must be built concurrent with multif family units being built and the timing shall be determined at the time of the approval of the use permit. and we're going to talk about that or show this condition at the in the recommended conditions at the end of the staff report. Okay, let's step to the town houses.

Again, these are allowed by right. Um here is this uh enlargement of the site plan. Um up here is Deerfield Parkway and uh this is a view. There's a creek here on this side. So this view looking on this elevation is from the creek side and from the path uh from the trail. So it looks like it's the frontage. So the fronts are facing um the green space. Hey Robin, real quick. Is there is there garages in the front or a drive? I mean because these in the back. So we'll um they'll be in the back and then next slide we'll show you what it looks like. in the back like where the boardwalk. So the garages are coming from here right here.

You're looking at it from the boardwalk. Ah, got it. Got it. Got it. So this little L is the position that you're looking at this elevation. You're looking back at the entirety of the property. Got it. Yeah. Tada. Okay.

Okay. Now we got the the rear the rear loaded with the garages coming off um the alley here. Okay. So that again um the applicants been working with staff on the architecture but as Bob had mentioned all buildings including town homes have to have approval by the design review board before the issuance of the permit. So rest assured that it's not like they're going to plop everything down and we don't know what's going on as far as architecture. Okay. Again there are 20 units. There are 17 town homes that front the civic space. um including the trail. All 20 are rear loaded with lots utilizing the alley. All alleys will be required to provide a maximum of 24 foot with a minimum of 12t of pavement and no more than 20% of the total lots in the development may front on a civic space. In total, there's 170 residential units or lots and the 17 lots only comprise 10% of those total units. And just to um point out to you that Lake Deerfield town homes are on the other side of this stream. So it's very nice. So we have two sets of town homes kind of flanking each other in the similar uses. Okay. So the proposed town homes town houses meet all the requirements of the UDC. Okay. Now we're going to set the lofts. So um the lofts they're proposing 10 units. They can be pretty much anywhere above retail. They don't have to be very specific to exact amount placed in it. Just so long as it's above retail. So in this situation, they have it um off of web web. So again, if you look at this little L, this is the perspective that it's looking into off of web in with the

two flanking um retail buildings with lofts above. And again, uh, these lofts meet all of the requirements of the UDC. Okay. Uh, further with the site plan analysis, um, the applicant submitted their ESA, environmental site analysis, and it satisfies, uh, the requirements of the UDC. It states there's no steep slopes, historical sites, or sensitive plant and animal species on the site. It does contain wetlands, flood plane and a stream with state and city buff buffers. The site is located within the area to be serviced by the sanitary sewer on the sewer map. Site is located inside the urban growth boundary. So um in regards to departmental comments, uh the city arborists stated that tree requirements will be reviewed at time of LDP or land disturbance permit. staff wants to um note and let you know that in T6 transact zone that there they are required to provide a minimum of 10% tree canopy coverage and it appears obviously that based on the stream buffers and parking lot trees this requirement should be met or exceeded. The fire marshall stated access to the site is sufficient given the accessible routes from the various uh streets. Um if there were to be an emergency anywhere on the site after it's been developed, a first alarm would uh send three engines, one truck, two battalion chiefs and ambulance and utility companies. If it was even a greater uh urgency, a second alarm would add two engines, one truck, and approximately 10 more people. Um, and obviously we all

know that the Milton Fire Station 44 is nearby and it is 1.5 miles away. In regards to the public works department, um, they required the applicant complete a traffic impact study and vehicular access to the property is provided via four existing driveways. Two full access driveways on Morris, one full access on Web and one ride in ride out on Deerfield. The development is projected to generate approximately 125 a.m. morning peak trips and 163 pm peak trips. All study intersections are expected to continue operating at an acceptable level of service in both the opening of at 2 2028 and horizon year of 2033. So, uh, we also gather, uh, comments from Fulton County and Fulton County Public Works in regards to water. A total water usage would be estimated about 75,000 gallons per day. There's various water lines already in existence surrounding the site. And here we have sewer. A little exciting for me. It's been a while since we got to talk about sewer in the appropriate place. That is I'm sorry I get excited about these little things. So this uh the basin is the Big Creek Basement and the treatment plant is Big Creek and the anticipated sewer demand is a little over 67,000 gallons per day. And I was rest assured by um Abdul at Fulton County that there's plenty and plenty of uh capacity in that plant. So now we're going to go on to Fulton County Board of Education. So based on the evaluation, the proposed development will not cause Manning Oaks Elementary School, Hopewell Middle School, and Alpharetta High School to exceed their

maximum capacity. Now, here comes the fun part. At completion, uh the total amount of impact fees projected is just under $2 million. Okay? Okay. And they are broken down below by use and allocated department. And if you look at the chart closely, you can see the majority of it goes to parks and recreation. We have fire protection, a little bit to law enforcement, and then some road improvements section. So, it's pretty exciting to be able to to see that revenue stream come in. So in regards to public involvement at the CZIM on December 17th, there were eight members of the public present. Generally, the general sentiment expressed during the meeting was supportive of the redevelopment and the activation of the partially vacant office buildings. Specific concerns raised were introduction of apartments, traffic impacts, property ownership, development timing, impacts on existing landscaping, parking reduction, development ratios. At the design review bo board meeting on January 6, the DRB was supportive and complimentary regarding the proposed mixeduse development. Excuse me. They were provided specific recommendations to the applicant for each type of building, especially the multifamily buildings. At the special call planning commission meeting on January 14th, uh they were unanimously recommended approval of the use permit and concurrent variance and they were very impressed with the overall balance in the development with various uses and thorowness in the planning and implementation. The commission also emphasized the need to continue the Milton aesthetic throughout the development as each component is developed. um in the public participation report

