Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet CC - 12/05/2016 - CITY COUNCIL MEETING PACKET 12-5-2016
Joe Lockwood, Mayor CITY COUNCIL Karen Thurman Matt Kunz Bill Lusk Burt Hewitt Joe Longoria Rick Mohrig CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS City Hall, Suite 107E Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular Council Meeting Agenda 6:00 PM INVOCATION - Jason Howard, Stonecreek Church, Milton, Georgia CALL TO ORDER 1) ROLL CALL 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by Mayor Joe Lockwood) 3) APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Add or remove items from the agenda) (Agenda Item No. 16-278) 4) PUBLIC COMMENT MILTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Persons needing special accommodations in order to participate in any City meeting should call 678-242-2500. 5) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the September 19, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes. (Agenda Item No. 16-279) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk) 2. Approval of the October 3, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes. (Agenda Item No. 16-280) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk) 3. Approval of the Financial Statements for the Period Ending October, 2016. (Agenda Item No. 16-281) (Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director) 6) REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation Recognizing National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. (Presented by Councilmember Bill Lusk) 2. Recognition and Presentation of City of Milton “Five” Year Anniversary Pins to, Glenn Addison, Christopher Bradshaw, Christine Doss, Kathleen Field, Jason Griffin, Mark Haskins, Jamila Jones, Walker Mann, Andrew Noblett, Amanda Quintana, Jared Richardson. (Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood) 3. Proclamation Recognizing Arbor Day. (Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood) 7) FIRST PRESENTATION 1. Consideration of RZ16-07 – To Amend the AG-1 (Agricultural) District Regarding Paved and Unpaved Roads in Chapter 64, Article VI, Division 2, in Sec. 64-416. Development Standards. (Agenda Item No. 16-282) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director) 2. Consideration of RZ16-08 – To Amend the Definitions Regarding Paved and Unpaved Roads in Chapter 64, Article I, in Sec. 64-1. Definitions. (Agenda Item No. 16-283) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director) MILTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Persons needing special accommodations in order to participate in any City meeting should call 678-242-2500. 3. Consideration of RZ16-09 – To Amend the Deerfield Form Based Code in Chapter 64-1141(c). (Agenda Item No. 16-284) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director) 4. Consideration to Amend Chapter 50, Article III, Division 1, Sec. 50-71 Compliance with City Procedures and Guidelines Required. (Paved and Unpaved Roads.) (Agenda Item No. 16-285) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director) 8) PUBLIC HEARING ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION PUBLIC HEARING 1. Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Barnyard Spirits, LLC, dba Barnyard Spirits, 15840 Birmingham Highway, Milton, Georgia 30004 (Agenda Item No. 16-286) (Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director) 9) ZONING AGENDA (None) 10) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of an Ordinance Reaffirming and Establishing Chapter 46 of the Milton Code of Ordinances Governing Solid Waste Collection Services within the City of Milton. (Agenda Item No. 16-269) (First Presentation at November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting) (Teresa Stickels, Sustainability Coordinator) 11) NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the 2017 City of Milton City Council Regular Meeting and Work Session Schedule. (Agenda Item No. 16-287) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk) MILTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Persons needing special accommodations in order to participate in any City meeting should call 678-242-2500. 2. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the 2016 City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan. (Agenda Item No. 16-288) (Presented at October 3, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting) (Discussed at October 10, 2016 City Council Work Session) (Carter Lucas, Assistant City Manager) 3. Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend the Charter of the City of Mil ton for the Purpose of Clarifying Section 1.12(b)(40)(A) and Section 6.11(b). (Agenda Item No. 16-244) (Discussed under New Business at October 17, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting) (Ratified Under New Business at November 21, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting) (Ken Jarrard, City Attorney) 4. Consideration of a Resolution Establishing a Charter Commission for the City of Milton, Georgia. (Agenda Item No. 16-289) (Ken Jarrard, City Attorney) 12) MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 13) STAFF REPORTS 1. Public Works 2. Fire 3. Finance 14) EXECUTIVE SESSION (if needed) 15) ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 16-290) The minutes were provided electronically I NOME OF'THE BEST OUALItt OF LIEO M I LTON ESTABLISHED 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: November 22, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager A AGENDA ITEM: Approval of the Financial Statements for the Period Ending October, 2016. MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: (PROVED 1)NOTAPPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: (/ YES (4-1!P CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: (/ YES () NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY: () APPROVED (/ NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: Ixtofh0t6 REMARKS: y Your PHONE: 678.24225001 FAX: 678.242.2499 Green • .�,�,;, info®dtyolmiNonga.uslwww.aHyoTmilfonga.ua �� Communitysjk } 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 - `E^^,.,o • To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director Date: Submitted on November 28, 2016 for the December 5, 2016 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Item: Financial Statements for Period 1 – October 2016 Overview and Financial Highlights: General Fund Revenue collections for the General Fund are 11.87% over what is anticipated for the first period of the fiscal year. Please remember as you look at the financial statements that there are several revenue sources whose collections in the first two periods of a new fiscal year will be accrued back to the previous fiscal year. It is a generally accepted accounting principle to apply the revenue to the period it is intended for. Total expenditures to-date are $2,914,323 and are 9.34% less than expected for this period of the fiscal year. Capital Project Fund Expenditures within this fund continue to occur on a project-by-project basis. With a total project expenditure budget of $23,581,831, capital expenditures-to-date total $500,189. 1 of 10 City of Milton STATEMENT OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES General Fund For the Period Ending October 2016 Actual Budgeted Variance over/(under)Actual Budgeted Variance over/(under) Property Tax 10,668,000 2,932 - 2,932 2,932 - 2,932 Motor Vehicle Tax 542,000 - - - - - - Intangible Tax 250,000 - - - - - - Real Estate Transfer Tax 115,000 - - - - - - Franchise Fees 1,915,900 - - - - - - Local Option Sales Tax 8,400,000 - - - - - - Alcohol Beverage Excise Tax 295,000 - - - - - - Business & Occupation Tax 650,000 1,122 - 1,122 1,122 - 1,122 Insurance Premium Tax 1,800,000 - - - - - - Financial Institution Tax 46,000 - - - - - - Penalties & Interest 33,400 735 2,032 (1,297) 735 2,032 (1,297) Alcohol Beverage Licenses 140,000 6,750 14,000 (7,250) 6,750 14,000 (7,250) Other Non-Business Permits/Licenses 19,485 2,149 1,350 799 2,149 1,350 799 Zoning & Land Disturbance Permits 217,200 2,550 18,093 (15,543) 2,550 18,093 (15,543) Building Permits 480,000 32,264 48,000 (15,736) 32,264 48,000 (15,736) Intergovernmental Revenue - - - - - - - Other Charges for Service 519,700 54,868 42,799 12,068 54,868 42,799 12,068 Municipal Court Fines 560,000 66,530 57,752 8,778 66,530 57,752 8,778 Interest Earnings 30,420 4,984 2,535 2,449 4,984 2,535 2,449 Contributions & Donations - 15,010 - 15,010 15,010 - 15,010 Other Revenue 140,612 40,198 11,575 28,623 40,198 11,575 28,623 Other Financing Sources 1,017,126 59,360 60,610 (1,250) 59,360 60,610 (1,250) Total Revenues 27,839,843 289,450 258,745 30,705 289,450 258,745 30,705 Actual Budgeted Variance over/(under)Actual Budgeted Variance over/(under) Mayor and Council 166,759 17,570 19,587 (2,017) 17,570 19,587 (2,017) City Clerk 207,077 16,552 21,041 (4,489) 16,552 21,041 (4,489) City Manager 691,336 56,779 61,382 (4,603) 56,779 61,382 (4,603) General Administration 72,818 1,871 6,112 (4,241) 1,871 6,112 (4,241) Finance 452,793 31,900 46,928 (15,028) 31,900 46,928 (15,028) Legal 290,000 - - - - - - Information Technology 921,534 137,975 136,906 1,069 137,975 136,906 1,069 Human Resources 334,445 17,926 28,697 (10,771) 17,926 28,697 (10,771) Risk Management 283,300 131,778 131,775 3 131,778 131,775 3 General Government Buildings 474,354 34,146 48,142 (13,995) 34,146 48,142 (13,995) Communications 205,479 7,836 19,707 (11,872) 7,836 19,707 (11,872) Community Outreach & Engagement 152,443 8,001 12,453 (4,452) 8,001 12,453 (4,452) Municipal Court 298,347 25,454 24,907 547 25,454 24,907 547 Police 4,430,315 378,107 403,490 (25,383) 378,107 403,490 (25,383) Fire 6,559,155 510,193 615,932 (105,739) 510,193 615,932 (105,739) Public Works 2,427,495 181,509 210,831 (29,321) 181,509 210,831 (29,321) Parks & Recreation 1,430,360 61,687 88,799 (27,112) 61,687 88,799 (27,112) Community Development 952,840 60,205 82,426 (22,221) 60,205 82,426 (22,221) Economic Development 179,869 9,186 20,581 (11,394) 9,186 20,581 (11,394) Debt Service - Capital Lease Payment 718,112 726,400 718,112 8,288 726,400 718,112 8,288 Operating Transfers to Other Funds 6,003,930 499,249 499,249 - 499,249 499,249 - Operating Reserve 212,228 - 17,679 (17,679) - 17,679 (17,679) Total expenditures 27,464,989 2,914,323 3,214,733 (300,410)2,914,323 3,214,733 (300,410) Net Income/(Loss)374,854 (2,624,873)(2,624,873) Revenues Annual Budget Current Month Year-to-Date Operating Expenditures Annual Budget Current Month Year-to-Date 2 of 10 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Earth Day Vendor Fee 305$ -$ -$ (305)$ Hometown Jubilee Vendor Fee - - - - Interest Revenues - 0 0 0 Crabapple Fest Sponsor 8,000 - - (8,000) Earth Day Sponsor 2,550 - - (2,550) Concert Sponsor - - - - Mayor's Run Sponsor 1,000 - - (1,000) Donations/MGG - - - - T-shirt Sales - - - - Mayor's Run Reg. Fees - - - - Roundup Food Sales - - - - Total revenues 11,855$ 0$ 0$ (11,855)$ EXPENDITURES Current: Special Events 75,065$ 738,618$ 7,386$ 67,679$ Total Expenditures 75,065$ 738,618$ 7,386$ 67,679$ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in from Genera; Fund 10,550$ 879$ 879$ (9,671)$ Transfers in from Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 47,000$ -$ -$ (47,000)$ Total other financing sources and uses 57,550$ 879$ 879$ (56,671)$ Net change in fund balances (5,660)$ (6,507)$ City of Milton Special Events Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended October 31, 2016 3 of 10 Original Budgeted Amounts Amended Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Cash Confiscations/State Funds -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cash Confiscations/Fed Funds/US Marshal - - - - - Cash Confiscations/Federal Funds - - - - - Interest Revenues/State Funds - - 2 2 2 Interest Revenues/Federal Funds - - 2 2 2 Realized Gain on Investments/State Funds - - - - - Budgeted Fund Balance - - - - - Total revenues -$ -$ 4$ 4$ 4$ EXPENDITURES Current: Police -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in from General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total other financing sources and uses -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Net change in fund balances -$ -$ 4$ City of Milton Confiscated Assets Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended October 31, 2016 4 of 10 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Wireless 911 Fees 890,000$ -$ -$ (890,000)$ Interest Revenue - 4 4 4 Total revenues 890,000$ 4$ 4$ (889,996)$ EXPENDITURES Current: Public Safety 890,000$ -$ -$ 890,000$ Total Expenditures 890,000$ -$ -$ 890,000$ OTHER FINANCING USES Unallocated -$ -$ -$ -$ Operating Transfer Out to Capital Projects -$ -$ -$ -$ Net change in fund balances -$ 4$ City of Milton E-911 Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended October 31, 2016 5 of 10 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Taxes Hotel/Motel Taxes 67,000$ -$ -$ (67,000)$ Total revenues 67,000$ -$ -$ (67,000)$ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) Transfers out to General Fund 20,000$ -$ -$ (20,000)$ Transfers out to Special Events Fund 47,000 - - (47,000) Total other financing sources and uses 67,000$ -$ -$ (67,000)$ Net change in fund balances - - City of Milton Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended October 31, 2016 6 of 10 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Charges for Service Infrastructure Maintenance Fee 95,000$ -$ -$ (95,000)$ Infrastructure Maint Penalty & Interest -$ -$ -$ -$ Sidewalk Replacement Account - - - - Crabapple Paving Fee - - - - Traffic Calming - - - - Tree Recompense - - - - Landfill Host Fees 140,000 - - (140,000) HYA Fees - - - Interest Revenue - 31 31 31 Realized Gain or Loss on Investments - - - - Cell Tower Lease - 4,732 4,732 4,732 Insurance Proceeds/Public Safety - - - - Insurance Proceeds/Parks & Rec - - - - Insurance Proceeds/Public Works - - - - Atlanta HIDTA Stipend - - - - Capital Lease Proceeds - - - - Total revenues 235,000 4,763$ 4,763$ (230,237)$ EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay City Council 1,007,768$ 847,655$ 8,477$ 999,291$ General Admin 13,762 - - 13,762 General Govt Bldg 6,674,545 224,175 224,175 6,450,370 Finance - - - - IT 218,600 - - 218,600 Court (1,700) - - (1,700) Police 1,234,713 226,240 226,240 1,008,473 Fire 1,709,844 1,800 1,800 1,708,044 Public Works 8,380,053 39,497 39,497 8,340,556 Parks & Recreation 3,662,715 - - 3,662,715 Community Development 681,531 - - 681,531 Total Capital Outlay 23,581,831$ 1,339,367$ 500,189$ 23,081,642$ Excess of revenues over expenditures (23,346,831) (1,334,604) (495,425) (23,311,879) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) Transfers in from General Fund 5,993,380$ 499,448$ 499,448$ (5,493,932)$ Transfers in from Capital Grant Fund 100,000$ 8,333$ 8,333$ (91,667)$ Transfers in from E-911 Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ Impact Fees/Law Enforcement Fund 15,557$ -$ -$ (15,557)$ Impact Fees/Fire 89,145$ -$ -$ (89,145)$ Impact Fees/Road 111,251$ -$ -$ (111,251)$ Impact Fees/Park 668,123$ -$ -$ (668,123)$ Transfer to the General Fund (243,000) (20,250) (20,250) (222,750) Unallocated - - - -$ Lease Proceeds - - - -$ Proceeds of Sale of Assets - - -$ Budgeted Fund Balance - - - - Total other financing sources and uses 6,734,456 487,532 487,532 (6,692,424) Net change in fund balances (16,612,375) (7,894) City of Milton Capital Project Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended October 31, 2016 7 of 10 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental Revenues GDOT Crabapple Streetscape 500,000$ -$ -$ (500,000)$ GDOT TAP (Big Creek Greenway)48,532 - - (48,532) CDBG - - - - LMIG Funds 200,000 - - (200,000) GDOT HPP Funds 3,738,408 - - (3,738,408) MARTA Grant 71,863 - - (71,863) SR 9 @ Bethany Bend Grant 872 - - (872) GDOT-Signage/Landscaping 4,062 - - (4,062) Trail Connection to Big Creek Greenway - - - - Interest Revenues - - - - Total revenues 4,563,737$ -$ -$ (4,563,737)$ EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay Unallocated -$ Public Safety - Public Works 4,954,906$ -$ -$ 4,954,906$ Community Development 4,900 - - 4,900 Total Capital Outlay 4,959,806$ -$ -$ 4,959,806$ Excess of revenues over expenditures (396,069) - - 396,069 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in from General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ Transfers in to General Fund - -$ -$ -$ Transfer Out to Capital Projects Fund (100,000) (8,333) (8,333) (91,667) Budgeted Fund Balance - - - - Total other financing sources and uses (100,000)$ (8,333)$ (8,333)$ (91,667)$ Net change in fund balances (496,069) (8,333) City of Milton Capital Grant Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended October 31, 2016 8 of 10 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Admin Fund 26,522$ 1,812$ 1,812$ (24,710)$ Law Enforcement Fund 15,557$ 972$ 972$ (14,585)$ Fire Fund 89,145$ 5,559$ 5,559$ (83,586)$ Road Fund 111,251$ 10,052$ 10,052$ (101,199)$ Park Fund 668,123$ 43,506$ 43,506$ (624,617)$ Interest Revenues - 2 2 2$ Total revenues 910,598$ 61,903$ 61,903$ (848,695)$ EXPENDITURES Admin Police Fire Public Works Parks & Recreation Total Capital Outlay -$ -$ -$ -$ Excess of revenues over expenditures 910,598 61,903 61,903 (848,695) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in from General Fund -$ -$ -$ Transfer Out to General Fund/Admin (26,522)$ 26,522$ Transfer Out to Capital Projects Fund/Law Enf (15,557)$ 15,557$ Transfer Out to Capital Projects Fund/Fire (89,145)$ 89,145$ Transfer Out to Capital Projects Fund/Road (111,251)$ 111,251$ Transfer Out to Capital Projects Fund/Park (668,123)$ 668,123$ Total other financing sources and uses (1,821,196)$ -$ -$ 910,598$ Net change in fund balances (910,598) 61,903 City of Milton Capital Projects Fund - Impact Fees Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended October 31, 2016 9 of 10 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental Revenues Interest Revenues 15 15 15 Contributions & Donations - - - - Total revenues -$ 15$ 15$ 15$ EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay General Government Buildings -$ -$ -$ -$ Parks & Recreation 48,059 - - 48,059 Bond Principal - - - - Bond Interest - - - - Total Capital Outlay 48,059$ -$ -$ 48,059$ Excess of revenues over expenditures (48,059) 15 15 48,074 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in from General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ Transfers out to General Fund (712,604)$ (59,360)$ (59,360)$ (653,244)$ Revenue Bond Proceeds - - - -$ Total other financing sources and uses 712,604$ (59,360)$ (59,360)$ (653,244)$ Net change in fund balances 664,545 (59,345) City of Milton Capital Projects Fund - Revenue Bond Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended October 31, 2016 10 of 10 HOME OF'THE BEST QUALITY OF LIFE IN GEOR IA MltTON't SH ED 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: November 30, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: Proclamation Recognizing National Pearl Harbor Day MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: („ rAPPRO VED () NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: () YES () NO CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: () YES () NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY: ()APPROVED () NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: I z oS) 7014' REMARKS: © V Youlm PHONE: 678.242.25001 FAX: 678.242.2499 in(ofcityotmiHonga.uslw .cityoimiBonga.us Community E,,, 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 '""' s National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day 2016 WHEREAS, On the morning of December 7, 1941, Japanese planes thundered over Hawaii, dropping bombs in an unprovoked act of war against the United States. The attack claimed the lives of more than 2,400 Americans. It nearly destroyed our Pacific Fleet, but it could not shake our resolve. While battleships smoldered in the harbor, patriots from across our country enlisted in our Armed Forces, volunteering to take up the fight for freedom and security for which their brothers and sisters made the ultimate sacrifice. On National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, we pay tribute to the souls lost 7 5 years ago, we salute those who responded with strength and courage in service of our Nation, and we renew our dedication to the ideals for which they so valiantly fought; and WHEREAS, In the face of great tragedy at Pearl Harbor -- our first battle of the Second World War -- our Union rallied together, driven by the resilient and unyielding American spirit that defines us. The millions of Americans who signed up and shipped out inspired our Nation and put us on the path to victory in the fight against injustice and oppression around the globe. As they stormed the beaches of Normandy and planted our flag in the sands of Iwo Jima, our brave service members rolled back the tide of tyranny in Europe and throughout the Pacific theater. Because of their actions, nations that once knew only the blinders of fear saw the dawn of liberty; and WHEREAS, The men and women of the Greatest Generation went to war and braved hardships to make the world safer, freer, and more just. As we reflect on the lives lost at Pearl Harbor, we remember why America gave so much for the survival of liberty in the war that followed that infamous day. Today, with solemn gratitude, we recall the sacrifice of all who served during World War II, especially those who gave their last full measure of devotion and the families they left behind. As proud heirs to the freedom and progress secured by those who came b efore us, we pledge to uphold their legacy and honor their memory; and WHEREAS, The Congress has designated December 7 of each year as "National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day." NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Milton, hereby proclaim December 7, 2016, as National Pearl Harbor Re membrance Day and encourage all citizens to observe this solemn day of remembrance and to honor our military, past and present. Given under my hand and seal of the City of Milton, Georgia on this 5th day of December 2016. _____________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor HOl • 1. I LTO N ESTAB LIS] I ED 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: N ember 28, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: Proclamation Recognizing Arbor Day MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: (,vAPPROVED (J NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: (J YES Lj-# 6 CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: (J YES () NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY: () APPROVED () NOT APPROVED -r PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: ) 1014 REMARKS: PHONE: 678.242.25001 FAX: 678.242.2499 GP@en_,p Info2clfyofmllfonga.us www.dlyofmlNonga.uo Commu _y E',j;k } 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 - o Proclamation ARBOR DAY 2016 WHEREAS, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska, and Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world; and WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce life-giving oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife; and WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, beautify our community, and are a source of joy and spiritual renewal; and WHEREAS, the City of Milton has been recognized for the seventh year in a row as a Tree City USA Community by Georgia Forestry Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Milton hereby recognize and proclaim for the year 2016, December 5th as Arbor Day and urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and our environment and make Milton an even greater place to live, work, and raise a family. Given under my hand and Seal of the City of Milton, Georgia on this 5th day of December, 2016. ____________________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Clt HOME OF QUALITY OF LIEO MILTION't ESTABLISHED 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: November 30, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of RZi6-07-To Amend the AG -1 (Agricultural) District Regarding Paved and Unpaved Roads in Chapter 64, Article VI, Division 2, in Sec. 64-416. Development Standards. MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: (410APPROVED (J NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: