this summary is provided as a convenience and service to ... · claudia bilotta, marta) work...

Work Session of the Milton City Council Monday, July 14,2014 at 6:00 pm of22

This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction ofthis summary must include this notice. Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record ofthe Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded.

The Work Session of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on July 14, 2014 at 6:00PM.

Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Matt Kunz, Councilmember Bill Lusk, Councilmember Burt Hewitt, and Council member Joe Longoria.

Councilmembers Absent: Councilmember Rick Mohrig.

Mayor Joe Lockwood: • Work Sessions are an informal setting to update Council on business items. • No votes will be taken during these sessions. • There are seven (7) items on our Agenda tonight. • Public comment is allowed that is germane to an Agenda Item. • If you wish to speak you are required to fill out a comment card and tum it into the City Clerk

staff. • Public comment will be allowed for a total of 10 minutes per agenda item and no more than 2

minutes per person. • Public comment will be heard at the beginning of each Item. • Once the item is called, no other comment cards will be accepted.

Agenda Item #1 was read.

1. Presentation of MARTA's Georgia 400 Transit Initiative Update. (Mark Eatman, Janide Sidifall & Claudia Bilotta, MARTA)


Agenda

• Where we are

• What we ve heard

• W hat s next

Work Session of the Milton City Council Monday, July 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm of22


Conlest.ion re ll.

Environmerall benefiU

li nd us-e

Economic development

Medium-Low

Medlum-tfrg h

Med ium

Medium-Low

Med ium-Low

Med ium-Low

MrS Ii

Med um-Low Med ium

Medium-Low Medium

Medium Med ium

Med ium High

Med um-l ow Med ium

Med ium-Low

...........


Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlet Oak Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004 MARTA has been talking about being in the North Fulton area since the early 1980's when I moved here. It is now 2014. One of the problems I have is that they are planning to stop at Windward. I am really concerned that if Windward is the last stop, it could add a lot more traffic in this area. Windward would be the impact point for Forsyth and Cherokee counties. I think we could ask them to do a North Springs exit point just like they did at Northridge. They also mentioned having dedicated entrance and exit lanes to the potential Windward station which would be another big impact to the area. Another issue is all the walkers who get off at the stopping point in addition to a lot of taxis, buses, etc. In addition, a Park and Ride like what they have at Mansell will also create additional traffic and congestion. I am very disappointed that there are not any discussion meetings being held in the North Fulton area.


2. Discussion of Highway 9 Cross Section/Corridor. (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)

Brenda Hemphill, 12960 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004 We have spoken to neighbors who weren't even aware of this project. Therefore, we have been sending out flyers and knocking on doors to get the word out. We need your help to guide, direct, and influence GDOT. We can't do this without you. If Milton doesn't gather us together and try to influence GDOT on what would be best for the city and the vision, we won't be able to do it.

Rich Kernan, 13950 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004 Most of the businesses along Highway 9 seem excited that GDOT is going to widen the road because of all the traffic. Well, then they discover that GDOT is also going to build a 24 foot wide raised median down the center with a very limited number of breaks which will prevent left turn into your business or left turn out of your business. And, most of the responses I have gotten are, "What?" Let's really make sure that residents, business owners, etc. understand how this project will impact them. On the local level when there is a project such as an assisted living center being built, put up a billboard, etc. the property owners in the area would get a letter in the mail letting them know specifically what is going to happen and ask them to come to community meetings and give their input. A GDOT project does not work like that. Before we jump to a one size fits all solution, let's really think about how this is going to impact Milton.

Richard Bognar, 14100 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am the owner ofCJ's Talk of the Town. We are a new business and I realize that this project will not be complete for several years; however, the proposed plan could potentially put us out of business. We are a small retail store. GDOT has probably done this type of project many times. I would like to know if they could put together a plan for Milton to see upfront. I know they have done something similar for other conununities. I would just appreciate you looking out for the businesses in Milton. I am very concerned about how this project will impact local businesses.