required um for the applicant to complete they have done all their completed their requirements. Uh they had a public meeting on December 22nd with six attendees. Many of the same concerns uh were raised at that meeting as at the CCIM. Okay. Now we're going to step into the use permit considerations. So uh specifically for the 140 multif family units. So whether the proposed use is consistent with the land use or economic development plans. Um, the development is consistent with the T6 transex zone, description of medium to high density mixeduse buildings, entertainment, civic and cultural uses, attached buildings forming a continuous street wall, trees within the public ride ofway, highest pedestrian and transit activity with civic spaces making up parks, plazas, and squares, and median landscaping. A use permit is required um as outlined in section 8 which staff described in detail in the site plan analysis above. Additional requirements of the UT udc for multif family are again I to reiterate the ratio of mixed use is 50% residential and 50% non-residential um development incentives can adjust those ratios and required non-residential functions shall be identified and approved by city council as part of the multif family use permit approval and shall be built concurrent with the multif family uses and based on the applicant submitt. The calculated ratio for the project is 56.8% residential, 43.2% commercial, which is significantly below the allowable range when incentives are applied. The proposed development is also

consistent with multiple policies within land use. It encourages mixed use development support appropriate residential and non-residential infield development and redevelopment. in housing. It encourages development of housing opportunities that enable re residents to have easier access to commercial services and employment opportunities. Um it provides protection and maintenance of trees and contiguous green open space and in regards to economic development retain expand and create businesses that provide a good fit for a community's economy. And also the proposed development is consistent with the destination Deerfield plan that envisioned the following key points. Create a walkable welcoming district. Support places to live, work, and gather. Activate existing office areas. Connect through green spaces and pathways. Sounds like a winner to me in that way in the sense of it is consistent with those things. Uh the subject site is compatible with the adjacent and nearby land uses since the properties surrounding the site are also designated as T6, T5 or T5 limited. These areas are developed with the same type of uses of office, retail, town houses and multif family. Um so here we have a map that um within the staff report it gets in a lot more detail of what each of those uses are but it is consistent and compatible with the adjacent uses. The proposed use does not appear to violate any ordinances or regulations governing land development if approved with the requested concurrent variance for the reduction of parking. The existing and proposed development will not have a negative impact on traffic flow, vehicular and pedestrians adjoin along adjoining streets.

Um there are four points of ingress and ingress on the site along with the when uh Morris road is widening is complete a four-lane road will provide access from the subject site to the newness fairy road interchange. And lastly, there is an existing traffic signal at Web Road and Deerfield and will be an improved multi-lane roundabout at Web and Morris roads. The site plan indicates a total of 955 parking spaces on the site. The number of required spaces is 139. Utilizing the traditional minimum requirements using the urban land institute or ULI shared parking model results in 1194 parking spaces. A concurrent variance is being requested for the entire site and will be discussed below. In regards to the specifically to the use permit, um the site plan provides uh the required 230 parking spaces for 140 units. And pursuant to the regulations of the use permit, the location of parking spaces are no greater than 400 ft away. So just to uh remind you that there's no parking deck associated it. So all the apartments uh will access their parking from surface parking nearby. The site contains 6.15 acres 24% of open space and civic space 14% more than the minimum required for the site. Again, we have the U map showing the green areas of being open space, civic space. There are no uh requirements for protective screening. There's a large amount of open space as well as required stream buffers along the west property line providing screening to the town homes to the west. There are no required hours and manner of operation for the

multif family use. Um any existing and new outdoor lighting will be required to meet uh the uh formbbased Deerfield formbbased code lighting standards. Again, ingress and eress. There are four points of ingress and egress on the site which we covered previously and that provides s sufficient ingress and eress to the property. Now um we're going to speak to the reduction of the parking spaces. The applicant is seeking to reduce the number of parking spaces on the entire site from the required minimum 1194 parking spaces using the ULI shared parking model to 955 spaces. And the table below, we won't um bore you with every number, but basically it breaks down the different uses and uh the existing number of units or square footage and the required spaces. And then what over here on the right side total parking spaces per the ULI methodology is 1194 and the total parking spaces are 955. So you may ask well what's this about? I've never heard of this ULI thing. What does that mean? Um basically we look at the mixed use and as you all know that office and retail typically especially office are utilized during the day retail night and some during the day and then residential different times. So this is um you know a mathematical model that is set up and calculated to figure out depending on what the units are the square footages and how it's uh uh utilized during the day. And that's how they get to uh the 1194. Here's a breakdown of where the parking

