Milton council and planning commission review ‘Destination Deerfield’ plan; seek guidance on incentives, housing mix and open-space rules

City of Milton staff told a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on Feb. 10 that the city’s Destination Deerfield implementation plan is intended to guide redevelopment on roughly 320 acres in the Deerfield district and asked for direction on six decision points, including whether to allow incentive density in lieu of buying Transfer of Development Rights, how strictly to enforce the 50/50 nonresidential-residential ratio for multifamily and townhome proposals, and whether stormwater facilities that are designed as public amenities may count as open space.

The presentation was led by a city staff member identified in the meeting as Bob Bishimi, who described the plan as a long-range effort to knit retail, office and new housing together around Highway 9 and several larger redevelopment parcels. “We are calling this project, for the purposes of the project, Destination Deerfield,” Bishimi said, summarizing the study’s emphasis on subdistricts, a multiuse trail network and a mix of uses that would preserve retail space along the corridor.

The plan responds to developer interest on multiple large sites and to the council’s request for a districtwide approach rather than piecemeal approvals. Staff said the study identified 10 potential redevelopment sites totalling about 320 acres, including the Verizon campus, the H Building site, Fry’s/Target shopping areas and the Stone Creek Church property. Staff noted the district currently is largely residential by land area and that Milton’s overall tax base is about 11% commercial and 89% residential.

One early procedural matter: Councilmember Doug Haney recused himself from decisions that would directly affect Stone Creek Church because he holds a leadership role at the church. “Any decision points regarding how the Deerfield plan impacts the church will be for the other council members to recommend and determine,” Haney said. He added he would vote on any final implementation item that affects the broader district because it “affects many properties above and beyond Stone Creek Church.”

On the first decision point, staff proposed allowing developers to earn bonus density by providing public amenities—such as civic space, trailheads, broad pedestrian bridges or parking structures—rather than purchasing all additional density through the city’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Staff pointed to prior local examples, including a parking-structure density credit in Crabapple and the Mayfield lake/park, as precedents where incentive density produced publicly accessible amenities without the city issuing bonds or building and maintaining the facilities itself.

Councilmembers and commissioners broadly described the incentive concept as promising if it keeps benefits in Deerfield and reduces the city’s capital burden. One council member summarized the view: incentives “keep the value or the benefit created within the district” while shifting construction and maintenance costs to developers. Staff said incentive density would not remove the base density that zoning already permits and that incentive density would be blended with, not additive to, TDR purchases up to the maximum allowed for a given transect zone.

On the 50/50 ratio for multifamily and townhome projects, staff said the code currently requires developments that include multifamily or townhomes to keep roughly half of allowed density devoted to nonresidential uses (retail/office) to protect the district’s limited commercial land. Staff showed developer concept plans with widely varying mixes (examples included 98/2, 70/30 and 50/50 splits) and said achieving 50/50 on narrow Highway 9-fronting parcels is more difficult than on large sites. Commissioners and council members expressed preference for keeping the 50/50 requirement citywide while clarifying the nonresidential component should be active retail/office rather than storage or light-industrial uses.

On housing type along Highway 9 and in the city’s T6 transect, staff asked whether townhomes should be allowed by use permit. Currently, the code allows vertically integrated multifamily along Highway 9 but generally excludes townhomes on Highway 9; staff said allowing townhomes via use permit would give the city flexibility to approve designs that maintain a commercial frontage and place for-sale housing behind retail. Several council members and commissioners supported allowing townhomes and other for-sale housing types subject to a use permit and DRB review so the council/planning commission can assess design, buffering and whether townhomes face the highway or are set behind a linear park.

The group also signaled support for counting stormwater facilities toward open-space requirements if the facility is designed and constructed as a publicly accessible amenity and meets maintenance and design standards. Staff cited prior local examples where amenitized stormwater/detention areas provided public benefit in exchange for credits toward open-space requirements.

Finally, staff asked whether the front portion of the Stone Creek Church property should be rezoned to a T5 corridor designation consistent with adjacent parcels. Staff said the church has existing open space and that a T5 designation could facilitate retail along Highway 9 with housing behind it; Haney recused himself from decisions that directly affect the church because of his leadership role there.

Public comment was brief. Resident Laura Bentley of 2500 Bethany Church Road told the group she supported “fee simple, higher density townhomes, away from condos,” preservation of retail, and better linkage to existing large green spaces near Deerfield. “We want to retain our retail space. We want to be sure that we are visionary in all that we do,” Bentley said.

No formal votes or ordinance changes were taken at the session. Staff said they will incorporate the direction and return with draft text amendments and a schedule for formal public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council; staff estimated the text-amendment process could take several months with a possible council hearing in June if the timeline holds.

What the council asked staff to do next: draft specific incentive definitions (for example, quantifying the density credit for civic space, structured parking, trailheads and other public amenities), provide fiscal analysis comparing different ratio outcomes (50/50 versus alternate splits), and present site-specific examples to the Planning Commission for design review.

For the record, the items discussed were part of a single joint work session agenda item titled the Deerfield implementation plan; the meeting included staff presentations, public comment and extended Q&A and direction from the council and Planning Commission.