kfIES (/ NO CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: (,y%ES (/ NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY. (j A-15PROVED (J NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: t 2/aMett REMARKS: yal _ _ PHONE: 678.242.25001 FAX: 678.242.2499 e�re`en`s �� ,�0,4 Z4AInfo�cRyolmiltonpa.us www.clfyofmlRenga.us Community r, e 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30D04 c Page 1 of 6 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kathleen Field, Community Development Director Date: November 28, 2016 prepared for the December 19, 2016 City Council Meeting. (First Presentation - December 5, 2016, Work Session – December 12, 2016) Re: RZ16-07 – Consideration to Amend the AG-1 (Agricultural) District Regarding Paved and Unpaved Roads in Chapter 64, Article VI, Division 2, in Sec. 64-416. Development Standards. Department Recommendation: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Executive Summary: Background The purpose of this text amendment is to amend the existing ordinance to ensure that any parcel fronting on an unpaved road (gravel road) remains three acre in size. This also includes those parcels that have frontage on both an unpaved road and a paved road no matter what the width of the frontage on the unpaved road. This item was presented at the October 26, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. There were four citizens who made comments regarding these items. Three of the citizens were in support of the ordinance as proposed by Staff. One citizen who also represented land owners was in opposition to the proposal as recommended by Staff. After deliberation and consideration of comments from the public, the proposed text amendment was deferred to allow Staff to pr ovide the following information: a list of unpaved roads in Milton and a l ist of parcels and their size that have frontage on both unpaved roads and paved roads (not already in platted subdivision like White Columns). Results of the November 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Staff provided the items that the Planning Commission requested from the October meeting. There was one citizen who spoke in support of the proposed Page 2 of 6 text amendment regarding unpaved roads. After further discussion by the Planning Commission they recommended Approval (6-0) of the amendment as proposed by Staff. Funding and Fiscal Impact: There will be no impact if these text amendments are approved. Alternatives: The Mayor and City Council may approve or deny the amendment as proposed and/or recommend further amendments to the text amendment discussed. Legal Review: Paul Frickey - Jarrard & Davis (November, 2016) Concurrent Review: Community Development, Public Works Attachment(s): RZ16-07 text amendment and ordinance. Page 3 of 6 Unpaved Roads (gravel) Black Oak Road Brittle Road Burgess Drive Burgess Road Christophers Run Clarity Road Cowart Road Darby Road Day Road Holly Road King Circle Knox Landing Lackey Road Land Road Landrum Road Lively Road Louis Road Nix Road Old Cogburn Road Old Dorris Road Old Henderson Road Old Holly Road Phillips Circle Providence Way (Private) Rowe Road Simmons Hill Road Spring Falls Road Summit Road Sweet Apple Road Westbrook Road Wood Road Page 4 of 6 Road Parcel ID Acreage Black Oak Road 22 515001830364 4.3 Black Oak Road 22 515001830224 1.7 Brittle Road 22 461008400515 7 Brittle Road 22 461008890129 1 Brittle Road 22 460107680290 16.2 Brittle Road 22 459007680087 1 Burgess Road 22 487004750090 3 Burgess Road 22 503004741101 1.1 Burgess Road 22 503004741127 1 Burgess Road 22 503004740517 6.2 Clarity Road 22 374002740218 35.7 Clarity Road 22 374002740622 2.8 Darby Road 22 374003450288 5.04 Darby Road 22 390003770574 1.09 Day Road 22 454004070168 2.6 Day Road 22 454004070135 4.8 Holly Road 22 348009460558 3.7 Holly Road 22 348009990570 5.5 King Circle 22 352012330741 1.1 King Circle 22 352012880737 3.5 Knoxhill Drive 22 394006660188 1.1 Knoxhill Drive 22 394006650270 1.3 Lackey Road 22 342009440082 4 Lackey Road 22 342009440066 4.2 Land Road 22 516002560497 1 Land Road 22 516002560505 1 Land Road 22 516002550407 2.8 Land Road 22 532002540116 1 Landrum Road 22 413209180073 2.4 Landrum Road 22 397009190178 3.1 Landrum Road 22 413009170407 1.2 Landrum Road 22 414009560266 4.4 Lively Road 22 533003240292 0.5 Lively Road 22 533003240250 2 Lively Road 22 533003250408 1 Louis Road 22 441006250187 2.3 Louis Road 22 441006260590 1.2 Nix Road 22 407004520350 4 Page 5 of 6 Nix Road 22 407004860327 1.1 Nix Road 22 439004550012 3.4 Nix Road 22 439004550202 16.2 Old Cogburn Road 22 507007610205 2 Old Cogburn Road 22 507007610098 1 Old Cogburn Road 22 508008250074 0.9 Old Cogburn Road 22 508008240455 1 Old Dorris Road 22 398009910458 1 Old Dorris Road 22 398009540214 6.9 Old Henderson Road 22 469003160307 3 Old Henderson Road 22 469103160173 1.5 Old Henderson Road 22 469103160165 1.1 Old Henderson Road 22 469103160157 1.3 Old Henderson Road 22 469003330215 1.1 Old Henderson Road 22 485103320013 1 Old Holly Road 22 348009990570 5.5 Old Holly Road 22 348009990604 7.88 Phillips Circle 22 443007430206 2.5 Phillips Circle 22 443007430123 7.1 Phillips Circle 22 427007710451 3 Phillips Circle 22 427007710485 2.4 Rowe Road 22 374002740614 0.27 Rowe Road 22 374003450197 6.2 Simmons Hill Road 22 398009910730 1 Simmons Hill Road 22 398009910383 1 Spring Falls Road 22 414009900348 5.1 Spring Falls Road 22 414009900728 1.7 Summit Road 22 42707710139 3.2 Summit Road 22 428008140185 4.7 Sweet Apple Road 22 349010720253 4 Page 6 of 6 Sweet Apple Road 22 349010720089 6.7 Sweet Apple Road 22 349010180169 2.5 Sweet Apple Road 22 349010180185 14 Westbrook Road 22 483001871213 6 Westbrook Road 22 483001870221 5.4 Westbrook Road 22 484002460095 63.4 Westbrook Road 22 500002470741 5.7 Westbrook Road 22 486103900127 3 Westbrook Road 22 502003910477 3.5 Wood Road 22 393006310257 2.6 Wood Road 22 393006310240 4.8 12/1/201611/28/2016 RZ16-07 - Text Amendment Prepared for the City of Milton Mayor and City Council Meeting on December 19, 2016. (First Presentation on December 5, 2016, Work Session on December 12, 2016) Page 1 of 2 Sec. 64-416. - Development standards. (a) No building shall exceed 40 feet in height. (b) Minimum front yard shall be 60 feet. (c) Minimum side yard shall be as follows: (1) Adjacent to interior line: 25 feet. (2) Adjacent to street: 40 feet. (d) Minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet. (e) Minimum lot area shall be as follows: (1) One acre with frontage on paved road. (2) Three acres with frontage on unpaved road, adjacent to unpaved road or has access to an unpaved road. a. Each proposed lot shall provide at least 100 feet of road frontage, the minimum dimension of which shall be maintained to the building line of the lot. b. Each proposed lot shall provide at least 200 feet of lot width at the building line. (3) Three acres, when a parcel at the time of the adoption of this ordinance, has frontage on both a paved road and an unpaved road regardless of the width of the gravel road frontage. If the lot frontage on the gravel road does not meet the requirements below, said lot shall provide 35 feet of road frontage and at least 100 feet of lot width at the building line. a.Each proposed lot shall provide at least 100 feet of road frontage, the minimum dimension of which shall be maintained to the building line of the lot. b.Each proposed lot shall provide at least 200 feet of lot width at the building line. (f) Minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. (g) Minimum lot frontage shall be 35 feet adjoining a street. (h) Minimum heated floor area. There is no minimum heated floor area in this district. (i) Minimum accessory structure requirements. Accessory structures may be located in rear or side yards but shall not be located within a minimum yard. (j) Fencing along exterior streets shall be as follows: (1) Allowed fencing material shall be three or four board wooden fencing with wood posts. (2) Fences shall not exceed 55 inches from finished grade. (3) Fences shall be white, black, or dark brown in colo r. (4) Opaque fences are prohibited. (5) Chain link fences are prohibited. (6) Fences shall be set back a minimum of three feet from a public right-of-way. (7) If the side, side corner or rear yard is adjacent to an exterior street, any type of fence including opaque may be installed as long as the opaque fence is not visible from the street at any time of the year. 12/1/201611/28/2016 RZ16-07 - Text Amendment Prepared for the City of Milton Mayor and City Council Meeting on December 19, 2016. (First Presentation on December 5, 2016, Work Session on December 12, 2016) Page 2 of 2 (k) Fencing along interior subdivision streets, including front, side corner, side and rear of platted subdivision lots shall be as follows: (1) Allowed fencing material and type along the front is limited to three or four board wooden fencing or as otherwise subject to the approval of the community development director; and (2) Along sides and rear of a lot fencing material can be of any type. (3) Fences shall not exceed eight feet in height but not including fencing in the front which shall not exceed 55 inches from finished grade. (4) If a front, side, side corner, or rear lot line borders an exterior street, subsection (j) applies. (l) Fencing along side, side corner, or rear of nonsubdivision lots: (1) Allowed fencing material and type is not limited to three or four board wooden fencing. (2) Fences shall not exceed eight feet in height. (3) If a front, side, side corner or rear lot line borders an exterior street, see subsection (j). (m) Barbed wire is prohibited on any single-family residential lots, except when part of a legitimate agricultural use. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE____ COUNTY OF FULTON RZ16-07 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL) DISTRICT REGARDING PAVED AND UNPAVED ROADS IN CHAPTER 64, ARTICLE VI, DIVISION 2, IN SEC. 64-416. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Milton, GA while in a regularly called council meeting on December 19, 2016 6:00 p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. That the amendment of the AG-1 District regarding paved and unpaved roads in Chapter 64, Article VI, Division 2, in Sec. 64-416 Development Standards of the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance is hereby adopted and approved; and is attached hereto as if fully set forth herein, and; SECTION 2. All ordinances, parts of ordinances, or regulations in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION 3. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption. ORDAINED this the 19th day of December, 2016. ____________________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk HOMi E OP'THEBEST QUALITY OF LIFE W MIESTABLISHED 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: November 30, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of RZ16-08-To Amend the Definitions Regarding Paved and Unpaved Roads in Chapter 64, Article I, in Sec. 64-1. Definitions. MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: P<APPROVED O NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED:ES () NO CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: (.1/ YES () NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY: („ 4PPROVED () NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: ) 1,/ b -1170L REMARKS: © * YDu(jo +*+ PHONE: 678.242.25001 FAX: 678.242.2499 info@cHyofmiHonga.us l w .altyofmlBonga.us wr Community 130M Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 's" Page 1 of 3 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kathleen Field, Community Development Director Date: November 28, 2016, prepared for the December 19, 2016 City Council Meeting. (First Presentation - December 5, 2016, Work Session – December 12, 2016) Re: RZ16-08 – Consideration to Amend the Definitions Regarding Paved and Unpaved Roads in Chapter 64, Article I, in Sec. 64-1. Definitions. Department Recommendation: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Executive Summary: Background The purpose of these text amendments is to amend the existing ordinances to ensure that any parcel fronting on an unpaved road (gravel road) remains three acre in size. This also includes those parcels that have frontage on both an unpaved road and a paved road no matter what the width of the frontage on the unpaved road. These items were presented at the October 26, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. There were four citizens who made comments regarding these items. Three of the citizens were in support of the ordinance as proposed by Staff. One citizen who also represented land owners was in opposition to the proposal as recommended by Staff. After deliberation and consideration of comments from the public, the proposed text amendment was deferred to allow Staff to pr ovide the following information: a list of unpaved roads in Milton and a l ist of parcels and their size that have frontage on both unpaved roads and paved roads (not already in platted subdivision like White Columns). Results of the November 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Staff provided the items that the Planning Commission requested from the October meeting. There was one citizen who spoke in support of the proposed text amendment regarding unpaved roads. After further discussion by the Planning Commission they recommended Approval (6-0) of the amendment to the definition section except, that within the definition of “gravel road”, to Page 2 of 3 include the list of unpaved roads as listed below. In addition, they recommended that in the definition of “unpaved road” to add “with the list of unpaved roads” and include the map cited in the definition. These changes are reflected in the attached text amendment. Funding and Fiscal Impact: There will be no impact if this text amendment is approved. Alternatives: The Mayor and City Council may approve or deny the amendment as proposed and/or recommend further amendments to the text amendment discussed. Legal Review: Paul Frickey - Jarrard & Davis (November, 2016) Concurrent Review: Community Development, Public Works Attachment(s): RZ16-08 text amendment and ordinance. Page 3 of 3 Unpaved Roads (gravel) Black Oak Road Brittle Road Burgess Drive Burgess Road Christophers Run Clarity Road Cowart Road Darby Road Day Road Holly Road King Circle Knox Landing Lackey Road Land Road Landrum Road Lively Road Louis Road Nix Road Old Cogburn Road Old Dorris Road Old Henderson Road Old Holly Road Phillips Circle Providence Way (Private) Rowe Road Simmons Hill Road Spring Falls Road Summit Road Sweet Apple Road Westbrook Road Wood Road 12/1/201611/30/201611/28/2016 RZ16-08 - Text Amendment Prepared for the City of Milton Mayor and City Council Meeting on December 19, 2016. (First Presentation on December 5, 2016, Work Session on December 12, 2016) Page 1 of 3 Gravel road means an unpaved road surfaced with gravel material and may have a paved extension that is constructed and maintained to function as an all-weather surface for vehicular and pedestrian travel and is synonymous with unpaved road. Those gravel roads include the following: Black Oak Road Brittle Road Burgess Drive Burgess Road Christophers Run Clarity Road Cowart Road Darby Road Day Road Holly Road King Circle Knox Landing Lackey Road Land Road Landrum Road Lively Road Louis Road Nix Road Old Cogburn Road Old Dorris Road Old Henderson Road Old Holly Road Phillips Circle Providence Way (Private) 12/1/201611/30/201611/28/2016 RZ16-08 - Text Amendment Prepared for the City of Milton Mayor and City Council Meeting on December 19, 2016. (First Presentation on December 5, 2016, Work Session on December 12, 2016) Page 2 of 3 Rowe Road Simmons Hill Road Spring Falls Road Summit Road Sweet Apple Road Westbrook Road Wood Road Unpaved road means a public unpaved road surfaced with gravel material and may have a paved extension that is constructed and maintained to function as an all-weather surface for vehicular and pedestrian travel and is reflected on the “Ownership and Surface Type” Map and list of unpaved roads and is synonymous with gravel road. 12/1/201611/30/201611/28/2016 RZ16-08 - Text Amendment Prepared for the City of Milton Mayor and City Council Meeting on December 19, 2016. (First Presentation on December 5, 2016, Work Session on December 12, 2016) Page 3 of 3 Field Code Changed STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE____ COUNTY OF FULTON RZ16-08 AN ORDIANCE TO AMEND THE DEFINTIONS REGARDING PAVED AND UNPAVED ROADS IN CHAPTER 64, ARTICLE 1, SEC. 64-1. DEFINITIONS. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Milton, GA while in a regularly called council meeting on December 19, 2016 6:00 p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. That the amendment of the definitions regarding paved and unpaved roads in Chapter 64, Article 1, Sec. 64-1. Definitions of the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance is hereby adopted and approved; and is attached hereto as if fully set forth herein, and; SECTION 2. All ordinances, parts of ordinances, or regulations in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION 3. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption. ORDAINED this the 19th day of December, 2016. ____________________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk M HOME OF'EHE BEST QUALITY OF LIFE IN MILTON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: November 29, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager ) AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of RZ16-09-To Amend the Deerfield Form Based Code in Chapter 64-1141 (c). MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: (.Y-<PPROVED NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: /�ES / J NO CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: (�ES (J NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY: (PROVED (J NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: 4-10076& REMARKS: © * yFum PHONE: 678.242.25001 FAX: 678.242.2499 'JGre`en-en`�.m T� IMoOcifyofmlltonga.us I www.eltyofmilfonpa.ua �o a Community k ,y 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 - =F«*�.,•° ^...,E - Page 1 of 3 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kathleen Field, Community Development Director Date: November 28, 2016 prepared for the December 19, 2016 City Council Meeting. (First Presentation - December 5, 2016, Work Session – December 12, 2016) Re: RZ16-09 – Consideration to amend the Deerfield Form Based Code in Chapter 64, Article XX Department Recommendation: The Deerfield Form Based Code was adopted based on the Highway 9 Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) approved in 2012; and, the Highway 9 North Visioning Study that was approved in 2014. The proposed text amendment would change what the community agreed upon at that time regarding the type of uses permitted in each Transect Zone. Staff recommends that if the Mayor and City Council would prefer to amend the Deerfield Form Based Code as proposed , in order to provide additional commercial tax base, that a comprehensive re- review of the plan be initiated in order to allow for a thorough analysis of the proposed changes. Executive Summary: Background The purpose of this text amendment is to consider eliminating all residential uses, except when located in a vertically mixed use building for properties adjacent to Highway 9 and North Main Street (Highway 9). This text amendment was heard at the October 26, 2016 Planning Commission. This item was deferred at the October 16, 2016 meeting. During that meeting there were five citizens who spoke on this item. Three of the citizens who are property owners in the Five Acre Subdivision stated they were in opposition to the proposed change based on the fact that the Deerfield Form Based Code was based upon the consensus between all the stakeholders involved. Two other citizens, of which one was a resident, was in support of the proposed Page 2 of 3 change to eliminate residential uses along Highway 9, including the Five Acre area. After deliberations by the Planning Commission as well as considering comments from the public, it was decided to defer the item in order for Staff to send notices to all property owners with property adjacent to Highway 9 and North Main Street. Staff sent out the notices to above mentioned property ow ners and received approximately three phone calls asking if the proposed changes would impact their properties. The properties would not be impacted based on the fact they were already developed or they were small parcels that could not support residential development. Additionally, the Planning Commission requested that Staff provide a map indicating parcels along Highway 9 and North Main Street that are not developed and may be impacted by the proposed text amendment. Lastly, the Planning Commission requested to see the reports produced by Dr. Michael Elliot whom the City hired to mediate the planning process for the Five Acre area, located north of Bethany Bend along Highway 9. Results of the November 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting At the November 16, 2016 Planning Commission meeting there were three citizens who spoke during the public hearing. A property owner within the Five Acre Subdivision stated she was in support of keeping the existing requirements the way they were written based on the fact that it was approved based on consensus between all the parties involved. Another resident within the subdivision stated she would like the Five Acre properties adjacent to Hwy 9 to be only residential uses. The third citizen stated that she believes that all the properties adjacent to Hwy 9 should only be allowed for non-residential uses. After discussing the history of the Highway 9 North Visioning Plan as well as the Michael Elliot report, they voted to deny the proposed text amendment to eliminate residential uses. This decision was based upon the extensive work by Staff, Dr. Elliot and the stakeholders involved to come to an agreement that was ultimately approved by the Mayor and City Council via the Deerfield Form Based Code as it is currently written. Funding and Fiscal Impact: There will be no impact if this text amendment is approved. Alternatives: The Mayor and City Council may approve or deny the amendment as proposed and/or recommend further amendments to the text amendment discussed. Page 3 of 3 Legal Review: Paul Frickey - Jarrard & Davis (November, 2016) Concurrent Review: Community Development Attachment(s): Text Amendment and Ordinances for RZ16-09, Map of undeveloped properties and reports by Dr. Michael Elliot. DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE - DRAFT 10/18/2016 AMENDMENT City of Milton R: ALLOWED BY RIGHT W: ALLOWED BY WARRANT U: ALLOWED BY USE PERMIT a. RESIDENTIAL1, 12 T2 T3 T4 T4-P9 T4-O2 T53 T6 f. OTHER: AGRICULTURE T2 T3 T4 T4-P9 T4-O2 T53 T6 Apartment U U U U Grain Storage R Live/Work Unit R R R R R R Livestock Pen W Rowhouse R R U U U Greenhouse R W Duplex R R R R R Stable R W Courtyard House R R R R R Sideyard House R R R R R R Cottage R R R R Kennel with Outside Pens House R R R R R Pet Grooming8 R R R Accessory Unit R R R R R R R f. OTHER: AUTOMOTIVE b. LODGING Gasoline Station4 R R R Motel, Hotel R R R Automotive Specialty Shop R R R Bed & Breakfast Inn U U R R R R Service Station c. OFFICE Automotive Garage, Repair Garage Office R R R R Radio and Television Station U U U Live/Work Unit R R R R R R Car Wash5 W W W d. RETAIL Drive-Through Facility6 R R R Open-Market Structure R R R R R R R f. OTHER: CIVIL SUPPORT General Retail R R R R R Fire Station R R R R R R R Pawn Shop W W Police Station R R R R R General Service R R R R R Cemetery U U U Artist Studio U U U U U Funeral Home R R R Restaurant R R R R R Hospital R R Freestanding Fast Food Restaurant R R R R Medical Office, Clinic R R R R Kiosk R R R R R Drive-Through Facility6 R10 R R R Push Cart W W W Liquor Selling Establishment W W W f. OTHER: EDUCATION Self Service Laundromat W W W Laundry and Dry Cleaning Shop R R R Bank/Financial Institution R11 R R R College U U U U U U U Bail Bondsmen High School U U U U U U U Check Cashing Establishment W W W Trade School U U U U U U U Adult Entertainment Elementary School U U U U U U U Fortune Telling Establishment Childcare Center7 U U R R R f. OTHER: INDUSTRIAL Heavy Industrial Facility Light Industrial Facility e. CIVIC Manufacturing Bus Shelter R R R R R R R Catering R R R Convention Center R Conference Center W W R Fountain or Public Art R R R R R R R Research Laboratory W W Library R R R R R Water Supply Facility W W W W W W W Theater R R R Sewer and Waste Facility Indoor Commercial Amusement R R R Electric Substation W W W W W W W Outdoor Commercial Amusement W W W Telecommunications Museum R R R Cremation Facility Assembly Hall, Indoor Auditorium R R R Warehouse Gymnasium R R R Landscaping, Lawn Service R R R Outdoor Auditorium W R R R R R R Produce Storage Parking Structure R R R Recycling Center Passenger Terminal R Mini-Storage R R R Sports Stadium 5. Includes both principal and accessory car washes. Surface Parking Lot W W W W W 6. Drive-through facilities are considered accessory to a Retail or Automotive Function. Place of Worship U U U R R R R 7. See Sec. 64-1809 for additional requirements. 