spaces are located. The majority of them are in parking lots. There's 164 spaces and on street parking, the 40 spaces in the town home garages. Each town home has a double garage. And then the city has asked the applicant to construct parking, parallel parking along Morris Road. And so that includes 23 spaces for a total of 955. The applicant, as I said, has included these 23 on street parking spaces in their calculations. Staff notes that to claim the space is to meet the minimum required parking for the site. The spaces are required to be adjacent to the site's property. This portion of Morris Road is not adjacent to the applicant site and therefore cannot be counted. But if this concurrent variance is approved by Mir and Council, it should be reduced to 932 parking spaces. We um as staff asked them to do that and we don't want them to be penalized for it. So um we are asking you to consider that as part of the variance uh for the reduction of parking. So it's staff's opinion that the reduction in parking spaces is if granted it would not offend the spirit or intent of the zoning ordinance since the applicant has demonstrated that per ULI shared parking calculations the needed parking spaces are reduced. this methodology um that the UDC allows for a reduction of parking spaces um per pursuant to section 9. The greatest number of parking spaces utilized is at 9:00 a.m. Monday through Friday with 1194 parking spaces. The applicant has stated in their letter of intent that this site plan provides adequate but not excessive parking areas for the proposed

uses. Staff has asked the applicant to reduce the number of provided parking spaces to allow for additional green space to further enhance the public spaces. Also, as discussed above, the applicant is providing the 23 on street parking along Morris Road. It is staff's opinion that the existing established parking for the existing uh office uh within the two towers is the extraordinary and exceptional situation or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. Further, a reduction of parking spaces is justified because mixeduse developments benefit from the shared use of spaces which occurs when residential and office workers utilize parking at different times of the day. So the in conclusion, the reduction of parking to 932 parking spaces relief would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties and that the public safety, health and welfare are secure as substantial justice is done based on the fact that there will be adequate parking on the site based on the analysis above. Therefore, staff recommends approval conditional VC251, which is the concurrent variance. Conclusion based on the analysis of the subject site and the proposed 140 multif family units which are being concurrently developed with the appropriate percentage of non-residential uses and that the request is consistent with the 2040 future land use plan and policies and that the proposed multif family met all of the use consideration. Staff recommends approval of U2503 with the attached recommended conditions. So, uh, just bear with me. I'm going to walk through these conditions. Um, so the first one is to the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows. No more than 140 units of multif family and

associated accessory uses within two buildings. The number the total number of multif family units shall include 56 two-bedroom units with an average of not less than 1,200 square ft and 84 one-bedroom units with an average of not less than 800 square ft² or an equivalent ratio of two-bedroom and one-bedroom units if less than 140 total multif family units. Two, multif family building facades fronting Morris Road shall be no higher than three stories including basements if applicable. 1B uses permitted and table 8.2.3. So, um, we just want to make sure the applicant knows of all the different uses they can utilize on the entire site such as restaurants and retail shops. So the next condition is 2A to the owner's agreement to abide in the following substantial compliance with the revised use permit package received by the community development department on January 9th, 2026, whereby the exact layout of the project may contain minor deviations approved by the community development director, provided the deviations remain consistent with the purpose and intent of the council's approval of the use permit. Not notwithstanding the contents of the site plan, the project must meet or exceed the requirements of the unified development code for the city of Milton, all other applicable city ordinances and these conditions prior to the approval of LDP. The site plan may be revised with the approval of the community development director in order to comply with city codes and zoning conditions unless otherwise noted herein. compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion. So, I'm just this is a reminder of what you know uh what the site plan is and the colored rendering. It's part of the use permit package.

Condition three, to the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations. No groundmounted mechanical equipment is allowed for multif family uses. B. No exterior or open staircases are allowed on multif family uses. C. Dumpster storage shall be in internal to multif family uses within the service area indicated in the permit package. D. Building permits for multif family must be issued at the same time or after 100% of commercial building permits are issued by the community development department. The first certificate of occupancy or CO for one multifamily building shall only be issued after the C certificate of completion CC is issued for at least 50% of new commercial buildings. The second certificate of occupancy for the second multif family building shall only be issued after the certificate of completion is issued for 100% of the new commercial buildings. So let me explain. I think most people hear this certificate of occupancy, they understand what that is. But a CC, certificate of completion, is let's say if you have a non-residential building and it's a shell. So you receive a certificate of completion for the actual construction of the shell, but not necessarily what's inside and the interior finishes because there could be different uses, different owners within it. So that's the difference between a CO and a CC. And this is the key condition in regards to concurrency to make sure that the development is being developed concurrently or to the point where uh we have multif family being built but at the same time the non-residentidential is being built simultaneously. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the developer shall submit a development phasing plan for

approval by the community development director. This plan shall identify the sequence of construction for commercial, residential, civic, and amenity development in order to ensure that all components of the plan are built in relative concurrency as the phases of the total project are developed. F. The developer shall be responsible for the cost, construction and maintenance of the trails, boardwalks constructed of wood or woodlike materials, internal sidewalks, public restrooms, street furnishings, lighting, and other public amenities as shown on the use permit package referenced in condition 2A and as outlined in the Deerfield Urban Design Manual. G. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the civic building, the developer and the city shall negotiate and execute a lease agreement for the city's use of the civic building and a form acceptable to the city at a nominal lease rate of $1, including a lease term of at least 20 years and buildout conditions. Condition H. Provide 24% or 6.1815 acres of open civic space. I 40 foot linear park along Morris Road adjacent to multif family to remain undisturbed unless approved by the city arborous four to the owner's agreement to abide by the following requirements dedications and improvements provide a minimum of 23 parking spaces along the Morris Road ride ofway as shown on the use permit package as referenced in condition 2A or as approved by the public works director. B. The applicant shall construct a publicly accessible multi-use trail within the public ride ofway and or within a permanent easement dedicated to the city along the entire Morris Road frontage of the subject property or as required by the public works department and extending southward along the Deerfield Master Association's property line of budding Lake Deerfield as generally depicted on the use permit package referenced in 2A. The trail shall meet city of Milton standards for

