Planning commission recommends denial of Madewell Builders' two‑lot rezoning on Milton Avenue over stream‑buffer and stormwater concerns

The Alpharetta Planning Commission on Sept. 4 recommended denial of a rezoning and variance request from Madewell Builders that would have rezoned a 1.34‑acre parcel at 0 Milton Avenue from SU (special use) to R‑12 and subdivided it into two single‑family lots. Staff recommended denial, citing potential negative impacts to a perennial tributary of Faux Killer Creek and downstream properties, and the commission voted to forward that recommendation to City Council for final action on Sept. 22.

City staff presented the application and explained the proposal would create two lots (Lot 1: 0.60 acre with a proposed building footprint of about 7,000 square feet; Lot 2: 0.73 acre with ~5,200 square‑foot footprint). The applicant requested variances to reduce the front building setback from 65 feet to 24 feet, reduce side setbacks from 10 feet to 8 feet, and shrink the perennial stream buffer and impervious setback from 150 feet to 75 feet. Staff said much of the current 150‑foot buffer covers the property and that the applicant proposed to provide a buffer mitigation area equal to two times the encroachment area (roughly 1.34 acres) to be planted with buffer‑enhancement landscaping and live stakes. That mitigation area would include parts of the two proposed lots, the adjacent 249 Milton Avenue parcel and land across the stream on the Innovation Academy property.

Staff told the commission the city stormwater engineer reviewed the mitigation and concluded it would not offset the proposed encroachment’s impacts on the tributary, potentially increasing flow velocity and water quality impacts downstream. Staff also said the applicant had not provided a hydrology or detailed drainage analysis in support of the mitigation. Public comments submitted to staff raised concerns about tree removal, construction traffic, runoff, erosion, loss of habitat and flood risk; the applicant’s community meeting raised concerns about construction impacts and a nearby bee colony on the Innovation Academy property.

Applicant representatives — Tory Young of Madewell Builders and civil engineer Bill Rouse of On‑Site Civil — told the commission they had prepared a mitigation plan and preliminary sizing for underground detention and intended to use jack‑and‑bore construction to extend sewer to 249 Milton Avenue while minimizing tree impacts. Rouse said Alpharetta’s stormwater ordinance requires that a development not increase downstream flows and that, with properly sized detention, the project would not increase flows to downstream properties. He also said the existing stream buffer along the site is sparse and that their proposed planting and mitigation would improve buffer quality even though the buffer width would be reduced.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on technical details: staff and commissioners noted the absence of a full hydrology report to demonstrate that the proposed underground detention and other measures would prevent increased flow or velocity downstream; one commissioner asked whether underground detention is maintained and at whose cost (applicant said maintenance is the homeowner’s responsibility and that vacuuming and cleaning of underground systems is performed on an annual schedule); another questioned whether running sewer near specimen trees might harm roots over time despite jack‑and‑bore methods. Staff said the applicant was encouraged to consider a single lot rezoning as an alternative because one larger lot would likely reduce impacts and still be consistent with the low‑density residential future‑land‑use designation.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to deny Z‑25‑04 / V‑25‑04 (Madewell / Milton Avenue tract); the motion was seconded and carried. The Planning Commission’s recommendation of denial will be considered by City Council on Sept. 22. Staff’s report and the record show the denial recommendation rests on the variance review criteria (hardship not demonstrated) and concern that proposed mitigation—without a hydrology study and with substantial buffer reduction—would not adequately protect the tributary and downstream properties.

The applicant may choose to revise the proposal, submit additional technical studies (hydrology/drainage analysis and detailed detention sizing), or pursue alternatives (for example, a single‑lot design) before the City Council hearing or in a future application.