8. No overnight stay allowed. 2. T4-Open 9. T4-Permissive. See Sec. 4.6.1(e) for additional restrictions in the Five Acre Road Zone. 3. Includes T5-Limited subject to Table 9 10. Only allowed in the Five Acre Road Zone and when accessory to a bank/financial institution. 4. See Sec. 4.14 for additional requirements.11. Only allowed in the Five Acre Road Zone. 12. Residential functions are prohibited on any parcel abutting Highway 9 (as shown on the adopted April 27, 2015, Regulating Plan), except when located in a vertically mixed-use building. School of Business, Dance, Music or Similar W W Laundry and Dry Cleaning Distribution Center W W W W WVeterinary Clinic/Hospital, Kennel (with inside pens) TABLE 10: Specific Function and Use. This table expands the categories of Table 9 to delegate specific Functions and uses within Transect Zones. Massage Parlor, Pool Hall, Escort and Dating Services, Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishment 1. This table notwithstanding, all senior housing shall comply with Sec. 64-1834(a). See Section 54 of the Code of the City of Milton Automobile and Light Truck Sales/Leasing Assisted Living, Convalescent Home, Personal Care Home, Nursing Home, Hospice R RRR W 47 April 27, 2015 STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE____ COUNTY OF FULTON RZ16-09 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE DEERFIELD FORM BASED CODE IN CHAPTER 64, ARTICLE XX BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Milton, GA while in a regularly called council meeting on December 19, 2016 6:00 p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. That the amendment of the Deerfield Form Based Code in Chapter 64, Article XX of the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance is hereby adopted and approved; and is attached hereto as if fully set forth herein, and; SECTION 2. All ordinances, parts of ordinances, or regulations in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION 3. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption. ORDAINED this the 19th day of December, 2016. ____________________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk 1 | Page Rte. 9 Visioning Process Five Acres Area Stakeholder Group Meeting May 22, 2013 Introductions Participants introduced themselves. Participants included: Dan Giglia, Judy and Brent Sanderson, Julianne Hornsby, Elizabeth Yancey, Annette Donavan, Derek Bachan, Sharon and Marissa Segler, Tony and Debbie Stewart, Ginger Smith, Billy Carman, Lynn, Mary Swanson, Hamid Sadri, Alex Mehmandoost, Mark Blackwell. Facilitator: Michael Elliott. Review of Visioning Process The history and current status of the visioning process was described as follows. The initial design for the visioning process was to encompass the full length of Rte. 9 and its proximate areas. The area considered in Phase 1, however, was limited to south of Bethany Bend, in large part because the Atlanta Regional Commission provided for a Livable Centers Initiative grant to cover the cost of planning, and LCI grants are generally provided to plan for activity centers rather than for linear corridors (see Figure 1 below). The grant was issued in FY 2011 and the resulting plan (prepared by Urban Collage) was completed in April 2012 (Highway 9/GA 400 Area Master Plan). The plan is now being implemented. 1 LCI Boundaries for the Southern Section of Route 9 2 | Page Following completion of the LCI planning process, the city’s Community Development Department began a process of visioning focusing on the area to the north of Bethany Bend (see figure 2 below). This process was modeled on the approach used in the LCI, with a Stakeholder Group comprising of many of the same individuals who had constituted the LCI Stakeholder group, with city planning staff managing the process. During the initial meetings of the Stakeholder Group and the corresponding public meetings, it became clear that two sections of the Rte. 9 North area were of particular concern to residents of the nearby community. One of these was the section near Five Acres. The city therefore invited residents of the area to form a stakeholder group for more detailed discussions about this area. A facilitator was hired to work with members of the group to develop a vision acceptable to the various parties. The facilitator interviewed the participants before meeting. Tonight’s meeting was the first one of the group meetings. 2 Planning Area for the North Section of Rte. 9 Envisioning the Future of Rte. 9 Near Five Acres The remainder of the meeting focused on issues associated with the future of Rte. 9 near Five Acres. Based on interviews conducted by the facilitator, a list of concerns, issues and interests was posted for consideration. These included 1) Interests: a) Traffic and safety along Rte. 9 (street is busy, and egress onto the highway is difficult and dangerous) 3 | Page b) Character of the area (existing residents seek to maintain the forested/residential character of the land around them, in order to maintain privacy, to keep noise and lights from intruding onto their land, and for aesthetic reasons related to the look and feel of the community; this also includes the look and feel of Five Acres Road as an entrance into a residential subdivision) c) Property values (of interest to both the residents of the area concerning home values and the owners of property adjacent to Rte. 9.) d) School bus access and safety e) Ensuring that any agreement that is reached is binding f) Maintaining the character of Milton 2) Other Concerns and Issues: a) The potential for redevelopment, both under existing zoning and with potential changes b) Best ways to manage change/growth responsibly c) The extent of legal rights held by the various property owners and their implications d) How the history of this area over the past 20 years affects concerns of current residents and owners. Several of these issues were discussed in more detail. In particular: 1) What types of development are appropriate on Rte. 9? Current residents generally preferred that Rte. 9 remain agricultural or residential, in keeping with the the subdivisions located in this section of the highway. There was also a recognition that Rte. 9 has already changed in ways that makes residential uses right on the highway less desirable, given that it is an increasingly heavily trafficked highway. 2) There was general agreement that neither the intensive development found in Crabapple nor strip shopping centers are appropriate for this section of Rte. 9, because of the aesthetics, density and scale of such developments and because of their impact on traffic. 3) Commercial and office buildings, if they were appropriately designed to fit into the residential character of the community in terms of scale, building materials, design, buffers, and landscaping, might be an appropriate use, but this requires further consideration. 4) Entrances to existing subdivisions are especially important. In particular, the entrance to Five Acres Subdivision is along Five Acres Road. The character of the road at its entrance sets the look and feel for the entire subdivision, and needs to be appropriately designed for residential use. 5) Traffic is of significant concern, especially since this section of Rte. 9 is on a curve. Entering traffic is already problematic and a safety concern. The impact and timing of changes being considered by the Georgia Department of Transportation was seen as important, but unpredictable. It was unclear how, or if, the city could act to make the situation better on their own. 4 | Page 6) Issues of trust and the predicatability of future change were discussed in various ways. Historically, these issues were discussed in light of whether or not the Five Acres subdivision had covenants and how that might affect use of the four 2‐acre parcels located on Rte. 9, the aborted effort by Fulton County to locate a landfill on what is now the Crooked Creek subdivision, the manner in which the Outrageous Bargains store was approved, and the permanency of the existing zoning and whether it should change as conditions in the community change. In general, many of the residents had lived in their homes for 10 to 30 years, and the overall growth in the area has significantly altered the character of the community. It is no longer rural. More immediately, issues of trust and predicatability was discussed in light of current disagreements about how the land fronting Rte. 9 should be used, and differences in perception as to whether any of the property owners on Rte. 9 had verbally committed to using the property for residential purposes. These issues were clearly strongly felt by the participants, in various ways. While perceptions of these events varied, participants came to the conclusion that the process of visioning and planning for the area could best be done by focusing on the practical problems of future development and change in a respectful and pragmatic manner, and that if the participants can jointly agree to a mutually acceptable pattern of land use, design and development, that any agreements reached will need to have assurances as to how they will be implemented, such that implementation leads to predictable results. Questions of Fact Several questions of fact came up during the discussion. These should be clarified before the next meeting. These include: 1) Legal Framework a) What is the zoning of the 4 2‐acre Five Acre Subdivision parcels (R2 or AG1) and of the adjacent parcels? b) Does the Five Acres Subdivision have covenants and, if so, are they currently enforcable? c) Does the city currently have codes that govern the character of commercial properties and, if so, what are they? 2) Rte. 9 a) Has a traffic safety study been conducted for this section of Rte. 9 and, if so, is it available? b) What is the current status of the GA Department of Transportation’s review of Rte. 9? 3) B & B Tool Company is a manufacturing use first established in the 1970s. It seems as though the zoning has changed since B & B was established. What is the zoning? If it has been changed, what rights to conduct business are grandfathered in? In particular, if Rte. 9 is widened and the building needs to be changed, is that possible? 5 | Page Next Steps Participants agreed to meet again to focus on possible options for future development that would meet the interests of the various stakeholders in the group. Between now and the next meeting, the facilitator will work with Derek Bachan and Tony Stewart (residents) and the various Rte. 9 property owners to develop a few options for consideration. The objective is to develop options that meet the interests of the various stakeholders as outlined above. 1 | Page Rte. 9 Visioning Process Five Acres Area Stakeholder Group Meeting 2 June 25, 2013 Introductions Participants introduced themselves. Participants included: Mark and Neil Blackwell, Zach Hines, Billy Carman, Sharon Segler, Janet, Elizabeth Yancey, Mary Swanson, John, Will King, Tony and Debbie Stewart, Marilyn, Ginger Smith, Hamid Sadri, Brad, Judy and Brent Sanderson, Derek Bachan, Alex Mehmandoost, Michele McIntosh‐Ross, and Kathy Field. Facilitator: Michael Elliott. Interests and Concerns of Stakeholders Concerning Rte. 9 Near Five Acres Concerns, issues and interests discussed in the first meeting were reviewed as a basis for developing and discussing alternatives.These included 1) Traffic and safety along Rte. 9 (street is busy, and egress onto the highway is difficult and dangerous) 2) Character of the area (existing residents seek to maintain the forested/residential character of the land around them, in order to maintain privacy, to keep noise and lights from intruding onto their land, and for aesthetic reasons related to the look and feel of the community; this also includes the look and feel of Five Acres Road as an entrance into a residential subdivision) 3) Property values (of interest to both the residents of the area concerning home values and the owners of property adjacent to Rte. 9.) 4) School bus access and safety 5) Ensuring that any agreement that is reached is binding 6) Maintaining the character of Milton 7) The potential for redevelopment, both under existing zoning and with potential changes 8) Best ways to manage change/growth responsibly Options The meeting participants discussed a series of options associated with redevelopment along Route 9. These included: 1) Entrance to properties located on Route 9 a) Entrance and egress to lots will be from Rte. 9 2 | Page b) Entrances to Rte 9 will be shared between adjoining property owners whenever feasible. In the case of the two pairs of properties on either side of Five Acres Road, each pair will share a single entrance/egress. 2) The character of Five Acres Road a) Five Acres Road will be designed for its role as the entrance to Five Acres Subdivision. b) No property other than single family housing will have an entrance onto Five Acres Road c) A landscaped buffer will be maintained to block views of the redeveloped properties from Five Acres Road. d) We discussed whether the 18‐feet right‐of‐way along Five Acres Road could be planted (after the meeting, a check with city officials indicated that the ROW cannot be planted). e) The width of the buffer and its landscaping was discussed, without agreement as to what is appropriate. Options ranged from 12 feet (which assumed that at least part of the ROW could be planted) to 50 feet (which assumed that the forest cover would be left as is). The city arborist will be contacted for further ideas. f) An entrance to the subdivision at the start of Five Acres Road will be designed and constructed. A simple design was discussed, using horse fencing similar to the one in front of the Sanderson’s home and a wooden entrance sign (a picture was passed around). The sign will be located near the entrance to the road from Rte 9. Alex volunteered to build this. 3) Buffers between lots located on Route 9 and their residential neighbors a) Redeveloped properties will maintain a 50’ buffer along their property lines with residentially zoned neighbors. b) The buffer will be primarily undisturbed forest, with more dense vegetation and/or fencing along the interior edge of the buffer if the natural vegetation is insufficient to block sightlines to the redevelopment from existing residential properties. 4) Density and scale of buildings a) Development will be capped at 10,000 square feet per acre of land b) Buildings will be one or two stories tall. 5) Appearance of buildings a) Buildings will be designed to fit well with the residential character of the area. b) Design elements such as peaked roofs, massing, windows, doors, and building materials will be used to enhance building styles appropriate to the area. c) These elements will be incorporated into form‐based codes. 6) Management of building accessories a) Detention ponds (if used) and dumpsters will be hidden from view. b) Landscaping elements will be included around parking lots and buildings 3 | Page 7) Permitted uses: a) Residential i) Single family ii) Duplex iii) Cluster housing iv) Townhomes b) Office c) Live/work d) Retail; bank e) Gyms f) Assisted living 8) Disallowed uses: a) Automobile services, including gas stations b) Hotels c) Kennels d) Convenience stores e) Traditional shopping centers f) Drive through restaurants g) Nursing homes and hospitals 9) Two classes of uses continue to be of concern largely because of their potential to create noise that will affect neighbors a) Restaurants, especially ones that allow for outdoor seating b) Day care and schools because they require outdoor recreation and playgrounds Next Steps The facilitator will work with city officials, including the City Arborist, Public Works, etc., to resolve some of the remaining issues. The next meeting will focus on resolving these final issues and clarifying implementation. 1 | Page Rte. 9 Visioning Process Five Acres Area Stakeholder Group Meeting 3 July 17, 2013 Introductions Participants introduced themselves. Participants included: Hamid Sadri, Judy and Brent Sanderson, Billy Carman, Elizabeth Yancey, Janet Bryant, Ginger Smith, Tony and Debbie Stewart, Mary Swanson, Derek Bachan, Kari Hines, Marilyn Phillips, Scott Hornsby, Julianne Hornsby, and Alex Mehmandoost. City officials included: Michele McIntosh‐Ross and Kathy Field. Facilitator: Michael Elliott. Options and Their Implementation The meeting participants discussed a series of options associated with redevelopment along Route 9, as generated from the second meeting. Approaches to implementing these options were also discussed. The results of these discussions are as follows: First, as illustrated in Figure 1 below, buffers and entrance/egress requirements will be used to protect residential properties from sightlines and noise associated with new, nonresidential development. 2 | Page Figure 1. Site plan of properties located within Five Acres Subdivision and along Rte. 9, showing buffers, landscaping, entrances, fencing, and entrance sign/monument location. 3 | Page Figure 1 shows the following: 1) Entrance/egress to properties located on Route 9 will be from Rte. 9 for any use other than residential. 2) Entrances to Rte 9 will be shared between adjoining property owners whenever feasible. In particular, given their relatively small acreage, each of the two pairs of properties on either side of Five Acres Road will share a single entrance/egress. 3) Five Acres Road will be designed for its role as the entrance to Five Acres Subdivision. a) No property other than single family housing will have an entrance onto Five Acres Road b) A landscaped buffer will be maintained to block views of the redeveloped properties from Five Acres Road. A 20’ landscape strip will be planted with dense plantings, including evergreens, so that commercial properties are not visible from Five Acres Road. Landscaping buffer standards will be included as part of the zone, w/evergreens spaced to block views in all four seasons and deciduous trees included for aesthetics. Existing trees within the buffer will need to be removed in order to enable this more densely planted landscape. These are illustrated in Figures 2, 3 and 4 below. Figure 2. Example of dense landscaping. 4 | Page Figure 3. Second example of dense landscaping. Figure 4. Picture of dense landscaping, screening a residential street (shown) from commercial properties. c) The landscaped buffer along Five Acres Road will be fronted by horse fencing similar to the one in front of the Sanderson’s home and used throughout Milton. 4) Natural landscaped buffers will be preserved between lots located on Route 9 and their residential neighbors 5 | Page a) The buffer will be primarily undisturbed forest, with more dense vegetation and/or fencing along the interior edge of the buffer if the natural vegetation is insufficient to block sightlines to the redevelopment from existing residential properties. Any disturbance will be to landscape standards set by the city. b) Redeveloped properties of less than 4 acres will maintain a 50’ buffer along their property lines with residentially zoned neighbors. Properties of 4 or more acres will maintain a 75’ buffer. c) A 10’ improvement setback from the buffer will be maintained to protect the root system of trees. All of the elements presented in 1 through 4 above will be implemented through form‐ based code, with agreement from Department of Public Works for design of entrances to roads. 5) An entrance to the subdivision at the start of Five Acres Road will be designed and constructed. An entrance sign/monument will be located near the south corner of Five Acres Road and Rte 9 (as shown on Figure 1). The entrance will be built by mutual agreement between the residents of Five Acres Subdivision and Alex Mehmandoost (owner of the parcel on the south corner of Five Acres Road and Route 9). Residents will raise funds to build the entrance sign/monument, as illustrated in figure 5 below. Simpler designs had previously been discussed and pictures of potential designs were passed around at the meeting (see Figure 6).1 The subdivision will pay for the construction of the sign/monument. Alex will donate an easement for building the sign/monument within the 20’ landscape buffer (again, as shown in Figure 1). Construction of the sign/monument will occur at the time of installation of the landscape buffer or earlier if mutually agreed upon. The details of the sign/monument and the easement will be worked out between Alex and the subdivision residents 1 Note, the Department of Community Development looked further into Milton ordinances concerning signs and monuments following the meeting. Per Milton sign ordinances, the Five Acre Subdivision entrance sign/monument cannot exceed 32 square feet with a maximum height of 6 feet, with the base of the sign being the same width as the rest of the sign. Also, it will need to be installed prior to the Form Based Code being adopted so that it will be a grandfathered non‐conforming use. The simpler signs conform to form based codes and therefore could be constructed at any time. 6 | Page Figure 5. Examples of subdivision entrance monument. Figure 6. Examples of subdivision entrance signs. . 7 | Page 6) Development will be capped at 10,000 square feet per gross acre of land. 7) Buildings will be designed to fit well with the residential character of the area. a) Buildings will be one or two stories tall. b) Design elements such as peaked roofs, massing, windows, doors, and building materials will be used to enhance building styles appropriate to the area. c) Underground detention of stormwater is stongly preferred to surface detention pond. Ponds (if used) will be screened from view. d) Dumpsters and other accessory features will be hidden from view. e) Landscaping elements will be included around parking lots and buildings. Elements presented in 6 and 7 above will be incorporated into form‐based codes. In addition, site and building designs for commercial or multifamily redevelopments will be reviewed by the Design Review Board for consistency with code standards. The design review process is open to public comment. The standards that will be applied to this area will be consistent with the Deerfield codes previously developed by the city (see attached for a summary of the codes). 8) For the four parcels located in the Five Acres Subdivision, permitted uses will include: a) Residential i) Single family ii) Duplex iii) Cluster housing iv) Townhomes b) Office c) Live/work d) Retail, including banking e) Gyms f) Assisted living g) Restaurants without outdoor seating 9) All other uses are excluded. These exclusions include: a) Automobile services, including gas stations b) Hotels c) Kennels d) Convenience stores e) Traditional shopping centers (disallowed because traditional shopping centers do not conform to form based design standards) f) Drive through restaurants g) Nursing homes and hospitals 8 | Page h) Day care and schools (since they require outdoor play areas that are noisy) for parcels 10) The treatment of restaurants with outdoor seating remains unclear. Several options were discussed, including a) Limiting outdoor seating to a small (10% of building square feet) area, b) Limiting outdoor seating to the front (facing Route 9) of the building only, c) Setting a minimum distance from the nearest residential building, d) Requiring that the seating be on the opposite side of the building from the nearest residence if within the minmum distance, and/or e) Preventing live music from being played outdoors (possibly through liquor licence provisions)2. The city will look into this further and try to develop a way to simultaneously manage noise while allowing for some outdoor seating3. Next Steps No more meetings are planned for the Five Acres Subarea Visioning Process. Once a similar process being held for the Bethany Bend Subarea is completed, the results of both subarea processes will be integrated into the Route 9 Corridor Visioning Process, which includes the entire planning area north of Bethany Bend (see Figure 7). Figure 7. Route 9 Visioning Process Boundaries 2 The City has determined that the liquor license cannot be used to limit live music. 