multi-use paths, including minimum width, surface, and design specs and lighting as outlined in the Deerfield urban design manual and shall be constructed concurrent with the first phase of development unless otherwise approved by the city. And then um the concurrent variance would be a condition. It's not a condition, but if you approve it, it would read to reduce the required number of parking spaces to 932 on the subject site. And then I'm open to any questions. And I just want to make note that um the applicant will be um presenting a little bit tweaks here or there, not not major on the conditions, but just want to let you know that um they have been discussing it with staff. So, nothing that is a surprise, but I will take any questions that you might have right now.

All right. Anyone hear Robin go through that again? Any questions for Robin before we um ask the applicant and people in support or against to come up? Any questions? I do. How about please Brian? You're new. Thank you. The rookie of the crowd. Yes. Um question in regards to the multi-use, multif family. Um, are those going to be managed by the applicant or are they going to be available to investors to then inquire? They can confirm, but they do have an operator um here tonight that will be doing it. Yes. Okay. So, right now it's just be more for rentals, not for investor ownership to rent. Correct. It's rental. I'm sorry.

Okay. Just Okay. I just want to be sure about a question as it relates to parking. um uh this could be a challenge over time, but are we dedicating any parking spaces to the multifamily or to the town homes that may ask for this in the future or is this something we haven't So, I'll I'll answer the easier one. With the town home, each of the town homes have their own twostory I mean two um parking garages spaces and then they have enough like 18 ft of pavement to be able to have guests there. And there are some parking spaces nearby for guests as well. Got

in regards to the multif family, we are not that was a discussion that came up a little bit at the planning commission, but in the end uh they did not uh require assigned parking spaces for okay the multif family. It just the code just states it has to be within 400 ft of where their structures. Okay. Um and I know a a question came up through some other public comments uh regarding school buses. Are they going to be able to access internal to the structure itself or are they going to be on the main roads and maybe that's something we're dealing with Fulton County to verify? But we just there was a lot of questions regarding it for safety and traffic reasons on Web Road and Mars Road, right? So that is all dictated by Fulton County schools. Um

now remember too that with um Morris Road it is a divided road. So, um, you know, I I think it we don't anticipate that they would go inside of it, but again, that is up to the school district. Okay. So, let me be decided then. Okay. Good. Thank you, Council Cookerly. Thank you. Would you go through how many units are actually rented versus sold? So, multif family 140 there are rentals, right? Correct. What about the loss? the lofts. Uh you can ask that of the applicant. I'm assuming they're um rental, but please ask them to confirm that. Okay.

What about the um the balance the town homes rental or sold? So they're going to be fee simple sold. That's it. That's it, right? And so to under you can see through the analysis, no more units can be added to this. I mean, unless they were, even if they lost, they kind of reconfigured things, the number of units just wouldn't work. I mean, they couldn't add more residential units because they would go over their their base density.

In one of the questions, um, why is the city allowing a greater residential component than the standard 5050 ratio? Essentially, the last sentence provides the answer. By increasing on-site open space to 24% and providing public trail access, the applica the applicant has earned a rate a residential ratio adjustment. Is that a theme throughout the whole development where we're increasing um multifamily and is it just residential or specifically multifamily with every future applicant who provides amenities that we like or more open space etc.

Well, each each development would um would come in at slightly different. I'm sorry. What? Each development would be slightly different on what incentives they're they're trying to propose. But Bob, correct me if I'm wrong. We basically gave we provided for three different options of incentives that are each worth like 5%. Right. One is the trail head. What is the additional um civic space and one is a parking deck. Is that right? Parking deck. And then we have the um if you do a civic building. Civic building. And each of those, if they were to do all of those, at most they would get to a 6535 ratio. That's correct. And this is below that. Yeah. Substantially below that on this one.

One question, Robin. You mentioned the applicant has some suggestions they were going to bring forward that we haven't seen. The staff support these suggestions? That's correct. We've been in discussions uh with them up to like four o'clock and we're all in agreement. So when they come up to present the little tweaks, you can be rest assured that we've vetted them through our department and we are satisfied with them. Are these tweaks that would be required to see for DRB and BCA or planning commission to see them also or no? No, they're very minor. No. Yeah. Shrouded in secrecy. I like

No, it's just the co I mean uh the code is I can't really bring you something different. me myself, staff can't bring you a set of conditions that weren't first advertised and first read. So, this is the way we get around it is that we uh a workaround. A workaround. Yes. Well, please let us know if these are conditions that you were not aware of earlier that y'all don't support. So, yeah. No, we have it. I just uh Ethan checked with me right before we started. Everything is exactly the same as we agreed. So, Okay. Y question. Shoot. Y

um I I know there there's four uh ways to get out of the of the community. Uh my concern is are they going to do anything to modify the ability to make a left-hand turn out? Um when you visit the property site leaving and going on Web Road, is there going to be any sort of turn lane or anything for those people making a left? And when you go on Morris Road, you've got to cross two lanes to to make a left. So, are we going to modify those intersections in any way? Are they responsible for that? Are we responsible?