Work Session of the Milton City Council Monday, July 14,2014 at6:00 pm of22

Ben Browning, 13895 Hopewell Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 The widening of Highway 9 will have dire consequences on my business. I am the store manager of North Fulton Feed and Seed. The proposed median will not allow ease of access for my business. Our customers will be forced into taking a possible dangerous U-turn at two busy intersections. Highway 9 needs expansion but not at the risk of Milton businesses losing precious revenue. The City of Milton should allow its small businesses to grow alongside the city. This proposal needs to be reexamined with Milton businesses in mind. Thank you.

Carter Lucas, Public Works Director One thing that is really important regarding all of the comments tonight, unlike our local projects, this is a ODOT sponsored project. It is very important that all of those comments are submitted to ODOT for their review. This is a much bigger project than just Milton. It extends from Upper Hembree Road to State Route 20 in Cumming. It is seven different projects with our project being the last one programmed in this overall phase. From a regional standpoint, you can see from the drawing in front of you that this is a very important corridor. It is a parallel corridor to OA 400 and is the only relief to OA 400 from a vehicular standpoint. So, widening the corridor and increasing the level of service in this region is vitally important to ODOT. We can see from the traffic count, which is anywhere from 17,000 to 22,000 cars per day just in the Milton area, current growth rates are projecting the area to have anywhere from 25,000 to 32,000 cars per day by 2042. It is a long construction and design schedule. The concept report should be completed in late 2014, the environmental studies are anticipated to be completed jn 2016, and once those are completed there wjll be another ODOT public hearjng. These are standard procedures for most of their projects. Right of way would begin in 2019. Construction is scheduled to being in 2022 with completion in 2024. I wanted to give you some background about how we got to this point. I wanted to go back and review a lot of the studies that had been done along this corridor through the city. We reviewed the input that was received from various stakeholders and community groups through that process. We provided all of that information to ODOT so they could use a lot of the work that had previously been done within the community to build on developing their current cross-section. This project consists of not only improving vehicular movement but also encompasses pedestrian, bicycle, and other forms of transportation along the corridor. Most of the ideas began back in 2009 with the development of our Transportation Master Plan. That was a big picture of the overall transportation components within the city. It identified widening this corridor to four lanes. To the extent of the overall plan, that is as far as the plan went. The exception to Highway 9 was a section from Bethany Bend up to the Forsyth County line where we began to look at a pilot study on access management within the Highway 9 corridor. This is jmportant from both an operational standpoint as well as a safety standpoint. This study began to look at ways to consolidate entrances, access to various properties, and to promote inter-parcel access along the corridor. The more you can control the access points, the safer the corridor becomes.

Work Session of the Milton City Council Monday, July 14,2014 at 6:00 pm Page II of22

2013 /!JDT n,ooo (LOS f) 2042 ADT 32,000 (LOS F)

Becin Project Upper Hembr~ ReI

"'

... "

"

CTP Recommendations


CTP Access Management Pilot Study...

Highway 9 Design Guidelines

FIGURE 2 . Ex mph~ of typkallOtr -pale I cc ss· not to scale


8' 10'

Sidewalk Landscape Strip


\Viden to -I lanes .:md .J.d.d ~""n from H"mby Road in Forsyth Couney co Academy Su~t (mciude-s bic.yde ;Ifld

• S' , ide\'r.Jk an.d buffer m.1Y \'.:Jry

• 5' bike l.anoes may be ~pb.ced v.ritb Qlulu-use sidep.atb

,. ~1edlao width may \'ary

North Fulton

IIIMSIIIIIID!llmCI

_ WIll PIIlIMI

• Alpw.-!t.I •Jow C....k • Ro"....U

• ~dma • $.all ~· Sprin" • Ar.U1!.t.l R.rion.aJ. Commi»LOU


PROGRAMM[O

WIDENE:D fROM. [I) 4 LAtAh

~OUTHBOUND LAN£

LONG RANGE


Highway 9 widening

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is working on plans to widen State Route 9 from

Alpharetta to Cumming. Currently, the project section, Windward Parkway to Fulton / Forsyth

County line, is in the conceptual design phase. The City of Milton is coordinating with GDOT to

design the Milton segment in a way that complements the neighborhood character along the

route. Access control along State Route 9 would also be evaluated during the project. Meetings

are planned for early 2014 to present and discuss the concept with the community.