3 The recommended solution (developed by the Department of Community Development) is to limit outdoor seating to 10% of the building’s area, to be located to the front (facing Route 9) or side of the building only and being a minimum distance of 200 feet from any single family residential structure. 9 | Page The final vision developed by the Route 9 Corridor Visioning Process will incorporate the two subarea visions and be made part of the final draft plan for the corridor. This plan will then be presented to the community for their input. The resultant report will be published, and then reviewed by Milton’s Planning Commission and City Council. Following approval of the vision and plan by the Commission and Council, the Department of Community Development will develop the form based zoning code needed to implement the vision and plan. The ordinance will include special chapters for special use areas. The form based code will then go through the same review and approval process as the Vision and Plan. The current timetable is for the plan to be completed this fall, with the zoning ordinance being completed by spring. Attachments Attached are copies of the Deerfield Form‐Based Code Architectural Requirements which will serve as the basis for requirements for this section of Route 9 and the City of Milton’s form based code sign standards. DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE – V6 AS ADOPTED City of Milton April 22, 2013 24 4.16 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS 4.16.1 The following architectural standards shall apply to all buildings unless otherwise approved by Warrant by the community development director after consultation with the City Architect. 4.16.2 Architectural treatment shall continue on all sides of a building except as specifically noted otherwise. 4.16.3 General to all buildings – Facade composition a. The Principal Entrance of a building shall be articulated and expressed in greater architectural detail than other buildings entrances. b. Windows shall be vertically shaped with a height greater than their width. c. Burglar bars, steel gates, metal awnings and steel roll-down curtains are prohibited if visible from a public Thoroughfare, Civic Space, or Open Parking. d. Exposed neon lighting outlining and detailing building features is prohibited. e. Exposed ductwork, pipes, conduit or other similar items are prohibited unless otherwise approved by Warrant. 4.16.4 Specific to Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartment buildings – Façade composition a. Facades shall incorporate windows and doors as follows: i. Windows and doors shall be provided for at least 25% of the total Facade area, with each floor calculated independently. The maximum contiguous area without windows or doors on any floor shall not exceed 10 feet in height or 20 feet in length. ii. The above requirement may be reduced by Warrant where a Facade is not visible from a public Thoroughfare, Civic Space, or Open Parking, provided that said Façade shall incorporate a decorative pattern with varied materials and textures in lieu of windows or doors. For the purpose of satisfying this requirement, control and expansion joints shall not constitute a decorative pattern with varied materials and textures. b. Facade articulation i. Facades over 50 feet in length shall incorporate wall projections or recesses a minimum of 12 inches in depth. The combined length of said recesses and projections shall constitute at least 20% of the total Facade length. ii. Facades over 200 feet in length shall incorporate a major articulation at least every 200 feet of Façade length. Said major articulation shall occur for a minimum length of 20 feet and shall be accomplished through: a. A change of façade material from grade to the roof, or b. A change in façade composition from grade to the roof, or c. Changes in storefront systems, Private Frontages, varying setbacks, or similar means intended to convey the impression of separate buildings. iii. Building stories shall not appear as single horizontal window bands separated by non-glass spandrels of equal or greater height than the windows. c. Additional Enfronting Facade requirements i. Enfronting Facades shall be articulated and designed to create additional visual interest by varying architectural details, building materials, the roof line, and building offsets. ii. On corner lots the architectural treatment of a building’s intersecting Enfronting Facades shall be substantially similar, except that said building shall emphasize the corner location by placing the Principal Entrance at the corner, incorporating additional height at the corner, varying the roof form DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE – V6 AS ADOPTED City of Milton April 22, 2013 25 at the corner, or providing other architectural embellishments at the corner. iii. First Story Facades of all buildings shall incorporate columns, awnings, arcades, porches, stoops, windows, doors, or other architectural elements as established by Private Frontage in Table 8. iv. Facades shall provide visual divisions between the first and second stories through architectural means such as courses, awnings, or a change in primary façade materials or colors. v. Facades above the first Story shall incorporate windows, arches, balconies, or other architectural details. vi. Buildings taller than two stories shall have two- or three-part Facades. Horizontal zones in the Facade may be differentiated by a change in materials, color, window pattern, or window material, or by a cornice or course. vii. A two-part façade shall consist of: a Base zone (first Story) b. Shaft zone (all other stories) viii. A three-part façade shall consist of: a. Base zone (first Stories) b. Shaft zone (middle Stories) c. Cap zone (upper Stories or cornice) d. Additional Non-Enfronting Facade requirements. i. First Story Facades of all buildings shall comply with the requirements set forth for Enfronting First Story Facades or may also provide panels, murals, and similar architectural details. ii. Facades above the first of all buildings shall incorporate windows, arches balconies, or other architectural details. 4.16.5 Specific to Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartment buildings - Facade materials a. No more than three different materials, textures, colors, or combinations thereof may be used on a single building. This requirement shall no include materials used on windows, doors, porches, balconies, foundations, awnings, architectural details, or those required by Warrant in lieu of windows and doors as set forth in Section 4.16.4(a)(ii). b. Materials may be combined only horizontally, with the heavier below the lighter. c. Vinyl or aluminum siding, synthetic stone, exposed standard concrete masonry unit (CMU) block, corrugated steel, prefabricated metal, exposed plywood, and exposed pressboard are prohibited. d. Exterior materials of buildings along Morris Road, Webb Road, and Deerfield Parkway shall be limited to brick, stone, pre-cast concrete, wood, glass, or granite. e. Exterior materials of buildings not along Morris Road, Webb Road, and Deerfield Parkway shall be limited as follows. Vertical wall planes shall consist of a minimum of 60% of brick or natural stone, and a maximum of 40% tile, non-reflective glass, natural stone with weathered, polished or fluted face, hard coat stucco, architectural concrete masonry with fluted, split-face, or broken-face finish, Portland cement plaster and lath systems, architectural (either precast or tilt-up) concrete (fluted or with exposed aggregate finish), or fiber cement siding. f. Accessory Structures shall be consistent with the Principal Building in material, texture, and color. g. Enfronting first Story windows and door glass shall be clear or tinted. Tinted glass shall have a transmittance factor of 50% or greater and shall have a visible light reflectance factor of ten or less. h. All window frames shall be recessed a minimum of 2 inches from the exterior Facade. DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE – V6 AS ADOPTED City of Milton April 22, 2013 26 i. Foundations, where provided, shall be constructed as a distinct building element that contrasts with Façade materials. Exposed above-ground foundations shall be coated or faced in cement, stucco, brick, manufactured stone, or natural stone to contrast with façade materials. 4.16.6 Specific to Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartment buildings – colors Permitted colors for exterior walls, building components, accent and decorative elements shall be as follows. Numbers refer to the Pantone Matching System, an international colormatching system a. White b. Black c. Browns, beiges and tans i. 462C - 468C ii. 4625C - 4685C iii. 469C, 474C, 475C iv. 4695C - 4755C v. 478C vi. 719C - 724C vii. 725C - 731C viii. 476U - 482U ix. 719U - 725U x. 726U - 732U e. Reds i. 483C, 484C ii. 7411C - 7414C iii. 7515C - 7519C iv. 7522C - 7526C f. Grays i. 400C - 432C g. Greens i. 553C - 554C ii. 560C - 561C iii. 614C - 616C iv. 3302C - 3305C v. 3295C, 342C, 343C, 3435C, 356C, 357C vi. 5467C - 5527C vii. 3305U, 3308U, 335U viii. 336U, 341U - 343U 4.16.7 Specific to Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartment buildings – roofs a. Specific to zones T2, T3, T4 i. Flat roofs shall be screened from the view of public and private streets by a parapet. ii. Accessory site features on a roof shall be screened from the view of public and private streets by a parapet or other architectural feature. iii. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, vents and stacks shall be screened from view from all sides. iv. Permitted sloped roof materials are asphalt shingles, composition shingles, wood shingle, tin, DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE – V6 AS ADOPTED City of Milton April 22, 2013 27 standing seam metal, and wood shake. v. Townhouse and duplex building rooflines shall exhibit differentiated architectural features such as gables, pyramidal, and hip. Rooflines shall be varied. Mansard roofs are not permitted. vi. Roof colors shall be black, gray, dark gray, brown, red or green. Reflective and metallic colors are prohibited unless described in Section 4.16.5. b. Specific to zones T5, T6 i. Any appurtenances that must be roof-mounted shall be located and screened so they are not visible from any point at ground level. Where possible, the appurtenances shall be grouped and enclosed by screens that are designed to be compatible with the building architecture. The screens shall be set back from the roof edge at a distance of no less than their height. ii. All rooftop appurtenances shall be painted to be compatible with the building architecture. iii. Rooftop solar collectors, skylights, and other potentially reflective rooftop building elements shall be designed and installed in a manner that prevents reflected glare and obstruction of views of other sites and structures. Said elements shall also be screened from view from all sides. iv. Roofing material and color shall be compatible with building and surroundings. 4.16.8 Specific to Townhouses a. Facades shall have windows and doors that equal at least 20% of the Facade area, with each floor calculated independently. This percentage may be reduced by Warrant where a façade is not visible from a public Thoroughfare, Civic Space, or Open Parking. b. No more than three adjacent Townhouse units shall have identical Facades. Differentiation between adjacent Facades may be accomplished by a change in materials, building height, color, roof form or setbacks, provided that the appearance of a separate building is achieved. c. Townhouses located in any T-Zone shall comply with the Facade standards set forth in Section 4.16.5 for Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartment buildings or Section 4.16.9(b) for Single-Family houses. 4.16.9 Specific to Single-Family Houses a. Single-family houses located in Zone T5 or T6 may comply with the standards set forth below or those set forth in Sections 4.16.4 through 4.16.7 for Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartments buildings. b. Facades shall have windows and doors that equal at least 20% of the Facade area, with each floor calculated independently. This percentage may be reduced by Warrant where a façade is not visible from a public Thoroughfare, Civic Space, or Open Parking. c. Materials i. No more than three different exterior materials, exterior colors, or any combination thereof may be used on a single building, not including windows, doors, porches, balconies, foundations, and architectural details. ii. Materials may be combined on exterior walls only horizontally, with the heavier below the lighter. iii. Exterior material shall be limited to brick, natural stone with or without mortar, clapboard, board and batten, hard-coat stucco, or wood shingles. iv. Vinyl or aluminum siding and synthetic stone veneer are prohibited. v. Hard-coat stucco shall be a 3-coat plaster finish, integral finish, applied on brick or concrete block; control joints shall be concealed where possible. vi. Clapboards and board and battens shall be wood or cementitious board. Cementitious board less than five-eighths of an inch thick shall have a 4 inch maximum exposure, while cementitious board DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE – V6 AS ADOPTED City of Milton April 22, 2013 28 thicker than five-eighths or full three-quarter inch wood siding may have up to an 8 inch lap. False wood graining is prohibited. vii. Wood shingles shall be level at the bottom edge. d. Foundations i. Foundations shall be constructed as a distinct building element that contrasts with Façade materials. ii. Foundations shall be constructed of poured concrete or concrete masonry units. iii. Foundations may be finished with smooth stucco, brick, or stone. e. Windows i. Windows shall have sash with a minimum face width of 2 inches; the dimension of the glass surface to sash and muntin face shall be a minimum of three-quarter of an inch. ii. Non-glass exterior window components shall be faced in wood, clad wood, or polymer materials, and said materials shall be paint grade or pre finished. iii. Doors and windows that operate as sliders are prohibited along Frontages. f. Chimneys i. Chimney stacks shall be faced in smooth integral finish stucco or, brick, stone, or detailed as exposed metal flues. ii. Siding or stucco board is prohibited as a finish material for chimneys. g. Stoops and porches i. A stoop or porch shall be provided along the Principal Frontage. ii. No stoop or porch along any Frontage shall be enclosed with screen wire, plastic, glass, mesh, or similar materials. iii. All porch and stoop steps along any Frontage shall have enclosed risers. iv. Porch and stoop columns shall have a minimum width of 8 inches. h. Roofs i. Flat roofs are prohibited. ii. Roofs shall have a pitch of between 5:12 and 12:12. This does not apply to dormers, porches, or porches. iii. Roofs shall include eaves projecting between 12 and thirty 36 inches. NOT FOR PRODUCTION OR MI MATING 1 V-0" 1132") FENCE OVERALL LENGTH O � O O SIGNS WWW.RCSIGNS.COM O n W 3W= 1 i-0" SECTION A / FENCE MATERLALS: I " x b" ROUGH SAWN CEDAR PLANKS, 3,Smx 3.5k ROUGH SAWN CEDAR POSTS W/ EXPOSED T H R U BOLTS 4'=3.14" {S G.194"} COPY FI NISi4, (WOOD) CLEAR SATIN FINISH. CLEAR STAIN OR OIL, (BOLTS) SATIN BLACK 3 SECTION R 1 LOGO PANEL SURSTPATE. HDU, ROUTED (OUTER EDGE REVELED W! RNSED INTERIOR PANEL, GOLD INSET BORDER AND HORSE ARE PAIS ED. THE RE- AINDER IS ROUTED OUT +i a oe - - - THICKNESS: 1.5" BACKER PAN EL- 0-12.5" ALUMINUM FINISHES- SATIN BLACK. P1P20505 COPPER METALLIC, SATIN ._ MOUNTING: BOLTS THRU FENCE INTO BACK CSF PANEL ^'I SECTION C { COPT - SUBSTRATE: ALUMINUM THICKNESS: 0.25' FINISH: (COPY & FASTERNERS) MP20SOS COPIER METALLIC. SATIN MOUNTING: FAMNERSTHRU ALUMIhILlM PAN EL INTO FENCE PLANK IL IL SCOPE OF WORK- FABRICATE & INSTALL (1 ) ONE SF NON ILLUMINATED FREESTANDING WELCOME SIGN 915 BRANCH DRIVE ALPHARETTA, GA 30004 PHONE: 770.569.5454 FAX: 770.569.5456 Notice to the Customer Note: The colors depicted on this rendering may not match actual colors used on the finished display. Please refer to the detail drawing for the approved color specifications. Note: The cost of providing electrical wiring to the sign area, all required permits and all special inspections are not included in this sign proposal. Note: The proportion of signs shown on building and landscape area photos is an approximate representation. This drawing was created to assist you in visualizing our proposal. The original ideas herein athe property © COPYRIGHT 2 01 I re of RC Signs. Permission to copy or revise this drawing can only be obtained through a written agreement with RC Signs. See your sales representative or call RC Signs CUSTOMER APPROVAL ❑ ACCEPTED W/ NO CHANGES ❑ ACCEPTED W/ CHANGES AS NOTED ❑ REVISE AS NOTED AND RESUBMIT BY CUSTOME1 BY LANDLORD DATE DATE DATE BY FIRM NAME / LOCATION ADDRESS .II BL CITY OF MILTON WELCOME SIGN PROJECT ADDRESS: SALESPERSON: SERENA JOHNSTON 110102 FILE PATH: graphics / city of milton /welcome sign FILE NAME: 1 10109 CITY OF MILTON (FREESTANDING WELCOME SIGN) 09.16.11 By signing this drawing document, I understand that I am not obligated to purchase this project, notwithstanding, the above artwork cannot be submitted for pricing, duplication PAGE # C and/or manufacturing to another sign company, architectural company or other business entity for the purpose or intent of manufacturing or for use as intellectual property, NAM E DATE 1 O r 2 such as, but not limited to, a company logo, unless the represented logo was provided to RC Signs by the customer and input into this drawing document by a RC Signs employee. NOT FOR PRODUCTION OR ESTIMATING 0 1 I'=0 f 1321 FENCE OVERALL LENGTH I m 5H 31 SIGNS WWW.RCSIGNS.COM SIGN A / SF NON ILLUMINATED FREESTANDING WELCOME SIGN OPTION#2 34'= 1'4' SEC'T'ION A / FENCE MATERIALS: I "x 6- ROUGH SAWN CEDAR PLANKS. 3_S"x 3.5" ROUGH SAWN CEDAR POSTS Wi-E POSEp THRU BOLTS FINISH: (WOOD) CLEAR SATIN FINISH, CLEAR STA11N OR 01L, (BOLTS) SAM BLACK SECTION B / PANEL SUBSTRATE- HDU, ROUTED, OUTER EDGE BEVELED, INSET 13ORDERAND COPS' AI -I'V` RO.UTEO OUT PAINT SCHEDULE THICKNESS- I.5" BACKER PANEL: 0.12S` ALUMINUM FINISHES: SATIN BLACK. MP20SOS COPPER METALLIC. SATIN MOUNTING: BOLTS THRU FENCE INTO BACK OF PANEL P I I GLOSS BLACK SECTION C 1 LOGO P2 I SATIN I3 CA FINISH: PAINT GLOSS BLACK - SCOPE OF WO FABRICATE & INSTALL (1) ONE SF KION ILLUMINATED FREESTANDING WELCOME SIGN ` 915 BRANCH DRIVE ALPHARETTA, GA 30004 PHONE: 770.569.5454 FAX: 770.569.5456 Notice to the Customer Note: The colors depicted on this rendering may not match actual colors used on the finished display. Please refer to the detail drawing for the approved color specifications. Note: The cost of providing electrical wiring to the sign area, all required permits and all special inspections are not included in this sign proposal. Note: The proportion of signs shown on building and landscape area photos is an approximate representation. This drawing was created to assist you in visualizing our proposal. The original ideas herein athe property © COPYRIGHT 2 01 I re of RC Signs. Permission to copy or revise this drawing can only be obtained through a written agreement with RC Signs. See your sales representative or call RC Signs CUSTOMER APPROVAL ❑ ACCEPTED W/ NO CHANGES ❑ ACCEPTED W/ CHANGES AS NOTED ❑ REVISE AS NOTED AND RESUBMIT BY CUSTOMEI BY LANDLORD DATE DATE ".fes P3 ! I -I CUr- r1=R k"IETALLIC, SA1TLN P4 i CLrAR SATIN OR OIL DATE BY FIRM NAME / LOCATION ADDRESS .II BL CITY OF MILTON WELCOME SIGN PROJECT ADDRESS: SALESPERSON: SERENA JOHNSTON 110102 FILE PATH: graphics / city of milton /welcome sign FILE NAME: 110109 CITY OF MILTON (FREESTANDING WELCOME SIGN) 09.16.11 By signing this drawing document, I understand that I am not obligated to purchase this project, notwithstanding, the above artwork cannot be submitted for pricing, duplication PAGE # C and/or manufacturing to another sign company, architectural company or other business entity for the purpose or intent of manufacturing or for use as intellectual property, NAM E DATE 2 O r 2 such as, but not limited to, a company logo, unless the represented logo was provided to RC Signs by the customer and input into this drawing document by a RC Signs employee. 1 | Page Rte. 9 Visioning Process Five Acres Area Stakeholder Group Meeting 3 July 17, 2013 Introductions Participants introduced themselves. Participants included: Hamid Sadri, Judy and Brent Sanderson, Billy Carman, Elizabeth Yancey, Janet Bryant, Ginger Smith, Tony and Debbie Stewart, Mary Swanson, Derek Bachan, Kari Hines, Marilyn Phillips, Scott Hornsby, Julianne Hornsby, and Alex Mehmandoost. City officials included: Michele McIntosh‐Ross and Kathy Field. Facilitator: Michael Elliott. Options and Their Implementation The meeting participants discussed a series of options associated with redevelopment along Route 9, as generated from the second meeting. Approaches to implementing these options were also discussed. The results of these discussions are as follows: First, as illustrated in Figure 1 below, buffers and entrance/egress requirements will be used to protect residential properties from sightlines and noise associated with new, nonresidential development. 2 | Page Figure 1. Site plan of properties located within Five Acres Subdivision and along Rte. 9, showing buffers, landscaping, entrances, fencing, and entrance sign/monument location. 3 | Page Figure 1 shows the following: 1) Entrance/egress to properties located on Route 9 will be from Rte. 9 for any use other than residential. 2) Entrances to Rte 9 will be shared between adjoining property owners whenever feasible. In particular, given their relatively small acreage, each of the two pairs of properties on either side of Five Acres Road will share a single entrance/egress. 3) Five Acres Road will be designed for its role as the entrance to Five Acres Subdivision. a) No property other than single family housing will have an entrance onto Five Acres Road b) A landscaped buffer will be maintained to block views of the redeveloped properties from Five Acres Road. A 20’ landscape strip will be planted with dense plantings, including evergreens, so that commercial properties are not visible from Five Acres Road. Landscaping buffer standards will be included as part of the zone, w/evergreens spaced to block views in all four seasons and deciduous trees included for aesthetics. Existing trees within the buffer will need to be removed in order to enable this more densely planted landscape. These are illustrated in Figures 2, 3 and 4 below. Figure 2. Example of dense landscaping. 4 | Page Figure 3. Second example of dense landscaping. Figure 4. Picture of dense landscaping, screening a residential street (shown) from commercial properties. c) The landscaped buffer along Five Acres Road will be fronted by horse fencing similar to the one in front of the Sanderson’s home and used throughout Milton. 4) Natural landscaped buffers will be preserved between lots located on Route 9 and their residential neighbors 5 | Page a) The buffer will be primarily undisturbed forest, with more dense vegetation and/or fencing along the interior edge of the buffer if the natural vegetation is insufficient to block sightlines to the redevelopment from existing residential properties. Any disturbance will be to landscape standards set by the city. b) Redeveloped properties of less than 4 acres will maintain a 50’ buffer along their property lines with residentially zoned neighbors. Properties of 4 or more acres will maintain a 75’ buffer. c) A 10’ improvement setback from the buffer will be maintained to protect the root system of trees. All of the elements presented in 1 through 4 above will be implemented through form‐ based code, with agreement from Department of Public Works for design of entrances to roads. 