In the conditions of zoning, we don't have any additional um improvements to the road system. But if that there are any Yeah, we we're not requiring any improvements um to those intersections. The only thing we were very specific about was the trail system along Morris to make sure that it's built uh to our standards. So there's no change to the in to the increased amount of people leaving that development onto Morris Road to make a lefthand turn.

Correct. So, if you remember, uh, you know, the the site originally under Fulton County was approved and at least the LDP was constructed to accommodate four office buildings of I believe a total of 400,000 square feet. So even though that's not what is actually there on the ground but I think that that's why the applicant um the site is well uh provided for egress and access. So but our transportation engineers here if you have any more

I'm assuming they're very comfortable with that. Yep we are comfortable. And that was after the um traffic impact study. So it's not we're not going into it blindly. They had to do a full traffic study with turns and everything. Okay. Any other questions for staff? I know we'll have some more before we call the applicant. Nothing. Okay. Uh how many do we have in support and against? So I and bear with me. I have one in support. Um Mr. Steven Kit uh has submitted he doesn't want to speak, but he's in support. And then all of my others I just wanted to confirm are all applicant cards. Correct. They're supporting the

and all support. And then the one that will be speaking is Mr. Ethan Underwood. Okay. All right. Sounds good. If you'll go ahead and read those rules. Do we need to read the rules or good? 10 10 minutes per side. And we'll first call the applicant. Okay.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, city council members. Whoops. Uh Ethan Underwood with Underwood Scoggins. And our address is 202 Triple Gap Road in Coming, Georgia. Let me pull up our presentation. Feel like I'm in an appellet court because y'all have jumped right into the uh the heart of these questions. So, I like it. And and staff is in a very good presentation. So, there's no point in restating what has been requested. uh our clients are very excited to be bringing this to uh project to one comply with your comprehensive plan but also to reactivate a a center that's it's getting some a little longer in the tooth and I think at this time this is just something to be bringing something new to the city uh that was looked at very closely and designed very closely with your staff. As you can see, we have an aerial of the site and regrettably, most times you go out there, this is what the parking lot looks like. There's there's not a lot of folks in those those buildings. Significant vacancy issues and so this design is to reactivate and reinvigorate this and create this as a community hub in Deerfield. staff has gone through the plan. But I think the most important thing is to really get a feel for the development. Let's do a fly through. This is the proposed civic building. Rear of the town homes. Significant architectural detail. Fronts of the town homes along the new trail. The view from Re Web Road.

B development will be handling the commercial portion. Willow Bridge will be the operator and developer of the multif family. So we have those representatives here if they can get into more detail with you. Uh, as stated, we are proposing 20 town home units at front on the new trail bed multif family along Morris Road. And then the heart of the project is the commercial center here. And as planning commission requested, it's important to maintain the Miltonesque feel and the architecture. You know, when you're here, there is a feeling of the architecture and the design when you know you're in the city of Milton. And that's what's important and what's shown in the Cherret book. Providing commercial workspaces, but also places to enjoy family and time, restaurants, commercial uses. Then key, as we stated, civic space. As we said, rear of the town homes, significant architectural detail on both facades and that Miltonesque feel with the multif family unit. Now, this is what is shown just so you can see the architecture, but what you're really going to be seeing from the streetscape is significant landscaping, screening those facads, so you still feel like you have the rural feel of Milton. But what do we hear from the neighbors? The neighbors did ask, they said, "Is this the right location? Is this the right use?" And the answer is yes. This is what was planned for. We understand this is this doesn't belong everywhere in Milton, but this is um your key hub for your commercial uses and this type of housing in the city. The I know we've had some questions about commercial ratios. They said the floor is 50/50, the ceiling 6535. We're actually asking

for just a little bit over that floor by providing those additional incentives in in your code. but in compliance with your code. We had some folks that showed up at these community meetings. They were very wellversed. They apparently uh had participated in developing the code and so that was one of the first questions some folks had said what are your ratios? Um so it was good to be talking with with informed citizens. The traffic has stated will uh intersections will operate at acceptable levels with service by staff impact on schools. There are zero threebedroom units and the schools as stated are significantly below capacity now. So we expect this is not going to have a negative impact on capacity vegetation and landscaping. We'll show you an exhibit here very shortly. And then last not least, we'll walk through that parking adequacy question and the variance. So again, this was the most recent data that was available online to us, the 2024 data. You can see these are the affected schools. They are below capacity. So we don't expect this is going to have a negative impact on those capacities. This is what we're probably most proud of. Your code requires a minimum of tree canopy to be retained on the site. If the trees that are being saved alone, no new trees, just what's being saved and is out there, you're already at 18%. So, you're already past the almost double the requirement of the code, then you're going to be getting additional trees. I was just talking to our engineer, when you start adding in the light green trees, you're looking at closer to 40% tree canopy. And then last but not least, I think one of the questions that we've said is you're asking for a variance to parking. Do you have adequate parking? And our our position is yes, we do have to comply with the ULI standard. Uh as stated, what it does is it aggregates all of your uses and says when are you going to have the most demand for that particular use? And then what you find is what's your high point? When do you need think you're going to need the most