As part of the community input from this visioning process, it was suggested that a traffic signal

be placed at the entrance to the Crooked Creek subdivision.

Crooked Creek

Subdivision

SR 9 N VISION PLAN Proposed LIVABLE CENTERS INITIATIVE STUDY

GDOT Design Guidelines

• Complete Streets - Significant bicycle and pedestrian route

• Design speed 45 mph, requesting posted speed 35 mph

Table 6.3. Median Options for Arterials (Including GRIP Corridors)

Median WIdth

OHlgn Speeds :Ii '$ mph

~ne sectJOn 1" ,1'1 meG an, ~ne ~( . . rned , ' 2O-fI or 24. n:uwd med :

ADT (B... Year)

_ 18.000

ADT (Design Ytar)

_ 2': .000

24.000

24 000 ------~----------~-------


Proposed Typical Section

This is the proposed typical section that was presented at the community information meeting in May 2014. GOOT increased the bicycle and pedestrian capabilities on this road to bring the features more conducive to the LCI visioning studies.

The city's first Public Information Meeting was held on May 21 , 2014. There were 101 attendees. GOOT Comment Card Results 'Do you support the project?'

• 12 Opposed • 9 In Support • 6 Conditional

It is very important for people to submit their comments to GOOT. Comments should be submitted to the project manager, Derrick Brown at [email protected].

We conducted our own survey with the following results:

• 71 In support • 20 Not in support

mailto:[email protected]


Do you support the widening of SR 9? 9 't(.~ Q No

71 ~J

ODOT has seen great success with putting medians along highways in the past. Traffic flow has improved, accidents have decreased, pedestrian and bicycle capability has improved, etc. In general, ODOT is in favor of these types of highways because of the overall improvements.


3. Discussion ofRZ14-05 - To Amend Article VI, Division 23 - CUP (Community Unit Plan) District. (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)

Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlet Oak Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004 I always look at why an ordinance is being changed or amended. Is it making a code better or worse? Some of the best communities that we have in the city are CUP; Crooked Creek, White Columns, Triple Crown, etc. The attributes that I see in those communities are not represented in the RR Zoning District that is being considered as a replacement to CUP. In many ways the amendment will be a detriment to a developer who wants to develop a good quality community. The biggest issues I see are changing the distances between the side yards and the lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage on any lot in this new RR District is 20%. That is a very small amount of land. The most important reason that the city passed


a moratorium on CUP is so that you could come up with some type of solution of how you can address the CUP. I don't think we are really addressing the issues with this amendment. The major issue I saw when developers requested the CUP was to bring the house closer to the street and minimize the side or rear setbacks that way you could save more trees in the back of the home. Keeping a code in the code book always gives a community more flexibility. One day someone may look back and wonder why we don't have a CUP.