5) An entrance to the subdivision at the start of Five Acres Road will be designed and constructed. An entrance sign/monument will be located near the south corner of Five Acres Road and Rte 9 (as shown on Figure 1). The entrance will be built by mutual agreement between the residents of Five Acres Subdivision and Alex Mehmandoost (owner of the parcel on the south corner of Five Acres Road and Route 9). Residents will raise funds to build the entrance sign/monument, as illustrated in figure 5 below. Simpler designs had previously been discussed and pictures of potential designs were passed around at the meeting (see Figure 6).1 The subdivision will pay for the construction of the sign/monument. Alex will donate an easement for building the sign/monument within the 20’ landscape buffer (again, as shown in Figure 1). Construction of the sign/monument will occur at the time of installation of the landscape buffer or earlier if mutually agreed upon. The details of the sign/monument and the easement will be worked out between Alex and the subdivision residents 1 Note, the Department of Community Development looked further into Milton ordinances concerning signs and monuments following the meeting. Per Milton sign ordinances, the Five Acre Subdivision entrance sign/monument cannot exceed 32 square feet with a maximum height of 6 feet, with the base of the sign being the same width as the rest of the sign. Also, it will need to be installed prior to the Form Based Code being adopted so that it will be a grandfathered non‐conforming use. The simpler signs conform to form based codes and therefore could be constructed at any time. 6 | Page Figure 5. Examples of subdivision entrance monument. Figure 6. Examples of subdivision entrance signs. . 7 | Page 6) Development will be capped at 10,000 square feet per gross acre of land. 7) Buildings will be designed to fit well with the residential character of the area. a) Buildings will be one or two stories tall. b) Design elements such as peaked roofs, massing, windows, doors, and building materials will be used to enhance building styles appropriate to the area. c) Underground detention of stormwater is stongly preferred to surface detention pond. Ponds (if used) will be screened from view. d) Dumpsters and other accessory features will be hidden from view. e) Landscaping elements will be included around parking lots and buildings. Elements presented in 6 and 7 above will be incorporated into form‐based codes. In addition, site and building designs for commercial or multifamily redevelopments will be reviewed by the Design Review Board for consistency with code standards. The design review process is open to public comment. The standards that will be applied to this area will be consistent with the Deerfield codes previously developed by the city (see attached for a summary of the codes). 8) For the four parcels located in the Five Acres Subdivision, permitted uses will include: a) Residential i) Single family ii) Duplex iii) Cluster housing iv) Townhomes b) Office c) Live/work d) Retail, including banking e) Gyms f) Assisted living g) Restaurants without outdoor seating 9) All other uses are excluded. These exclusions include: a) Automobile services, including gas stations b) Hotels c) Kennels d) Convenience stores e) Traditional shopping centers (disallowed because traditional shopping centers do not conform to form based design standards) f) Drive through restaurants g) Nursing homes and hospitals 8 | Page h) Day care and schools (since they require outdoor play areas that are noisy) for parcels 10) The treatment of restaurants with outdoor seating remains unclear. Several options were discussed, including a) Limiting outdoor seating to a small (10% of building square feet) area, b) Limiting outdoor seating to the front (facing Route 9) of the building only, c) Setting a minimum distance from the nearest residential building, d) Requiring that the seating be on the opposite side of the building from the nearest residence if within the minmum distance, and/or e) Preventing live music from being played outdoors (possibly through liquor licence provisions)2. The city will look into this further and try to develop a way to simultaneously manage noise while allowing for some outdoor seating3. Next Steps No more meetings are planned for the Five Acres Subarea Visioning Process. Once a similar process being held for the Bethany Bend Subarea is completed, the results of both subarea processes will be integrated into the Route 9 Corridor Visioning Process, which includes the entire planning area north of Bethany Bend (see Figure 7). Figure 7. Route 9 Visioning Process Boundaries 2 The City has determined that the liquor license cannot be used to limit live music. 3 The recommended solution (developed by the Department of Community Development) is to limit outdoor seating to 10% of the building’s area, to be located to the front (facing Route 9) or side of the building only and being a minimum distance of 200 feet from any single family residential structure. 9 | Page The final vision developed by the Route 9 Corridor Visioning Process will incorporate the two subarea visions and be made part of the final draft plan for the corridor. This plan will then be presented to the community for their input. The resultant report will be published, and then reviewed by Milton’s Planning Commission and City Council. Following approval of the vision and plan by the Commission and Council, the Department of Community Development will develop the form based zoning code needed to implement the vision and plan. The ordinance will include special chapters for special use areas. The form based code will then go through the same review and approval process as the Vision and Plan. The current timetable is for the plan to be completed this fall, with the zoning ordinance being completed by spring. Attachments Attached are copies of the Deerfield Form‐Based Code Architectural Requirements which will serve as the basis for requirements for this section of Route 9 and the City of Milton’s form based code sign standards. DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE – V6 AS ADOPTED City of Milton April 22, 2013 24 4.16 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS 4.16.1 The following architectural standards shall apply to all buildings unless otherwise approved by Warrant by the community development director after consultation with the City Architect. 4.16.2 Architectural treatment shall continue on all sides of a building except as specifically noted otherwise. 4.16.3 General to all buildings – Facade composition a. The Principal Entrance of a building shall be articulated and expressed in greater architectural detail than other buildings entrances. b. Windows shall be vertically shaped with a height greater than their width. c. Burglar bars, steel gates, metal awnings and steel roll-down curtains are prohibited if visible from a public Thoroughfare, Civic Space, or Open Parking. d. Exposed neon lighting outlining and detailing building features is prohibited. e. Exposed ductwork, pipes, conduit or other similar items are prohibited unless otherwise approved by Warrant. 4.16.4 Specific to Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartment buildings – Façade composition a. Facades shall incorporate windows and doors as follows: i. Windows and doors shall be provided for at least 25% of the total Facade area, with each floor calculated independently. The maximum contiguous area without windows or doors on any floor shall not exceed 10 feet in height or 20 feet in length. ii. The above requirement may be reduced by Warrant where a Facade is not visible from a public Thoroughfare, Civic Space, or Open Parking, provided that said Façade shall incorporate a decorative pattern with varied materials and textures in lieu of windows or doors. For the purpose of satisfying this requirement, control and expansion joints shall not constitute a decorative pattern with varied materials and textures. b. Facade articulation i. Facades over 50 feet in length shall incorporate wall projections or recesses a minimum of 12 inches in depth. The combined length of said recesses and projections shall constitute at least 20% of the total Facade length. ii. Facades over 200 feet in length shall incorporate a major articulation at least every 200 feet of Façade length. Said major articulation shall occur for a minimum length of 20 feet and shall be accomplished through: a. A change of façade material from grade to the roof, or b. A change in façade composition from grade to the roof, or c. Changes in storefront systems, Private Frontages, varying setbacks, or similar means intended to convey the impression of separate buildings. iii. Building stories shall not appear as single horizontal window bands separated by non-glass spandrels of equal or greater height than the windows. c. Additional Enfronting Facade requirements i. Enfronting Facades shall be articulated and designed to create additional visual interest by varying architectural details, building materials, the roof line, and building offsets. ii. On corner lots the architectural treatment of a building’s intersecting Enfronting Facades shall be substantially similar, except that said building shall emphasize the corner location by placing the Principal Entrance at the corner, incorporating additional height at the corner, varying the roof form DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE – V6 AS ADOPTED City of Milton April 22, 2013 25 at the corner, or providing other architectural embellishments at the corner. iii. First Story Facades of all buildings shall incorporate columns, awnings, arcades, porches, stoops, windows, doors, or other architectural elements as established by Private Frontage in Table 8. iv. Facades shall provide visual divisions between the first and second stories through architectural means such as courses, awnings, or a change in primary façade materials or colors. v. Facades above the first Story shall incorporate windows, arches, balconies, or other architectural details. vi. Buildings taller than two stories shall have two- or three-part Facades. Horizontal zones in the Facade may be differentiated by a change in materials, color, window pattern, or window material, or by a cornice or course. vii. A two-part façade shall consist of: a Base zone (first Story) b. Shaft zone (all other stories) viii. A three-part façade shall consist of: a. Base zone (first Stories) b. Shaft zone (middle Stories) c. Cap zone (upper Stories or cornice) d. Additional Non-Enfronting Facade requirements. i. First Story Facades of all buildings shall comply with the requirements set forth for Enfronting First Story Facades or may also provide panels, murals, and similar architectural details. ii. Facades above the first of all buildings shall incorporate windows, arches balconies, or other architectural details. 4.16.5 Specific to Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartment buildings - Facade materials a. No more than three different materials, textures, colors, or combinations thereof may be used on a single building. This requirement shall no include materials used on windows, doors, porches, balconies, foundations, awnings, architectural details, or those required by Warrant in lieu of windows and doors as set forth in Section 4.16.4(a)(ii). b. Materials may be combined only horizontally, with the heavier below the lighter. c. Vinyl or aluminum siding, synthetic stone, exposed standard concrete masonry unit (CMU) block, corrugated steel, prefabricated metal, exposed plywood, and exposed pressboard are prohibited. d. Exterior materials of buildings along Morris Road, Webb Road, and Deerfield Parkway shall be limited to brick, stone, pre-cast concrete, wood, glass, or granite. e. Exterior materials of buildings not along Morris Road, Webb Road, and Deerfield Parkway shall be limited as follows. Vertical wall planes shall consist of a minimum of 60% of brick or natural stone, and a maximum of 40% tile, non-reflective glass, natural stone with weathered, polished or fluted face, hard coat stucco, architectural concrete masonry with fluted, split-face, or broken-face finish, Portland cement plaster and lath systems, architectural (either precast or tilt-up) concrete (fluted or with exposed aggregate finish), or fiber cement siding. f. Accessory Structures shall be consistent with the Principal Building in material, texture, and color. g. Enfronting first Story windows and door glass shall be clear or tinted. Tinted glass shall have a transmittance factor of 50% or greater and shall have a visible light reflectance factor of ten or less. h. All window frames shall be recessed a minimum of 2 inches from the exterior Facade. DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE – V6 AS ADOPTED City of Milton April 22, 2013 26 i. Foundations, where provided, shall be constructed as a distinct building element that contrasts with Façade materials. Exposed above-ground foundations shall be coated or faced in cement, stucco, brick, manufactured stone, or natural stone to contrast with façade materials. 4.16.6 Specific to Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartment buildings – colors Permitted colors for exterior walls, building components, accent and decorative elements shall be as follows. Numbers refer to the Pantone Matching System, an international colormatching system a. White b. Black c. Browns, beiges and tans i. 462C - 468C ii. 4625C - 4685C iii. 469C, 474C, 475C iv. 4695C - 4755C v. 478C vi. 719C - 724C vii. 725C - 731C viii. 476U - 482U ix. 719U - 725U x. 726U - 732U e. Reds i. 483C, 484C ii. 7411C - 7414C iii. 7515C - 7519C iv. 7522C - 7526C f. Grays i. 400C - 432C g. Greens i. 553C - 554C ii. 560C - 561C iii. 614C - 616C iv. 3302C - 3305C v. 3295C, 342C, 343C, 3435C, 356C, 357C vi. 5467C - 5527C vii. 3305U, 3308U, 335U viii. 336U, 341U - 343U 4.16.7 Specific to Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartment buildings – roofs a. Specific to zones T2, T3, T4 i. Flat roofs shall be screened from the view of public and private streets by a parapet. ii. Accessory site features on a roof shall be screened from the view of public and private streets by a parapet or other architectural feature. iii. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, vents and stacks shall be screened from view from all sides. iv. Permitted sloped roof materials are asphalt shingles, composition shingles, wood shingle, tin, DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE – V6 AS ADOPTED City of Milton April 22, 2013 27 standing seam metal, and wood shake. v. Townhouse and duplex building rooflines shall exhibit differentiated architectural features such as gables, pyramidal, and hip. Rooflines shall be varied. Mansard roofs are not permitted. vi. Roof colors shall be black, gray, dark gray, brown, red or green. Reflective and metallic colors are prohibited unless described in Section 4.16.5. b. Specific to zones T5, T6 i. Any appurtenances that must be roof-mounted shall be located and screened so they are not visible from any point at ground level. Where possible, the appurtenances shall be grouped and enclosed by screens that are designed to be compatible with the building architecture. The screens shall be set back from the roof edge at a distance of no less than their height. ii. All rooftop appurtenances shall be painted to be compatible with the building architecture. iii. Rooftop solar collectors, skylights, and other potentially reflective rooftop building elements shall be designed and installed in a manner that prevents reflected glare and obstruction of views of other sites and structures. Said elements shall also be screened from view from all sides. iv. Roofing material and color shall be compatible with building and surroundings. 4.16.8 Specific to Townhouses a. Facades shall have windows and doors that equal at least 20% of the Facade area, with each floor calculated independently. This percentage may be reduced by Warrant where a façade is not visible from a public Thoroughfare, Civic Space, or Open Parking. b. No more than three adjacent Townhouse units shall have identical Facades. Differentiation between adjacent Facades may be accomplished by a change in materials, building height, color, roof form or setbacks, provided that the appearance of a separate building is achieved. c. Townhouses located in any T-Zone shall comply with the Facade standards set forth in Section 4.16.5 for Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartment buildings or Section 4.16.9(b) for Single-Family houses. 4.16.9 Specific to Single-Family Houses a. Single-family houses located in Zone T5 or T6 may comply with the standards set forth below or those set forth in Sections 4.16.4 through 4.16.7 for Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Apartments buildings. b. Facades shall have windows and doors that equal at least 20% of the Facade area, with each floor calculated independently. This percentage may be reduced by Warrant where a façade is not visible from a public Thoroughfare, Civic Space, or Open Parking. c. Materials i. No more than three different exterior materials, exterior colors, or any combination thereof may be used on a single building, not including windows, doors, porches, balconies, foundations, and architectural details. ii. Materials may be combined on exterior walls only horizontally, with the heavier below the lighter. iii. Exterior material shall be limited to brick, natural stone with or without mortar, clapboard, board and batten, hard-coat stucco, or wood shingles. iv. Vinyl or aluminum siding and synthetic stone veneer are prohibited. v. Hard-coat stucco shall be a 3-coat plaster finish, integral finish, applied on brick or concrete block; control joints shall be concealed where possible. vi. Clapboards and board and battens shall be wood or cementitious board. Cementitious board less than five-eighths of an inch thick shall have a 4 inch maximum exposure, while cementitious board DEERFIELD FORM-BASED CODE – V6 AS ADOPTED City of Milton April 22, 2013 28 thicker than five-eighths or full three-quarter inch wood siding may have up to an 8 inch lap. False wood graining is prohibited. vii. Wood shingles shall be level at the bottom edge. d. Foundations i. Foundations shall be constructed as a distinct building element that contrasts with Façade materials. ii. Foundations shall be constructed of poured concrete or concrete masonry units. iii. Foundations may be finished with smooth stucco, brick, or stone. e. Windows i. Windows shall have sash with a minimum face width of 2 inches; the dimension of the glass surface to sash and muntin face shall be a minimum of three-quarter of an inch. ii. Non-glass exterior window components shall be faced in wood, clad wood, or polymer materials, and said materials shall be paint grade or pre finished. iii. Doors and windows that operate as sliders are prohibited along Frontages. f. Chimneys i. Chimney stacks shall be faced in smooth integral finish stucco or, brick, stone, or detailed as exposed metal flues. ii. Siding or stucco board is prohibited as a finish material for chimneys. g. Stoops and porches i. A stoop or porch shall be provided along the Principal Frontage. ii. No stoop or porch along any Frontage shall be enclosed with screen wire, plastic, glass, mesh, or similar materials. iii. All porch and stoop steps along any Frontage shall have enclosed risers. iv. Porch and stoop columns shall have a minimum width of 8 inches. h. Roofs i. Flat roofs are prohibited. ii. Roofs shall have a pitch of between 5:12 and 12:12. This does not apply to dormers, porches, or porches. iii. Roofs shall include eaves projecting between 12 and thirty 36 inches. NOT FOR PRODUCTION OR MI MATING 1 V-0" 1132") FENCE OVERALL LENGTH O � O O SIGNS WWW.RCSIGNS.COM O n W 3W= 1 i-0" SECTION A / FENCE MATERLALS: I " x b" ROUGH SAWN CEDAR PLANKS, 3,Smx 3.5k ROUGH SAWN CEDAR POSTS W/ EXPOSED T H R U BOLTS 4'=3.14" {S G.194"} COPY FI NISi4, (WOOD) CLEAR SATIN FINISH. CLEAR STAIN OR OIL, (BOLTS) SATIN BLACK 3 SECTION R 1 LOGO PANEL SURSTPATE. HDU, ROUTED (OUTER EDGE REVELED W! RNSED INTERIOR PANEL, GOLD INSET BORDER AND HORSE ARE PAIS ED. THE RE- AINDER IS ROUTED OUT +i a oe - - - THICKNESS: 1.5" BACKER PAN EL- 0-12.5" ALUMINUM FINISHES- SATIN BLACK. P1P20505 COPPER METALLIC, SATIN ._ MOUNTING: BOLTS THRU FENCE INTO BACK CSF PANEL ^'I SECTION C { COPT - SUBSTRATE: ALUMINUM THICKNESS: 0.25' FINISH: (COPY & FASTERNERS) MP20SOS COPIER METALLIC. SATIN MOUNTING: FAMNERSTHRU ALUMIhILlM PAN EL INTO FENCE PLANK IL IL SCOPE OF WORK- FABRICATE & INSTALL (1 ) ONE SF NON ILLUMINATED FREESTANDING WELCOME SIGN 915 BRANCH DRIVE ALPHARETTA, GA 30004 PHONE: 770.569.5454 FAX: 770.569.5456 Notice to the Customer Note: The colors depicted on this rendering may not match actual colors used on the finished display. Please refer to the detail drawing for the approved color specifications. Note: The cost of providing electrical wiring to the sign area, all required permits and all special inspections are not included in this sign proposal. Note: The proportion of signs shown on building and landscape area photos is an approximate representation. This drawing was created to assist you in visualizing our proposal. The original ideas herein athe property © COPYRIGHT 2 01 I re of RC Signs. Permission to copy or revise this drawing can only be obtained through a written agreement with RC Signs. See your sales representative or call RC Signs CUSTOMER APPROVAL ❑ ACCEPTED W/ NO CHANGES ❑ ACCEPTED W/ CHANGES AS NOTED ❑ REVISE AS NOTED AND RESUBMIT BY CUSTOME1 BY LANDLORD DATE DATE DATE BY FIRM NAME / LOCATION ADDRESS .II BL CITY OF MILTON WELCOME SIGN PROJECT ADDRESS: SALESPERSON: SERENA JOHNSTON 110102 FILE PATH: graphics / city of milton /welcome sign FILE NAME: 1 10109 CITY OF MILTON (FREESTANDING WELCOME SIGN) 09.16.11 By signing this drawing document, I understand that I am not obligated to purchase this project, notwithstanding, the above artwork cannot be submitted for pricing, duplication PAGE # C and/or manufacturing to another sign company, architectural company or other business entity for the purpose or intent of manufacturing or for use as intellectual property, NAM E DATE 1 O r 2 such as, but not limited to, a company logo, unless the represented logo was provided to RC Signs by the customer and input into this drawing document by a RC Signs employee. NOT FOR PRODUCTION OR ESTIMATING 0 1 I'=0 f 1321 FENCE OVERALL LENGTH I m 5H 31 SIGNS WWW.RCSIGNS.COM SIGN A / SF NON ILLUMINATED FREESTANDING WELCOME SIGN OPTION#2 34'= 1'4' SEC'T'ION A / FENCE MATERIALS: I "x 6- ROUGH SAWN CEDAR PLANKS. 