of your uh parking density? would come in at 9:00 am as staff said Monday through Friday. We expect under this ULI parking calculation it's 1194. In meeting with staff I think both staff and the applicants agree that's still too high. We're bound by the methodology but we really don't think that's going to be necessary for this particular project. So, we originally had asked for a variance to take it down to 955, but staff informed us that 23 of the parking spaces that are going to be provided are technically not fronting the site. They're along Lake Deerfield. So, you're still going to get your 23 parking spaces, but we had to ask for a variance because we can't count those toward our total. So, instead of the 955, we had to ask for a variance down to 932. Now, if I may approach or perhaps I'll just hand these to your clerk. You had asked what modifications we had requested. We wanted to clarify. We had gone back and forth with the uh city attorney got involved as well as staff. Uh first condition 1A. I'll let those get handed out. condition 1A, what it states now is you have to have your multif family and your amenities in two buildings. But if you look at the site plan, we're showing a standalone amenity building. So what we just wanted to clarify is that you only get two buildings of multif family, but you could have a detached uh amenity area. So, we ran that by staff. My understanding is they're comfortable with that. Um, condition number 3G, just to just to clarify, we understand we both have to come to an agreement on the lease. So, we just added a little language that says not only does the

city have to agree to it, the developer has to agree to it as well. So, we think that's a fair trade. And then last but not least, we had some questions about the installation of the of the trail. And what we asked is said, "Can we work that out in the phasing plan?" Because we're anticipating that the commercial and the and the multif family will go in first, the town homes. We don't want to put in the trail and then have to tear up the trail to put in the town homes later on down the road. So, what we said is, can we at least just work with staff to come up with that phasing plan? And again, the city still has the veto on that. So, we do think they're minor changes. Uh my understanding is staff is supportive of these. So hopefully this will uh be something that you all can get behind as well. With that, we do have our team, design team here. We have our engineering team. Uh very excited to be bringing this project to you. We will reserve any time that we have remaining for rebuttal and we're happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. We have any in opposition? I do not have any in opposition, sir. Okay. Uh if you have how many you have one minute left, is there anybody that wants to speak with one minute left? Otherwise, we'll reserve it for questions. Okay. With that, I'll close the public hearing and open up for questions from councel. I have a question on the um existing commercial buildings. What's the vision with them? How when were they built and what's the revitalization plan for the buildings? Let me introduce the owner because he's he's living that day in day out. So, hello.

Hello everyone. How's it going? My name is Gila Baragalo. I represent the ownership group at Deerfield Corporate Center. Um currently the office is around 30% occupied with one building being uh completely vacant and the other one holding the rest of the um of the occupation. So we are planning to revitalize the buildings by doing um a full lobby remodel and um and every single uh floor will have its elevator landings and it's common area components revitalized as well since we know that these are a little outdated. I don't know if you ever been inside there, but they have a style in them. And you know, we were hoping to bring it to what the vision of this development is, right? And uh we spoke in the past in other meetings about the ideal situation would be that it's the project is so successful that the ground floor even can maybe have some retail components as well that we can convert to make it be a very flowth through project that you don't know when you're inside the building when you're outside the building. Um you know that that's the dream right that that we're trying to accomplish. But uh we we hope and the goal of this exercise has been always to um give back life to these office buildings because we we think Milton Stellar we we love the office buildings and its exterior architecture and we deem them that it was only just needing to inject the right program and turn them into what they need to be to be class A office buildings here at Milton.

What were your precoid occupancy rates? I believe we purchased the building uh in 2019 and it was high 60s70s percent of occupancy. Uh then we had changed the the big u call center leave which we were happy to you know we wanted to change what the the building was and and create more highv value tenants

and then obviously we were struck with just changing completely the way that people like to interact with office right as we purchased it. So, we've been working with that plan uh with staff for four years, I want to say, to get to this point of presenting to you guys something that we truly believe fits in Milton because that's all what we wanted to accomplish, something that fits in here and everyone can be proud of, you know. Okay. Thank you. Questions just to add on to that. So, if when this gets approved, what would be obviously 100% occupied as your ideal state? What would the timeline look like in your opinion to get to those call it 80 to 90% occupied?

Uh it's tough to say on getting to occupancy but um I believe that we are thinking of 12 months to get through the land development process permits then 24 months for construction and there's obviously going to be pre-leasasing as people see movement on the site. H and then after that there's buildouts there. I I I wouldn't be able to tell you until we are 100% leased, but hopefully soon. Right.

Mayor, the only other thing I'll say, um, first of all, great job by staff in the presentation, well thought out, well delivered. Uh, great plan in my opinion that you guys put forth. I personally was very excited for this meeting. Uh I've been in this seat now for two years and we put this plan in motion right shortly after I had the opportunity to sit up here and it's coming to fruition. This is a product of our own doing right. We set into motion destination Deerfield. We built the design manual. We gave the developers direction. This is intentional. Right? We listened to all of the citizens through the various input sessions. And I truly believe what you guys presented tonight is a product of what the citizens want. It's a proud day for me to sit up here and see this project come to fruition and you guys were the first one to the table with what we truly intended to see. So great job.

Thank you.

I have one more question. How do we and don't please don't take offense to this, okay? It's a generic question. How do we vet that companies that are coming in to participate in Deerfield, etc., that they have the financial wherewithal to go the distance for the renovations, the buildout, etc. And then what happens if something happens in the middle of that and they can't go forward? What's our because that would be a terrible drag on the vision that you're waxing so eloquently about. I may have to pass that off to legal, but we don't necessarily vet financial stability. If they have the ability to apply for the permits and get the necessary um approvals, then they move forward. I'm I know that this area ran into the situation you're describing back, you know, in the downturn around 2008 910 and um we ended up with a bunch of mostly subdivisions that uh ended up just getting fenced off. I know in our code we have certain um things we can do. We require certain performance bonds and things along those lines to ensure that it certain remediation can take place. But I don't know that I have a full answer to the question you've asked.