Kathleen Field, Community Development Director I am going to speak to the CUP and the NUP, which is our next discussion item, since they are directly related to one another. The proposed deletion of the CUP (Community Unit Plan) district and the NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan) district is in response to the zoning moratorium that is currently in place for these two zoning districts. The reasoning behind the proposed deletion of the CUP district is so that staff can guide the development community to a more reasonable development when it involves nonsewered areas of the city. Currently, the applicant can request almost any minimum setback and there is a perception that by drastically reducing the setbacks the development yields additional lots. In addition, there is a misconception that non-residential and multi-use family uses are permitted by right. The CUP district was intended to provide flexibility to a large parcel. A good example is Crooked Creek Subdivision where there are pods of development with various sized parcels and setbacks. This was accomplished through one zoning district instead of the developer requesting various ones to accomplish the same result. Since the city adopted the form based code for the Crabapple and Highway 9 areas and will be working on a form based code for the Arnold Mill area in the next six months, they will provide similar flexibility as the CUP did in the past. Staff is proposing a new zoning district, RR (Rural Residential) pursuant to RZ14-08 which is replacing the existing R2 Residential District. We believe that this newly created district will be a compromise between the proposed deleted CUP and AG-l district. Staff has included a comparison chart to illustrate this point. In regard to the NUP, this district requires that development be a minimum of four acres and no larger than 12 acres in size. This is the smaller version of the CUP district. Similar to the CUP, it has historically provided flexibility for small tracts of land but the newly adopted form based codes provide for this flexibility, therefore, staff recommends that this district be deleted for future requests for the NUP district. The Planning Commission recommended approving the deletion of the CUP and NUP districts on June 25, 2014 as recommended by staff. The city attorney recommended that there is need to keep these two districts since there are existing zonings within the city. Instead, there is a revision that there shall not be any additional requests for CUP and NUP zoning districts. So, on the ordinance we allowed for the properties that were originally zoned for either CUP or NUP to be grand fathered in but after July 21 S\ no additional property shall be rezoned to the CUP or NUP districts.

Agenda Item #4 was combined with Agenda Item #3 for discussion purposes.

4. Discussion ofRZ14-06 - To Amend Article VI, Division 24 - NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan) District. (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)



5. Discussion ofRZ14-07 - To Amend Article VI, Division 13 - TR (Townhouse Residential) District. (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)

Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlet Oak Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004 On the TR, just like the CUP and NUP, I am not sure why we are changing it. Again, this is a moratorium involving TR; however, I see some very good quality townhomes especially in the Crabapple area that are well over the height regulation of 28 feet. Again, with most of these houses having a garage, first floor which is the main floor, and bedrooms on top with 10 foot ceilings, they will be well above the 28 feet. The old regulation was 40 feet so I don ' t understand why you want to change it. I have the same issue with minimum lot width changing from 20 to 25. Also, the setbacks are being changed. The minimum front yard was 20 feet from the right of way now the minimum frontage is 40 feet. So, instead of a townhome having essentially a car width in front of it, it will now be moved further back which means the lots will become longer and deeper. What makes that better? The change is also requiring open space. Only 50% of the total land can be in building and parking. Also, why are you reducing the number of dwelling per unit in a single building from 20 to 6? Maybe, it should be 8 or 10 but the city has some very nice townhomes that are 8-10 units in one long building. I just don' t understand why we are making these changes.

Kathleen Field, Community Development Director The proposed amendment of the TR Townhouse Residential district is in response to the zoning moratorium that is currently in place for this zoning district. Currently, the way that the district is written, detached single family residences are permitted. In the past, this has caused confusion with the public. It is assumed that only townhouse products are permitted to be developed. With the proposed amendments, staff has deleted the allowance of detached single family units to be developed. The existing R-5A Residential District provides the comparable district that the TR allowed before for detached single family development. Staff has also included some additional development requirements such as open space, rear loading units adjacent to exterior streets and a height requirement to be consistent with other residential districts recently or concurrently being amended. It is staffs opinion that this would not create any future problems for the development community. In addition, the form based code and the Highway 9 and Crabapple areas provide the needed tools to develop a townhouse project. The only area of the city that is not within the form based code areas and would have potential rezoning to a TR district is Bethany Bend between Highway 9 and Morris Road. The Planning Commission recommended improving the proposed amendment to the TR district on June 25 , 2014 as recommended by the staff. You have the proposed changes in front of you and, as you can see, we took out references to single family dwellings. The TR and the R-5A were redundant. We changed the height requirement to a maximum of 28 feet from average finished grade to the bottom of the roof eave. We require a minimum of 1,000 square feet of open space. We require that 80% of any common wall shall be contiguous with each adjoining unit. When units are located on property adjacent to an exterior street, they should provide rear loaded vehicular access and the front fac;ade shall face the exterior street of the development. Each unit shall provide two off street parking spaces within the principal structure.