If you'd like me to jump in, um I would have answered it just the same way that we have an opportunity to require performance bonds for certain things to be done. But otherwise, I'm not aware of a government that has some kind of financial feasibility study um in terms of a developer or a company that comes in to build. Um instead, we have performance standards. So, you know, it's going to built be built according to those standards. But if there's an economic downturn and things are not built, I don't think there's a way really for us to to um legislate against the economy so to speak or to ensure those kind of financial certainty.

Any uh other questions for staff? I will uh say maybe for staff from council member Jacobus' question on the you know the entry exit as we things start getting developed along that way there could be some different traffic patterns that could come about and I think definitely take a look at that for sure as these things start coming in line I know we've invested heavily in this area I will tell you I know I've met you a few times and thank you for listening to staff listening to the residents putting a product that I think uh we'll be proud to call part of Milton and Deerfield um be great for the community to gather. So, thank you.

Thank you guys for and thank you staff for g guiding us to this process and getting us to to the place we are today where um you know we created this project this way. Thank you. Real quick, Steve, um when the council makes the motion on staff's recommended conditions, do you want the motion to say with with the edited staff's recommendation? I mean, how do you want that? because these recommendations that were proposed to us were not in the packet. So, how do you want us to make that motion one? Before we do, I just want to confirm with staff that what I'm looking at is what we discussed earlier. It is. It is. Do you have any questions on it, Steve? Before we I I needed that clarification before before move forward.

Um I'm going to I'll turn it back over to Sure. I think as long as the motion just specifies that it is approving the use permit and the concurrent variance uh according to the recommended conditions as presented by the applicant tonight in the meeting and we'll all have these as a matter of attaching as public record. I just want to make one more comment just to thank staff. I know we've we've asked a lot of you to make sure that we get this right and I appreciate all the diligence and effort that you all have gone through to make sure that it's done appropriately. So, thank you. Great. Okay. Uh, with that, I'll open up for a motion. And if, uh, Steve or city attorney, if you hear it not being read right, please chime in. Okay.

I would normally do it, but I'm scared to make this motion. That's why I'm making easy seat. I'll make a motion to approve agenda item 26-037 with the recommended conditions as proposed by staff. And what? As proposed by the applicant. As proposed by the applicant. Staff and the applicant. Staff and applicant. Correct. Second.

I have a motion from council member Cranmer and a second from council member Jacobus to approve agenda item number 26-037 with staff's recommendations as well as the applicant. Okay. Please. Voting is now open. Please place your votes. That motion count or council jacobus. Oh, sorry. All right, that motion passes six to one. Thank you for coming out tonight.

Okay, with with that we have no unfinished business items. We'll now move on to new business. Will the city clerk please sound the item? Mayor, that first new item business is consideration of a conflict waiver on behalf of Gerard and Davis LLP, recognizing that Gerard and Davis represents both Alpharetta and Milton and both will be required to participate in the upcoming service delivery strategy negotiation with Fulton County. It is agenda item number 26048, city attorney, Miss Angela Davis.

Thank you, Madame Clerk. Um, she stated it so well. There's not much more to add except that as you know, we represent both the city of Milton and the city of Alpharetta. Um, we're on the verge of kicking off or needing to kick off service delivery strategy negotiations and that will involve both of those cities being on the other side of the table from Fulton County. Um, because of ethical standards and requirements of our profession, it's important for us to disclose this potential conflict to you to let you know about it. um but we're seeking your waiver of that conflict um with the representation and assurance that if there was ever a direct conflict then we would absolutely advise you of that and would make plans to ensure that that the city's interests are protected. Um however in service delivery strategy negotiations which we do a lot of all over the state typically the cities are very much aligned um against the county um hate to say against but usually they share um uniform positions and very often they're all represented by the same council. Um so with that if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them but otherwise we would ask for your approval of the conflict waiver and again with the assurance we'll bring it back to you if we see any direct conflicts.

Thank you. Any uh council have any questions? Okay. Any public comment? There are none, sir. I close public comment and I'll open it for a motion. Mr. Mayor, make a motion we approve agenda item number 26-048. Second. Okay. I have a motion from council member Cookerly and a second from council member Jacobus to approve agenda item number 26-048. Please place your votes. Okay, that passes unanimously. Thank you. Um, if you would please say on the next item.

Mayor, that next item is consideration of a resolution extending the existing moratorum to February the 10th, 2026 on the acceptance of minor plats in the AG1 zoning district to create lots of 3 acres of I'm sorry, of less than 3 acres. It is agenda item number 2649. Miss Angela Davis.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Just as a matter of some background, um you'll recall that on January 5th, the council approved a limited period moratorum. Sometimes we call it an emergency moratorum that we do without any kind of public notice in advance. Those by law need to be for a very short duration. And so we um provided for that moratorum to last from January 5th to February 7th with the intention that tonight we would conduct a public hearing for consideration of an extended moratorum to allow staff and council to do all the investigation exploration of of amendments to the code as we intend and and need to do. Um unfortunately due to some publishing limitations with the legal Oregon we are required um to advertise a minimum of 15 days in advance of the meeting under the zoning procedures law and with the way the publication deadlines ran um we were not able to get that advertised to bring that to you tonight. So the first public hearing opportunity will be for your next meeting on February 9th. So the proposal tonight is for another very limited extension until February 10th to ensure we get you to the next meeting with this moratorum remaining in place. And then on February 9th, there will be a duly advertised public hearing that will come before the council for consideration of extending the moratorum to a longer period of time that you see fit.