Work Session of the Milton City Council Monday, July )4,2014 at 6:00 pm of22


6. Discussion of RZ14-08 - To Amend Article VI, Division 4 - R-2 (Single Family Residential) District. (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)

Walter Rekuc, 615 Scarlet Oak Trail, Milton, Georgia 30004 Again, if we review the spreadsheet we have a height situation where it is 2 stories and 28 feet. I don't think we need to be in the business of height restrictions especially in this zoning classification for AG-l or what could have been a CUP. I am very concerned about the lot width and the side yard setback that is being proposed. Most of these changes do not make sense to me. What is the open space going to be used for? I would not make reference to "gang mailboxes" in any of our ordinances. It is way too early to determine that procedure and make that a requirement. Let the U.S. Postal Service give us direction on that issue. How will firemen and policemen be able to locate houses without a number in front of them? I am strongly against architectural review. If I were making changes, I would go back to AG-l and change it to show that the front yard setback, rear yard setback, and side yard setbacks for interior streets that houses could be moved up closer instead of trying to create a whole new RR zoning.

Kathleen Field, Community Development Director The proposed amendment to the R-2 single family residential district is in response to the zoning moratorium that is currently in place. Staff is recommending that a new zoning district, RR Rural Residential, replace the existing R-2. RR is similar to the AG-l district with the exception of requiring smaller side and rear minimum yard setbacks. It is staffs opinion that this newly created district will be a compromise between the proposed deleted CUP and the AG-l district as previously discussed. Staff has included a comparison chart to illustrate the differences between the RR, CUP and AG-l districts. The proposed RR district standards allow the developer to have flexibility in designing the development. For example, if there is a specimen tree or a problem with percolation of the property for septic, the house placement can be moved as close as 10 feet from the side property line, however, the adjacent lot must provide a minimum of 40 feet for total building separation of 50 feet which is consistent with the traditional AG-l minimum 25 foot setback for each lot. For front and rear minimum setbacks, staff has proposed 20 feet and 40 feet, respectively. To ensure protection of adjacent development or lots, a 50 foot perimeter setback is required. With this flexibility, but not as flexible as the CUP district, staff believes a development can be constructed that further preserves trees, tree lines, or other significant natural features of the property. Another addition to the proposed district is the rural view shed and minimum lot coverage not to exceed 20%. Lastly, staff has recommended that open space for recreational facilities be required based on the size of the development. The Planning Commission recommended approving the proposed amendment to the R-2 district by creating a new RR district on June 25, 2014 as recommended by staff.

After much discussion, the City Manager stated that if everyone had agreed on the proposed text amendments then the moratorium currently in place could lapse, however, since these items will not pass quickly in their current form, the moratorium will have to continue. Also, it is further recommended that these items be deferred at the next regularly scheduled meeting in order to further discuss them at the next regularly scheduled work session. In addition, the Rural Overlay that was adopted in June 2014 needs to be reviewed to ensure that action is not taken that will create a conflict in our code. At the next regularly scheduled work session, the City Manager will bring the changes that are being asked for tonight in parallel with the overlay to ensure cohesiveness in our zoning code.

Work Session of the Milton City Council Monday, July 14, 2014 at6 :00 pm of22


7. Discussion ofRZ14-09 - To Amend Article VI, Division 5 - R-2A (Single Family Residential) District. (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director)

Kathleen Field, Community Development Director The Community Development Department recommends withdrawal of the proposed text amendment based on the fact that there is not enough need to amend the zoning district. It was inadvertently included in the districts under the zoning moratorium currently in place. We respectively ask that this item be taken out of consideration.

After no further discussion, the Work Session adjourned at 8: 15 p.m.

Date Approved: August 18,2014.

Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk Joe Lock

this summary is provided as a convenience and service to ... · claudia bilotta, marta) work...

Documents