Thank you. Perfect. Uh do we have any public comment on this? We do, mayor. Okay. I'd like to invite Mr. Mark San Francella to the podium, please. What's the uh time limit on new business? Five minutes. Okay. Yes,

I'll beat that for sure. Mr. Mayor, uh city council, good evening. Um my name is Mark Sanfell. I live at 300 Blackberry Ridge Trail. I've made comments previously on this matter. Uh I'm here tonight to uh to share concerns uh with city council about this ongoing AG1 uh zoning review. Uh particularly in light of the sequence uh of events after this the setback amendment that was considered and and voted down in the January 5th meeting and and this moratorum now that is followed. Um I I was initially I was very frustrated when I heard about the moratorum uh because uh to me and I think to those in attendance certainly didn't feel like uh a review of the AG1 zoning standards was a matter that was left unresolved after that meeting. Um and and because it's not resolved, I I want to reiterate my specific concern and primary concern about this. Um, and that relates to um, uh, what I have and many of my neighbors in Little River Estates um, have shared consistently, which is that if Milton does consider and approve any AG1 uh, development standards, that the city must uh, ensure that there's fairness and consistency and a specific carveout for any subdivisions underway, but not yet complete when any amendment might take place. I share I reinforce that because it it remains an open u matter and if I were sufficiently reinforced on that point I probably wouldn't taking be taking so u any of your valuable time here in public comment but um on to the concerns I'd like to express about this process first um I think there's a straightforward question that respectfully I think city council should answer related to this process

uh the city represented repeatedly that um there was a review and a study of the AG1 uh zoning standards that was ongoing for months that began at least as as late as early fall of last year. I participated many if not all of the sessions related to that. Of course, the the that study of the AG1 standard produced the proposed amendment that was voted on and defeated um in in January on at the 5th. Yet 4 days later, as you know, of course, uh city council approved an emergency moratorum um on on lawful development so that the city could conduct further or a different study to determine quote what issues may exist. Um the question I think that really should be answered respectfully is what prompted this moratorum? What did the city consider? What input did it receive? What didn't the city uncover in its prior monthslong review of the AG1 standards that resulted in an emergency moratorum that remains in place? I I believe that that's an important question that should be answered publicly and I'd respectfully submit that to you. I also have a plea again for facts as opposed to opinions. I've expressed in the past my concern that there's been no data set analysis or methodology that's ever been presented as a part of the prior AG1 study. uh prior presentations on the matter have relied really almost exclusively heavily certainly on opinions and perceptions and despite most multiple direct questions that I've witnessed from city council even relating to items that uh a data set that I pulled through a public information request and shared with the city there was still no no presentation

or acknowledgement of that data which is curious to me last week I received the survey that is now out it's what prompted my comments tonight. In my view, that survey risk perpetuating a process here

that um where you'll consider land use policy changes based on perceptions versus facts. Uh and I think the survey the survey asked for my opinion on whether or not I think a trend exists for larger homes and whether or not those homes are too big and what I think what problems I think exist. Look, the obvious problem here and concern is that that survey is structured in a way that could later be used as evidence of both a problem and a and a trend, but they've not been objectively, you know, verified for anyone. Third, I think there's perception and and neutrality concerns here uh that I I tell you what, I I will I will uh cut right to um my requested actions in the in the spirit of of time. I I'd ask city council for public disclosure of all data sets uh any analysis and the methodology that went into the prior AG1 study and what specifically the study is look the city is looking at now what's different

times expired thank you appreciate thank you any other public comment no sir that concludes public comment okay I'll close public comment uh any questions for staff so mortorium to February 9th And then um February 10th just to get you through the meeting and the public hearing would be conducted on February 9th pursuant to an advertisement that will run in the legal organ. Steve, February 9th, we're going to have staff's recommendations. That a fair assessment or

you're going to see a full analysis of of all the information including the results of that survey which was put out to almost 70 different stakeholders representing various constituencies. um as you heard from from one this evening. Um and it looks far beyond the original look which was at purely at front and rear setbacks. Um this is obviously a larger scope thing and we're going to see what we get in the responses and we're going to couple that information with other data sources, present that before you on the 9th and at that point the council can determine whether or not there is enough evidence for us to move forward with potential changes or not. Fair enough. Any other questions for staff? Okay. With that, I'll open it for a motion. Mr.

Mayor, I make a motion that we approve agenda item number 26-049. Second. Second. Okay. I have a motion from Council Cookerly and a second from Council Member Dolan to approve agenda item number 26-049. Voting is open. And that motion passes 6 to1. Thank you. All right. Council have anything to report on? Staff, anything? Okay, with that, I'll have a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Mayor, can we do that by electronic as well, too? Yes. I have a motion for council cranmer and a second from council member Jacobus. Uh, please place your votes.

That motion passes. It's going to pass.