3_S"x 3.5" ROUGH SAWN CEDAR POSTS Wi-E POSEp THRU BOLTS FINISH: (WOOD) CLEAR SATIN FINISH, CLEAR STA11N OR 01L, (BOLTS) SAM BLACK SECTION B / PANEL SUBSTRATE- HDU, ROUTED, OUTER EDGE BEVELED, INSET 13ORDERAND COPS' AI -I'V` RO.UTEO OUT PAINT SCHEDULE THICKNESS- I.5" BACKER PANEL: 0.12S` ALUMINUM FINISHES: SATIN BLACK. MP20SOS COPPER METALLIC. SATIN MOUNTING: BOLTS THRU FENCE INTO BACK OF PANEL P I I GLOSS BLACK SECTION C 1 LOGO P2 I SATIN I3 CA FINISH: PAINT GLOSS BLACK - SCOPE OF WO FABRICATE & INSTALL (1) ONE SF KION ILLUMINATED FREESTANDING WELCOME SIGN ` 915 BRANCH DRIVE ALPHARETTA, GA 30004 PHONE: 770.569.5454 FAX: 770.569.5456 Notice to the Customer Note: The colors depicted on this rendering may not match actual colors used on the finished display. Please refer to the detail drawing for the approved color specifications. Note: The cost of providing electrical wiring to the sign area, all required permits and all special inspections are not included in this sign proposal. Note: The proportion of signs shown on building and landscape area photos is an approximate representation. This drawing was created to assist you in visualizing our proposal. The original ideas herein athe property © COPYRIGHT 2 01 I re of RC Signs. Permission to copy or revise this drawing can only be obtained through a written agreement with RC Signs. See your sales representative or call RC Signs CUSTOMER APPROVAL ❑ ACCEPTED W/ NO CHANGES ❑ ACCEPTED W/ CHANGES AS NOTED ❑ REVISE AS NOTED AND RESUBMIT BY CUSTOMEI BY LANDLORD DATE DATE ".fes P3 ! I -I CUr- r1=R k"IETALLIC, SA1TLN P4 i CLrAR SATIN OR OIL DATE BY FIRM NAME / LOCATION ADDRESS .II BL CITY OF MILTON WELCOME SIGN PROJECT ADDRESS: SALESPERSON: SERENA JOHNSTON 110102 FILE PATH: graphics / city of milton /welcome sign FILE NAME: 110109 CITY OF MILTON (FREESTANDING WELCOME SIGN) 09.16.11 By signing this drawing document, I understand that I am not obligated to purchase this project, notwithstanding, the above artwork cannot be submitted for pricing, duplication PAGE # C and/or manufacturing to another sign company, architectural company or other business entity for the purpose or intent of manufacturing or for use as intellectual property, NAM E DATE 2 O r 2 such as, but not limited to, a company logo, unless the represented logo was provided to RC Signs by the customer and input into this drawing document by a RC Signs employee. I HOME OF' HE BEST QUALITY OF LIFE IN GEORGIA' MILTOESTABLISHED 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: November 30, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager(o AGENDA ITEM: Consideration to Amend Chapter 50, Article III, Division 1, Sec. 50-71 Compliance with City Procedures and Guidelines Required. (Paved and Unpaved Roads.) MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: (eAPPROVED (J NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: (. ES () NO CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: (.KYES (/ NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY: (,APPROVED (/ NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: It/b#70 REMARKS: M i Taub _ PHONE: 678.242.25001 FAX: 678.242.2499�reen • w Commis o,,d " IMo�clfyofmlHonga.uslwww.cHyoimilbnga.us _cEp o,. .POM= iiIll 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 ' s Page 1 of 2 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kathleen Field, Community Development Director Date: November 28, 2016, prepared for the December 19, 2016 City Council Meeting. (First Presentation - December 5, 2016, Work Session – December 12, 2016) Re: Consideration to amend Chapter 50, Article III, Division 1, Sec. 50-71 Compliance with City Procedures and Guidelines Required. (Paved and Unpaved Roads.) Department Recommendation: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Executive Summary: Background The purpose of the text amendment is to amend the existing ordinance to Chapter 50 (Subdivisions) of the City Code to ensure that any parcel fronting on an unpaved road (gravel road) remains three acre in size. This also includes those parcels that have frontage on both an unpaved road and a paved road no matter what the width of the frontage on the unpaved road. This item was presented at the October 26, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. There were four citizens who made comments regarding the proposed change. Three of the citizens were in support of the ordinance as proposed by Staff. One citizen who also represented land owners was in opposition to the proposal as recommended by Staff. After deliberation and consideration of comments from the public, the proposed text amendment was deferred to allow Staff to pr ovide the foll owing information: a list of unpaved roads in Milton and a list of parcels and their size that have frontage on both unpaved roads and paved roads (not already in platted subdivision like White Columns). Results of the November 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Staff provided the items that the Planning Commission requested from the October meeting. There was one citizen who spoke in support of the proposed text amendment regarding unpaved roads. After further discussion by the Planning Commission they recommended Approval (6-0) of this change to the Page 2 of 2 Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 50 of the City Code). Funding and Fiscal Impact: There will be no impact if this text amendment is approved. Alternatives: The Mayor and City Council may approve or deny the amendment as proposed and/or recommend further amendments to the text amendment discussed. Legal Review: Paul Frickey - Jarrard & Davis (November, 2016) Concurrent Review: Community Development, Public Works Attachment(s): Chapter 50 text amendment and ordinance. 12/1/201611/28/2016 Text Amendment to Chapter 50 – Subdivision Prepared for the City of Milton Mayor and City Council Meeting on December 19, 2016. (First Presentation on December 5, 2016, Work Session on December 12, 2016) Page 1 of 2 Sec. 50-71. - Compliance with city procedures and guidelines required. All proposals to subdivide combine or recombine parcels of land under the provision of these regulations shall be in compliance with the City of Milton's Standard Procedures and Guidelines for Subdividing Property. (1) All final plats, replats and minor plats shall have the consent of the owners of all affected lots shown on said plat. Replats or new plats showing modifications to common areas shall require the consent of owners of all lots shown in the original final plat. (2) Proposals for the subdivision, combination or recombination of lawful previously platted lots or parcels, or portions thereof, shall be in compliance with the zoning ordinance (chapter 64). (3) If construction activity contemplated results in the disturbance of an area of 5,000 square feet or more, a land disturbance permit must be approved along with any building permit prior to construction. (4) Where a proposed lot fronts an existing public street, the subdivider shall improve the street along the lot's frontage to the applicable standards of these regulations and any standard details as determined by the director. (5) All slope, drainage and utility easements, as well as necessary right-of-way widths (as determined by the director) on an existing public street, paved or unpaved, shall be provided by the subdivider at no cost to the city. (6) Each proposed lot shall comply with the requirements of the Fulton County Department of Health, whose certification of approval shall accompany the submission of the final plat to the director. (7) A minor plat proposal, as defined in section 50-1, may be exempt from traffic and drainage studies and tree surveys, when an analysis is submitted and concludes that the development would have no negative impact on traffic or drainage. (8) Each lot created under the provisions of a minor plat shall not subsequently be resubdivided pursuant to the provisions of a minor plat. (9) For the division of land in the AG-1 (Agricultural) zoning district adjacent to or has access to unpaved roads, or having frontage adjacent to an unpaved road with or without a paved extension, or with multiple frontages on a paved road and unpaved road at the time of the adoption of this ordinance, unless the frontage of the gravel road has less than 100 feet of road frontage, provide 35 feet of frontage and 100 feet of lot width at the building line, the following rules shall apply: a.Each proposed lot shall contain a minimum area of three acres. b.Each proposed lot shall provide at least 100 feet of road frontage, the minimum dimension of which shall be maintained to the building line of the lot. c.Each proposed lot shall provide at least 200 feet of lot width at the building line. (10) For the division of land in O-I, C-1, C-2, MIX, and M1-A, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts, after initial development of the property, the following standards shall also apply: a.A proposed lot fronting an existing public street shall contain the necessary frontage required by the zoning ordinance (chapter 64). 12/1/201611/28/2016 Text Amendment to Chapter 50 – Subdivision Prepared for the City of Milton Mayor and City Council Meeting on December 19, 2016. (First Presentation on December 5, 2016, Work Session on December 12, 2016) Page 2 of 2 b.The subdivider shall submit documentation of the necessary easements providing for access to a public street for proposed lots that front only on an existing, documented, paved private street or driveway. c.All slope, drainage and utility easements, as well as necessary street rights-of-way (as determined by the director) shall be provided by the subdivider at no cost to the city. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE____ COUNTY OF FULTON AN ORDIANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 50, ARTICLE III, DIVISION 1, SEC. 50-71 COMPLIANCE WITH CITY PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES REQUIRED. (PAVED AND UNPAVED ROADS) BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Milton, GA while in a regularly called council meeting on December 19, 2016 6:00 p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. That the amendment of the guidelines required for paved and unpaved roads in Chapter 50, Article III, Division 1, Sec. 50-71. Ordinance is hereby adopted and approved; and is attached hereto as if fully set forth herein, and; SECTION 2. All ordinances, parts of ordinances, or regulations in conflict herewith are repealed. SECTION 3. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption. ORDAINED this the 19th day of December, 2016. ____________________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk HOME OF' HE BEST QUALITY OF LIFE EO M T I LTOIN N* ESTABLISHED 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: %%N��o��vember 22, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager V AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Barnyard Spirits, LLC, dba Barnyard Spirits, 15840 Birmingham Highway, Milton, Georgia 30004 MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: („ j�APPROVED (J NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: O YES L.600 CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: () YES () NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY. () APPROVED () NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: 4/e7zet REMARKS: ©» Yaom PHONE: 679.242.25001 FAX: 679.242.2499 �rdentw ; c<Ne�a' *w`=� infofclyofmllfonga.us l w .oHyafinigonga.us Community j 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 `° s To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Bernadette Harvill, Finance Director Date: Submitted on November 4, 2016, for the December 5, 2016 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Item: Consideration of the Issuance of an Alcohol Beverage License to Barnyard Spirits, LLC, dba Barnyard Spirits, 15840 Birmingham Highway, Milton, Georgia 30004 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Department Recommendation: Approve the issuance of an alcohol beverage license Barnyard Spirits, LLC, dba Barnyard Spirits, for Package Retail of Wine and Distilled Spirits. Executive Summary: City of Milton Code of Ordinance Chapter 4 allows for the issuance of alcohol beverage licenses to businesses that properly submit application for and meet all of the legal requirements to hold such license. This application was submitted due to change of business name and ownership. Staff has processed the application and recommends issuance of the applicable license for: Business Name: Barnyard Spirits, LLC, dba Barnyard Spirits Contact Name: David Essary Business Address: 15840 Birmingham Highway, Milton, GA 30004 Type of License: Package Retail – Wine and Distilled Spirits Funding and Fiscal Impact: There is a positive fiscal impact of license fees and/or monthly excise taxes. Alternatives: None. Legal Review: Not required. Concurrent Review: Steven Krokoff, City Manager Kathleen Field, Director of Community Development Attachment(s): None. ME HOME OF' HE BE ST QUALITY OF LIMLTON*k CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: November 22, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager V AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of an Ordinance Reaffirming and Establishing Chapter 46 of the Milton Code of Ordinances Governing Solid Waste Collection Services within the City of Milton. MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: (XPPROVED () NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: (.ehS () NO CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: (-LYES () NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY. (,yKPPROVED NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: IA 114rl7a/4 REMARKS: in * Youlm `� +*. PHONE: 678.242.25001 FAX: 678.242.2499 Green 'cnw..e; Info@cltyofmlltcnga.us l w .cilyofnjlt nga.us wi Community O' 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 - a To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Teresa Stickels, Sustainability Coordinator Date: Submitted on November 14, 2016 for the November 21, 2016 Regular Council Meeting for First Presentation and December 5th, 2016 for Unfinished Business Agenda Item: Consideration of an Ordinance Reaffirming and Establishing Chapter 46 of the Milton Code of Ordinances Governing Solid Waste Collection Services within the City of Milton. ____________________________________________________________________________ Department Recommendation: Re-affirm the ordinance approving and establishing the regulation of solid waste collection services within the City of Milton with one change, and direct City Staff to facilitate the contracting of such services to providers currently in operation and those who may become in operation. Because recycling processors no longer accept glass in mixed stream collections, Staff recommends removing glass from the list of recyclable materials waste haulers are required to collect. Executive Summary: The original ordinance was passed on November 21, 2006 and has been approved each successive year since its original enactment. The City’s authority to enter into solid waste franchise agreements originates from this ordinance. This ordinance requires approval each year in order to continue the enforcement of our solid waste franchise agreements. The following companies are on the current list of approved haulers: Advanced Disposal Allegiance Sanitation American Disposal Arrow Waste Custom Disposal Grogan Disposal GW Lovelace Henry Edward Kincaid M&M Waste Republic Services Sanitation Solutions Waste Management Waste Pro Page 2 of 2 Funding and Fiscal Impact: The ordinance contains the requirement for an infrastructure maintenance fee to be paid to the city quarterly in the amount of 5% of gross revenues. As of November 10, 2016 the revenue collected was $97,454.35. The FY16 third quarter payments are due November 15, 2016, after which we will have the totals for FY 2016. Alternatives: If not approved, the City would lose its authority to regulate solid waste collection within our corporate limits and the ability to collect franchise fees for the same activity, with the accompanying loss of revenue. Legal Review: Paul Frickey, Jarrard & Davis (November 15, 2016) Concurrent Review: Steve Krokoff, City Manager Kathleen Field, Community Development Director Attachment(s): Solid Waste Ordinance STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 1 of 21 AN ORDINANCE REAFFIRMING AND ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 46 OF THE MILTON CODE OF ORDINANCES GOVERNING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY OF MILTON; PROVIDING FOR THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE OPERATION; PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE, SOLID WASTE AND REFUSE; REQUIRING THE EXECUTION BY SERVICE PROVIDERS OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MILTON; PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR THE HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS; PROVIDING FOR AN INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE FEE; REQUIRING INDEMNITY INSURANCE; PROVIDING FOR REVOCATION AND AMENDMENT; PROHIBITING ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING WITHOUT CONSENT; PROVIDING FOR FORFEITURE; AND FOR MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Milton, GA while in a regularly called council meeting on December 5November 16, at 6:00 p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. The City of Milton (“City”) seeks to provide standards of operation, regulation, and oversight in the providing of solid waste services within the corporate city limits; SECTION 2. The City currently recognizes the following companies as “Approved Haulers” in the City limits: , Advanced Disposal, Allegiance Sanitation, American Disposal Services, Arrow Inc., Custom Disposal, Grogan’s Disposal, GW Lovelace, Henry Edward Kincaid, , , M&M Waste, Republic Services, Sanitation Solutions, Waste Management, and Waste Pro; SECTION 3. The City seeks to confirm the “Approved Haulers” list as long as the companies are found to be acting consistently with the Ordinance and recognizes that the City Council may seek to amend the Approved Haulers List as need arises and in accordance with the established Solid Waste Ordinance; SECTION 4. It is in the interest of the City and its citizens to offer companies currently providing such services a non-exclusive contract on such terms and conditions that will provide the City with the controls and options necessary to provide for the public good; SECTION 5. Chapter 46 of the Milton City Code of Ordinances, the Milton Solid Waste Ordinance, attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby ratified, approved and affirmed, subject to those redline modifications set forth in attached Exhibit A; SECTION 6. All ordinances, parts of ordinances, or regulations in conflict herewith are rejected; SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption; ORDAINED this the 5th day of December, 2016.16th day of November, 2015. Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Superscript STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 2 of 21 __________________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk (Seal) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 3 of 21 EXHIBIT A Chapter 46 - SOLID WASTE [46] (46) State Law reference— Solid waste management generally, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-20 et seq.; Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-9-1; hazardous waste management, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-79; local and regional solid waste plans, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-31.1; tire disposal restrictions, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-40.1; yard trimmings and disposal restrictions, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-40.2; authorization for local government units to enforce collection of taxes, fees, or assessments for solid waste management, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-39.3; authority of local governments to adopt and enforce local regulations for the handling and disposal of solid waste, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-30.9; Litter Control Law, O.C.G.A. § 16-7-40; transporting garbage or waste across state or county boundaries pursuant to contract, O.C.G.A. § 36-1-16; Resource Recovery Development Authorities Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-63-1 et seq.; littering highways, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-249. ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL ARTICLE II. - LITTERING ARTICLE III. - COLLECTION SERVICES ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL Sec. 46-1. - Definitions. Sec. 46-2. - Purpose. Sec. 46-3. - Collection fees. Sec. 46-4. - Medical waste to be disposed of according to state and federal regulations. Secs. 46-5—46-23. - Reserved Sec. 46-1. - Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, whenever inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words in the plural include the singular, words in the singular include the plural, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders whenever the sense requires. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory and the word "may" is permissive. Words not defined in this section or otherwise in this chapter shall be given their common and ordinary meaning. The following words, terms, phrases and their derivations shall, in this chapter, have the meaning given in this section. Approved container or approved bag or container or bag means those containers used in the collection of solid waste, as defined in this chapter, which have been approved by the company for use by both residential and commercial customers. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 4 of 21 Area shall mean the area within the boundaries of the incorporated areas of the City of Milton, as they exist as of the effective date in addition to future boundary changes as outlined in [the term "city"]. City means the City of Milton, Georgia, an incorporated municipal government in Fulton County, State of Georgia. Boundaries defining the city limits may be changed via ordinances approved by the city council, for which any new boundary created shall be subject to this contract. Commercial unit shall mean any structure, whether freestanding or designed to serve multiple tenants, whose primary purpose is for conducting business. Company means any organization, firm, person, entity, corporation or other business that contracts with customers to provide for the collection and disposal of solid waste material as defined in this article, and including but not limited to construction/demolition debris, dead animals, garbage, waste, storm debris, yard trimmings, and recyclable material. Construction/demolition debris shall have the meaning set forth by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD Chapter 391-3- 4.01(14)). Construction site shall mean any parcel of land or real property having land disturbance, clearing and grading, demolition, improvements and betterments, renovation, remodeling and/or new construction work performed thereon or about the real property or premises whether or not a land disturbance and/or building permit is required. Customer shall mean any firm, person, entity, corporation or organization that contracts with a company for the collection and disposal of solid waste material as defined in this chapter, and including, but not limited to, construction/demolition debris, dead animals, garbage, waste, storm debris, yard trimmings, and recyclable material. Dead animals shall mean animals or portions thereof equal to or greater than ten pounds in weight that have died from any cause, except those slaughtered or killed for human use. Effective date means any contract executed between the city and any company on or after December 1, 2009. Environmental laws means all applicable laws, directives, rules, ordinances, codes, guidelines, regulations, governmental, administrative or judicial orders or decrees or other legal requirements of any kind, including, without limitation, common law, whether currently in existence or hereafter promulgated, enacted, adopted or amended, relating to safety, preservation or protection of human health and the environment (including ambient air, surface water, groundwater, land, or subsurface strata) and/or relating to the handling, treatment, transportation or disposal of waste, substances or materials, including, without limitation, any matters related to releases and threatened releases of materials and substances. Garbage shall have the meaning set forth at Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division ("Georgia EPD Chapter 391-3-4-.01(21)). Gross receipts shall mean the total amount collected by the company from any and all customers for services rendered under authority of this chapter as a result of charges for STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 5 of 21 service. Gross receipts shall not include the infrastructure maintenance fee identified in this chapter. Hazardous materials means any pollutant, contaminant, hazardous or toxic substance, constituent or material, including, without limitation, petroleum products and their derivatives, or other substances, regulated under or pursuant to any environmental laws. The term "hazardous materials" also includes any pollutant, contaminant, hazardous or toxic substance, constituent or material, including, without limitation, petroleum products and their derivatives, or other substance that is, after the date first written above, deemed hazardous be any judicial or governmental entity, body or agency having jurisdiction to make that determination. Hazardous waste means any waste regulated under or pursuant to any environmental laws, including, but not limited to, any solid waste which has been defined as a hazardous waste in regulations promulgated by the Board of Natural Resources, Chapter 291-3-11. The term "hazardous waste" also includes hazardous materials and any waste that is, after the effective date of this agreement, deemed hazardous by any judicial or governmental entity, board, body or agency having jurisdiction to make that determination. The term "hazardous waste" will be construed to have the broader, more encompassing definition where a conflict exists in the definitions employed by two or more governmental entities having concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction over hazardous waste. Recycling shall have the meaning set forth at Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division ("Georgia EPD") Chapter 391-3-4-.01(57). Residential unit shall mean any structure, whether single family, multi-family, or otherwise whose primary purpose is for living. Solid waste means the collection of residential and commercial nonrecyclable waste, residential and commercial recyclable waste, and residential yard trimmings/waste. Term shall mean a period of one year from the effective date. Waste means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semi-solid, and liquid wastes, including residential or commercial garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid wastes, and other discarded solid and semi-solid wastes. Yard trimmings shall have the meaning set forth at Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division ("Georgia EPD") Chapter 391-3-4-.01(77). (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 1, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 1, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 1, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 1, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-2. - Purpose. This chapter regulates the collection and disposal of waste and garbage including, but not limited to, all waste byproducts of manufacturing or commercial establishments, cinders and ashes from commercial boilers, and cardboard and wooden boxes, crates and barrels, as well domestic waste including meat, vegetable and fruit scraps, cans, bottles, paper, cardboard, rags, ashes, and other such waste material ordinarily disposed from residences, churches, schools, small business establishments, and other such places. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 6 of 21 (1) The term "garbage" does not include animals, fowl, and fish entrails, bones and carcasses whether in whole or in part, from business establishments such as slaughterhouses and meat and fish markets. Such material means "other waste." (2) The term "waste" also includes animal, fowl, and fish excrement, entrails, bones, carcasses in whole or in part and dead animals, and any other refuse material not otherwise classified herein. (Ord. No. 08-03-04, § 1(ch. 17, art. 1, § 1), 3-17-2008) Sec. 46-3. - Collection fees. All fees are listed in Sec. 46-70 Contract and Rental Fees. Sec. 46-4. - Medical waste to be disposed of according to state and federal regulations. Hospitals and health care professionals or other entities disposing of medical waste including, but not limited to, any device used to puncture or lacerate skin, shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with federal and state regulations. (Ord. No. 08-03-04, § 1(ch. 17, art. 1, § 4), 3-17-2008) Secs. 46-5—46-23. - Reserved ARTICLE II. - LITTERING Sec. 46-24. - Prohibited. Secs. 46-25—46-43. - Reserved. Sec. 46-24. - Prohibited. (a) Unlawful acts defined. (1) Public littering. It shall be unlawful for any person, in person or by his or her agent, employee, or servant, to cast, throw, sweep, sift, or deposit in any manner in or upon any public way or other public place in the city or the river, creek, branch, public water, drain, sewer, or receiving basin within the city's jurisdiction, any kind of leaves, dirt, rubbish, waste article, thing, or substance whatsoever, whether liquid or solid. Nor shall any person cast, throw, sweep, sift, or deposit any of the aforementioned items anywhere within the city's jurisdiction in such a manner that it may be carried or deposited in whole or in part, by the action of the sun, wind, rain, or snow, into any of the aforementioned places; provided that this section shall not apply to: a. The deposit of material under a permit authorized by any city ordinance; b. Goods, wares, or merchandise deposited upon any public way or other public place temporarily, in the necessary course of trade, and removed there from within two hours after being so deposited; or STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 7 of 21 c. Articles or things deposited in or conducted into the city sewer system through lawful drains in accordance with the city ordinances relating thereto. (2) Private littering. The acts described in subsection (a)(1) of this section shall also apply to acts committed to or against private property without the consent of the owner. (b) All business firms dispensing their product in cups, plates, wrappers, sacks, and other similar forms of containers shall provide adequate metal or plastic containers upon the premises for collection of refuse. It shall be the express responsibility of all such business firms to collect all cups, plates, wrappers, sacks, and other similar forms of containers dispensed by said business that may discarded upon the premises or neighboring street and sidewalks. It further shall be the responsibility of said business to collect the aforementioned items from the premises of the neighboring property when the owners of the property specifically request and authorize the business personnel to enter upon their property for that purpose. (c) Construction site operators must properly dispose (or discard) building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water quality. All construction site operators shall provide adequate containers upon the premises for collection of said materials and any waste generated or collected at the site. (d) Any person who shall violate any of the provis ions of, or who fails to perform any duty imposed by this section or who violates any order or determination of the department promulgated pursuant to this article shall be punished as directed by law, and in addition thereto, may be enjoined from continuing the violation. Each day a violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense. Any willful and wanton violation of this subsection resulting in the unlawful littering of the streets, sidewalks, and neighboring property shall be deemed a nuisance and on conviction thereof by the city court, the mayor and city council may after a notice and a hearing revoke the business license of the violator. (Ord. No. 08-03-04, § 1(ch. 17, art. 1, § 5), 3-17-2008) Secs. 46-25—46-43. - Reserved. ARTICLE III. - COLLECTION SERVICES DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY DIVISION 2. - CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS DIVISION 3. - TERMINATION OF CONTRACT DIVISION 4. - ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Secs. 46-44—46-62. - Reserved. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 8 of 21 Secs. 46-44—46-62. - Reserved. DIVISION 2. - CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS Sec. 46-63. - Authority. Sec. 46-64. - Grant of nonexclusive contract. Sec. 46-65. - Term. Sec. 46-66. - Scope and nature of operation. Sec. 46-67. - Vehicles to be covered and identified. Sec. 46-68. - Regulation of containers. Sec. 46-69. - Disposal of refuse. Sec. 46-70. - Contract and rental fees. Sec. 46-71. - Compliance with law. Sec. 46-72. - Insurance provided by company. Sec. 46-73. - Indemnification and hold harmless. Secs. 46-74—46-92. - Reserved. Sec. 46-63. - Authority. The city is empowered to contract with one or several third parties to collect and dispose of all garbage, waste, commercial waste, and yard waste generated by the city. In addition, the city may sell franchise rights in garbage collection to third parties. (Ord. No. 08-03-04, § 1(ch. 17, art. 1, § 2), 3-17-2008) Sec. 46-64. - Grant of nonexclusive contract. The city shall hereby grant to companies a nonexclusive contract pursuant to the terms set forth herein to use the public streets, alleys, roads and thoroughfares within the city for the purpose of operating and engaging in the business of collecting and disposing of waste; including, but not limited to, contracting with customers and providing service pursuant to contract therefore, placing and servicing containers, operating trucks, vehicles and trailers, and such other operations and activity as are customary and/or incidental to such business and service. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 2, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 2, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 2, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 2, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-65. - Term. The term of any agreement shall be for a period of one year beginning on the effective date of the contract execution and terminating on the first anniversary of said date. The company shall begin performance under this contract immediately after the effective date of the contract execution. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 3, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 3, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 3, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 3, 11-15-2010) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 9 of 21 Editor's note— Section 3 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-65 from "One year in length" to "Term." Sec. 46-66. - Scope and nature of operation. (a) Residential and commercial refuse and waste. The company may collect and deliver for disposal all residential and commercial refuse and waste accumulated within the corporate limits of the city by the company's customers and the words "refuse", "garbage", "trash" and "waste" when used in this article are used for convenience and, unless the context shows otherwise, refer to yard trimmings, recycling, storm debris, garbage, and construction/demolition debris. The company will furnish the personnel and equipment to collect refuse, provide the services described herein, and as contracted for with its customers, in an efficient and businesslike manner. (b) Service provided. Company shall provide container, bin and other collection service for the collection of residential and commercial refuse and waste according to the individual customer agreements and applicable city regulations and shall make provision for the special collection of such refuse and waste upon request. The company shall cause or require its equipment, containers and bins to be kept and maintained in a manner to not cause or create a threat to the public health and shall keep the same in a good state of repair. (c) Collection operation. (a) Save and except as provided in this section, collection shall not start before 7:30 a.m. or continue after 7:30 p.m. at any location. Company may request variances to this collection period provided that collections: (i) are made in a manner that does not cause or result in loud noise; and (ii) that are made at a location which will not cause the disturbance of persons occupying the premises or neighboring property must first be confirmed prior to the request. All requests for variances of times must be submitted to the city manager, or his designee, and include documentation on the hardship created by the collection operation period. Should such a collection operation variance be granted and the city receives two complaints about the collection operation in any six-month time period, the city shall verify and substantiate the factual basis for any complaints. Should the complaints be substantiated, the collection operation variance will be revoked. The frequency of collection shall be determined by each individual customer agreement. (d) Holidays. The company shall observe such holidays as it, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate. Notification must be given by the company to it's customers of the holidays and resulting collection cycles. (e) All companies must maintain a local customer service telephone number while conducting business within the city. The telephone number must be publicly listed in a phone book and available through directory assistance. Each company providing trash receptacles, whether commercial or residential, must mark each receptacle with the company's name and telephone number in letters not less than four inches in height. Each company must provide a mechanism to accept, investigate, and respond to customer complaints. Companies are strongly encouraged to use multi-media devices including interactive websites, e-mail, fax, and automated telephone systems. Service calls received by the city as a result of noncompany performance will result in the consideration of revocation of a nonexclusive contract or the city's choice to not renew an existing agreement. (f) Any invoice, bill, statement, or other device intended to request remittance by the customer to the company of funds for payment of service shall include at a minimum, the STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 10 of 21 company's telephone number and payment methods available to customers. (g) All companies providing residential service or service to residential multi -family units must provide a recycling program to all customers. This program is intended to promote recycling programs throughout the city by reducing the amount of waste landfilled. Commodities may be commingled by the consumer and collected commingled by the hauler. Recycled commodities which must be offered in all programs are as follows: brown, clear, and green glass; steel and tin cans; aluminum cans, foil, pie pans, plastic items (#1, #2, and #3); cardboard, cereal boxes and any nonwaxed paper containers; brown paper grocery bags; newspapers; magazines; telephone books; junk mail; office papers; and school papers. Customers shall be charged for the recycling program by the company regardless of utilization of the service. Haulers are to include this service with their residential rate structure; however, the charge for recycling shall be shown separate from other services provided. (h) All companies providing commercial service must offer and promote a recycling program to all customers. This program is intended to promote recycling programs throughout the city by reducing the amount of waste landfilled. (i) All companies providing residential service must offer the collection of yard trimmings to all customers. This program is intended to assist in the collection and disposal of grass clippings; leaves; pine cones and needles; twigs, limbs, and trunks of trees meeting size limitations set by company; bushes, brush, and all other general debris generated from the maintenance of residential yards and lawns. (j) It shall be the company's obligation and responsibility to educate all customers on industry trends and best practices relating to solid waste collection, removal, and disposal. Such education programs must consist of the following elements: Recycling; holiday schedules; new customer information; and any service related items. All companies have the obligation to inform customers of any noncollected trash or items placed for collection by the customer but not covered under the agreement between the customer and the company. Further, it shall be the company's obligation and responsibility to educate customers on days of collection for each specific service provided. All education and communication between the company and customers should promote the placement of residential collectibles at the curb the night before pick-up. Receptacles, containers, or bagged materials shall not be left at the curb for longer than a 24-hour period. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 4, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 4, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 4, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 4, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-67. - Vehicles to be covered and identified. (a) All vehicles used by company for the collection and transportation of refuse shall be covered at all times while loaded and in transit to prevent the blowing or scattering of refuse onto the public streets or properties adjacent thereto, and such vehicles shall be clearly marked with the company's name and telephone number in letters not less than four inches in height. (b) Company must provide a comprehensive and proactive driver safety education program which encourages safety on city streets. Such program must be demonstrated and conveyed to the city. Company must comply with all other regulatory agencies, both local, STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 11 of 21 state, or otherwise with respect to commercial vehicle operation within the city. Service calls received by the city as a result of noncompany performance will result in the consideration of revoking a nonexclusive contract or the city's choice to not renew an existing agreement. (c) Company must manage collection services delivered within the city to minimize the number of vehicles on city roads. Coordination between haulers and service providers is strongly encouraged to manage service vehicles on residential streets and neighborhoods. (d) Should company utilize "scout" trucks to facilitate collection in residential areas where it is not feasible to use standard collection vehicles, such vehicles must be covered at all times while loaded and in transit should they exceed 30 miles per hour or be driven more than 300 yards on a public street. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 5, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 5, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 5, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 5, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-68. - Regulation of containers. The company may rent, lease, provide or define specifications for containers to any customer within the corporate limits of the city for refuse storage and collection purposes subject to the following requirements: (1) All containers shall be constructed and maintained according to industry practice; (2) All containers shall be equipped with stable covers to prevent blowing or scattering of refuse while being transported for disposal of their contents; (3) All containers, save and except those being used for the purpose of collectin g and storing rubble, building and scrap construction materials, shall be equipped with covers suitable to prevent blowing or scattering refuse and access to the container by animals while the container is at the site designated by customer; (4) All containers shall be periodically cleaned, maintained, serviced and kept in a reasonably good state of repair, to prevent the unreasonable accumulation of refuse residues, to avoid excessive odor and harborage for rodents and flies resulting from excessive residues remaining after collection of containers; (5) All containers shall be clearly marked with the company's name and telephone number in letters not less than four inches in height; (6) All containers shall not be on public rights-of-way and shall be located so as to not interfere, block, obstruct or impede the normal use of any sidewalk, street, alley driveway or fire lane, or to block, obstruct or impede sight distance at street, road or alley intersections; (7) All containers, bins, or other collection instruments must be kept free from graffiti, rust, broken and nonoperational parts and pieces, and litter in and around the area; and (8) It shall be the responsibility of each company to educate their customers on the regulations of containers and maintain industry standards, policies, and procedures, which promote an aesthetically pleasing environment in and around all refuse and waste containers and receptacles. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 12 of 21 (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 6, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 6, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 6, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 6, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 6 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-68 from "Container requirements" to "Regulation of containers." Sec. 46-69. - Disposal of refuse. The company will deliver all waste collected by it from it's customers within the city, except for materials which the company may select for recovery and recycling, to a disposal facility that is permitted by the EPD to accept such refuse and waste. Rules and regulations governing hours of operation and disposal practices at the disposal facility will be observed and followed by the company while engaged in the disposal of refuse pursuant to this article. Any items collected as part of a recycling program must be delivered to a facility where recovery and reuse occurs. Should any company choose to offload or dispose of materials collected by one vehicle into another for transport to the final disposal facility, company shall make every available effort to perform such refuse transfer on property owned by the company or privately owned property where the company has an agreement with the property owner to perform such activity. In the event any transfer occurs on public land, including streets, alleys, rights -of- ways, roads, thoroughfares, avenues, parkways, expressways, or other areas designed and designated for public travel, company shall make every effort available to clean the area after completion of the transfer to insure the area is maintained at the sam e or better level than if the area was not used for this activity. In the event the city receives complaints regarding this practice, company shall be required to cease from this activity at the location of the complaint. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 7, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 7, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 7, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 7, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-70. - Contract and rental fees. Contract fee. The streets, rights-of-way, and public easements to be used by the company in the operation of its business within the boundaries of the city as such boundaries now exist and exist from time to time during the term of this contract, are valuable public properties acquired and maintained by the city at great expense to its taxpayers, and the city will incur costs to regulate and administer this article. In consideration of such benefits, costs and expenses, the company shall through the term of its contract collect an "infrastructure maintenance fee" equal to five percent of the company's gross receipts to customers within the city (exclusive of sales tax). The term "infrastructure maintenance fee" shall be used on all bills, invoices, or statements sent by any company to a customer under this article. This fee is applicable to haulers that are providing trash and recycling collection to residential accounts as well as haulers serving commercial accounts. (1) Fees paid. The infrastructure maintenance fee shall be payable quarterly to the city and delivered to the city in conjunction with a statement indicating the derivation and calculation of such payment. Each such quarterly payment shall be due on the fifteenth day of the second month following the end of the quarterly period for which said payment is due. The quarterly payments shall be due on February 15, May 15, August 15, and November 15 of each year during the term hereof, with the February 15 payment being based upon the company's gross receipts during the calendar quarter ending the prior December 31 and being payment for the rights and privileges granted STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 13 of 21 hereunder for said calendar quarter, the May 15 payment being based upon the company's gross receipts during the calendar quarter ending the prior March 31 and being payment for the rights and privileges granted hereunder for said calendar quarter, the August 15 payment being based upon the company's gross receipts during the calendar quarter ending the prior June 30 and being payment for the rights and privileges granted hereunder for said calendar quarter, and the November 15 payment being based upon the company's gross receipts during the calendar quarter ending the prior September 30 and being payment for the rights and privileges granted hereunder for said calendar quarter. During the implementation of this article, all bills generated by companies after December 1, 2006, shall include the infrastructure maintenance fee. The city shall provide material relating to the education and marketing efforts of the infrastructure maintenance fee as well as provide education and training to company employees to ensure a consistent message is conveyed to constituents of the City of Milton. For purposes of verifying the amount of such fee, the books of the company shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection by the duly authorized represen tatives of the city. If the infrastructure maintenance fee is not paid by the due date as set forth herein, the company from whom the fee was due shall be assessed and shall pay a late fee in the amount of 10% of the amount not timely paid. In addition, all amounts otherwise due, including late fees, shall accrue interest at the rate of 1.5% per calendar month beginning 30 days after the original due date. (2) No other rental fees. The contract fee shall be in lieu of any and all other city- imposed rentals or compensation or contract, privilege, instrument, occupation, excise or revenue taxes or fees and all other exactions or charges (except ad valorem property taxes, special assessments for local improvements, city sales tax, and such other charges for utility services imposed uniformly upon persons, firms or corporations then engaged in business within the city) or permits upon or relating to the business, revenue, installations and systems, fixtures, and any other facilities of the company and all other property of the company and its activities, or any part thereof, in the city which relate to the operations of the company pursuant to this article; provided, that this shall not be construed to prevent the company from being required to pay any and all applicable fees and charges in effect from time to time for dumping at a landfill or transfer station. (3) Credit for fees paid. Should the city not have the legal power to agree that the payment of the foregoing sums of money shall be in lieu of contracts, fees, street or alley rentals or charges, easement or ordinance fees or charges aforesaid, then city agrees that it will apply so much of said sums of money paid as may be necessary to company's obligations, if any, to pay any such contract, ordinance charges, other charges, fees, rentals, easement, taxes or charges. (4) Reporting. Any company providing service pursuant to this article or a resulting contract shall from time to time provide the city with the necessary statistics regarding waste collected and disposed which shall allow the city to comply with state reporting requirements. Such information shall be in the manner and format requested by the city and provide adequate details for the city to maintain compliance with local, state, federal, and all other guidelines relating to solid waste collection, removal, and disposal. (5) Dedicated revenue. The infrastructure maintenance fee collected by the city under this article shall be dedicated to the following: (i) maintenance of the city's streets, STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 14 of 21 corridors, alleys, thoroughfares, and transportation routes; (ii) administration of contract compliance between customers and companies where service is received as provided in this article; and (iii) collection of litter, trash and hazardous waste materials within the city. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 8, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 8, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 8, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 8, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 8 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-70 from "Fees" to "Contract and rental fees." Sec. 46-71. - Compliance with law. The company shall conduct under this article in compliance with the material provisions of all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the general specifications contained in this article. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 9, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 9, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 9, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 9, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 9 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-71 from "Compliance with local, state and federal regulations required" to "Contract and rental fees." Sec. 46-72. - Insurance provided by company. (a) Minimum coverage requirements. The company shall maintain throughout the term of its contract, property damage coverage, general liability insurance, and automobile liability insurance for any automobile owned or operated by company, with an insurance company authorized and licensed to do business in the State of Georgia and acceptable to the city, insuring against claims for liability and damages for the benefit of the city. The insurance shall include the city as an additional insured. General liability coverage insurance under this section shall be a minimum of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence with a $2,000,000.00 aggregate. Automobile liability insurance under this section shall, at a mini mum, have limits of $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence. Additionally, umbrella coverage of $1,000,000.00 on both automobile liability insurance and general liability insurance is required. (b) Employer's liability. If the company is required by Georgia Statute, the company shall maintain throughout the term of the contract resulting from this article the requisite statutory workers' compensation insurance, and a minimum of $100,000.00 employer's liability insurance. Company shall be required to show complia nce to this section by submitting documentation of such coverage from an approved carrier licensed in the State of Georgia, or documentation explaining the exemption from employer's liability insurance should they not meet the state requirements to carry such coverage. (c) Certificate of insurance. The insurance policy, or policies, obtained by the company in compliance with this section shall be approved by the city manager or his designee in the city manager's or his designee's reasonable discretion, and the certificate of insurance for the insurance policy shall be filed and maintained with the city during the term of the contract resulting from this article with a copy of the endorsement required under subsection (d) to be attached or made a part of such certificate. (d) Endorsements. All insurance policies maintained pursuant to this article shall contain the following conditions by endorsement: STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 15 of 21 (1) Additional insured. The city shall be an additional insured and the term "owner" and "city" shall include all authorities, boards, bureaus, commissions, divisions, departments and offices of the city and the individual members, officers, employees and agents thereof in their official capacities and/or while acting on behalf of the city. (2) Other insurance clause. The policy clause "other insurance" shall not apply to the city when the city is an insured on the policy. (3) No recourse. Companies issuing the insurance policies shall not recourse against the city for payment of any premium or assessment. (e) Increase requirements. The city may choose to amend this article to make reasonable adjustments to the insurance coverage and their limits when deemed necessary and prudent based upon changes in statutory law, court decisions, or the claims history of the industry. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 10, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 10, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 10, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 10, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 10 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-72 from "Company to provide insurance" to "Insurance provided by company." Sec. 46-73. - Indemnification and hold harmless. The company agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the city, its agents, officers and employees, against and from any and all claims by or on behalf of any person, firm, corporation or other entity arising from any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of the company, or any of its agents, contractors, servants, employees or contractors, and from and against all costs, counsel fees, expenses and liabilities incurred in or about any such claim or proceeding brought thereon. Promptly after receipt from any third party by city of a written notice of any demand, claim or circumstance that, immediately or with the lapse of time, would give rise to a claim or the commencement (or threatened commencement) of any action, proceeding or investigation (an "asserted claim") that may result in losses for which indemnification may be sought hereunder, the city shall give written notice thereof (the "claims notice") to the company provided, however, that a failure to give such notice shall not prejudice the city's right to indemnification hereunder except to the extent that the company is actually and materially prejudiced thereby. The claims notice shall describe the asserted claim in reasonable detail, and shall indicate the amount (estimated, if necessary) of the losses that have been or may be suffered by the city when such information is available. The company may elect to compromise or defend, at its own expense and by its own counsel, any asserted claim. If the company elects to compromise or defend such asserted claim, it shall, within 20 business days following its receipt of the claims notice (or sooner, if the nature of the asserted claim so required) notify the city of its intent to do so, and the city shall cooperate, at the expense of the company, in the compromise of, or defense against, such asserted claim. If the company elects not to compromise or defend the asserted claim, fails to notify the city of its election as herein provided or contests its obligation to provide indemnification under this agreement, the city may pay, compromise or defend such asserted claim with all reasonable costs and expenses borne by the company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither the company nor the city may settle or compromise any claim without the consent of the other party; provided, however, that such consent to settlement or compromise shall not be unreasonably withheld. In any event, the city and the company may participate at their own expense, in the defense of such asserted claim. If the company STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 16 of 21 chooses to defend any asserted claim, the city shall make available to the company any books, records or other documents within its control that are necessary or appropriate for such defense. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 11, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 11, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 11, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 11, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 11 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-73 from "Company to indemnify city; defense of suits" to "Indemnification and hold harmless." Secs. 46-74—46-92. - Reserved. DIVISION 3. - TERMINATION OF CONTRACT Sec. 46-93. - Forfeiture and terminating of contract. Sec. 46-94. - Transfer, sale or conveyance by company. Sec. 46-95. - Foreclosure. Sec. 46-96. - Receivership and bankruptcy. Secs. 46-97—46-115. - Reserved. Sec. 46-93. - Forfeiture and terminating of contract. (a) Material breach. In addition to all other rights and powers retained by the city under this article or otherwise, the city reserves the right to declare any resulting contract from this article forfeited and to terminate the contract and all rights and privileges of the company hereunder in the event of a material breach of the terms and conditions hereof. A material breach by company shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (1) Fees. Failure to pay the fees set out in section 46-70 (2) Telephone listings. Failure to keep and maintain a local telephone listing and office or answering service that is available by phone without long distance charge during regular business hours for service to the public, and which telephone or office shall, at minimum, provide and maintain the following services: a. Coordinate and provide information concerning deposits, payments and accounts to customers and prospective customers; b. Respond to customer and prospective customer questions and issues about billings, accounts, deposits and services; c. Coordination with the city with respect to private sector and public works projects and issues related to or affecting the company's operation; and d. Immediate response, upon request, to police, fire and other emergency situations in which the public health and safety requires action with respect to or assistance regarding company's property. (3) Failure to provide service. Failure to materially provide the services provided for STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 17 of 21 in this article; (4) Misrepresentation. Material misrepresentation of fact in the application for or negotiation of any contract resulting from this article; or (5) Conviction. Conviction of any director, officer, employee, or agent of the company of the offense of bribery or fraud connected with or resulting from the award of a contract from this article. (b) Operation information. Material misrepresentation of fact knowingly made to the city with respect to or regarding company's operations, management, revenues, services or reports required pursuant to this article. (c) Economic hardship. Company shall not be excused by mere economic hardship nor by misfeasance or malfeasance of its directors, officers or employees. (d) Forfeiture and proceedings. Any unwarranted and intentional neglect, failure or refusal of the company to comply with any material provision of this article or resulting contract within 30 days after written notice from city setting forth the specific provision and noncompliance, said notice to be mailed to company at its principal place of business by certified mail, return receipt requested, shall be deemed a breach of this article, and the city council, upon notice to company and hearing, may, for good cause declare a contract forfeited and exclude company from further use of the streets of the city under this article, and the company shall thereupon surrender all rights in and under this article and contract. (1) Proceedings. In order for the city to declare a forfeiture pursuant to subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), the city shall make a written demand that the company comply with any such provision, rule, order, or determination under or pursuant to this article. If such violation by the company continues for a period of 30 days following such written demand without written proof that the corrective action has been taken or is being actively and expeditiously pursued, the council may take under consideration the issue of termination of the resulting contract from this article. The city shall cause to be served upon company, at least 20 days prior to the date of such a council meeting, a written notice of intent to request such termination and the time and place of the meeting. Notice shall be given of the meeting and issue which the council is to consider. (2) Hearing. The council shall hear and consider the issue, hear any person interested therein, and shall determine whether or not any violation by the company has occurred. (3) Forfeiture. If the council shall determine that the violation by the company was the fault of company and within its control, the council may declare the contract forfeited and terminated, or the council may grant to company a period of time for compliance. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 12, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 12, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 12, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 12, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 12 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-93 from "Forfeiture" to "Forfeiture and terminating of contract." Sec. 46-94. - Transfer, sale or conveyance by company. The company shall not transfer, assign, sell or convey any rights granted under any resulting STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 18 of 21 contract from this article without the prior approval of the city council; provided that this section shall not apply to vehicles, replacements, maintenance, upgrades or modifications of equipment, machinery, containers and buildings by company for the purpose of maintaining and continuing its operation within the city; and provided further that company may, in its sole discretion and upon written notice to the city, transfer, assign, sell or convey their rights under this article to a wholly owned subsidiary of the company or to an affiliated entity that is under common control with company (i.e., has a common parent entity). (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 13, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 13, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 13, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 13, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 13 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-94 from "Transfer, sale or conveyance by company prohibited; exceptions" to "Transfer, sale or conveyance by company." Sec. 46-95. - Foreclosure. upon the foreclosure or other judicial sale of all or a substantial part of the assets and property of the company used for and dedicated to providing service pursuant to this article, the company shall notify the city of such fact, and such notification shall by treated as a notification that a change in control of the company has taken place and the provisions of this article governing the consent of the council to such change in control of the company shall apply. Upon the foreclosure or judicial sale, or the leasing of all or a substantial part of the property and assets of the company dedicated to and used for the purposes of providing service pursuant to this article, without the prior approval of the council, the council may, upon hearing and notice, terminate any contract resulting from this article. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 14, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 14, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 14, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 14, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 14 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-95 from "Foreclosure or judicial sale" to "Foreclosure." Sec. 46-96. - Receivership and bankruptcy. Cancellation option. The council shall have the right to cancel any contract resulting from this article 120 days after the appointment of a receiver or trustee to take over and conduct the business of the company, whether in receivership, reorganization, bankruptcy, other action or preceding, whether voluntary or involuntary, unless such receivership or trusteeship shall have been vacated prior to the expiration of said 120 days, unless: (1) Trustee compliance. Within 120 days after his election or appointment, such receiver trustee shall have fully complied with all the provisions of this article and remedied all defaults thereunder; or (2) Trustee agreement. Such receiver or trustee, within 120 days, shall have executed an agreement, duly-approved by the court having jurisdiction, whereby the receiver or trustee assumes and agrees to be bound by each and every provision of this article granted to the company. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 15, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 15, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 15, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 15, 11-15-2010) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 19 of 21 Secs. 46-97—46-115. - Reserved. DIVISION 4. - ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS Sec. 46-116. - Retention of city police powers. Sec. 46-117. - Amendments of city ordinances and regulations. Sec. 46-118. - Taxes. Sec. 46-119. - Public necessity. Sec. 46-120. - No suspension of laws. Sec. 46-121. - Peaceful employment. Sec. 46-122. - Endorsements and records. Sec. 46-123. - Acceptance by company. Sec. 46-116. - Retention of city police powers. The city retains and reserves all of its police powers and the rights, privileges, and immunities that it now has under the law to regulate, patrol and police the streets and public ways within the city, and the granting of any contract as a result of this article shall in no way interfere with the improvements to, or maintenance of, any street, alley or public way, and the rights of the city to use said streets, alleys and public ways. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 16, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 16, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 16, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 16, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-117. - Amendments of city ordinances and regulations. The city reserves the right and power, pursuant to its police power, after due notice to company, to modify, amend, alter, change or eliminate any rules, regulations, fees, charges and rates of the city, and to impose such additional conditions, that are not inconsistent with the rights granted by this article, upon the company and all persons, firms or entities of the same class as the company, as may be reasonably necessary in the discretion of the city council to preserve and protect the public, health, safety and welfare and/or insure adequate service to the public. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 17, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 17, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 17 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 17, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 17 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-117 from "Reservation to amend city ordinances and regulations" to "Amendments of city ordinances and regulations." Sec. 46-118. - Taxes. The company shall promptly pay all lawful ad valorem taxes, levies and assessments, if any, that are imposed upon the company. Absent an administrative or judicial challenge, or appeal, the failure to pay any such tax, levy or assessment shall be a breach of this article. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 18, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 18, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 18, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 18, 11-15-2010) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 20 of 21 Editor's note— Section 18 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-118 from "Payment of taxes required" to "Taxes." Sec. 46-119. - Public necessity. The council hereby finds and declares that the public welfare, convenience and necessity require the service which is to be furnished by the company. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 19, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 19, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 19, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 19, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 19 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-119 from "Disposal of solid waste deemed public necessity" to "Public necessity." Sec. 46-120. - No suspension of laws. All provisions of the ordinances of the city as now existing or as may be amended from time to time, and all provisions of the statutes of the State of Georgia applicable to general law cities shall be a part of any resulting contract from this article as fully as if the same had been expressly stated herein, and said the city retains and may exercise all of the governmental and police powers and all other rights and powers not directly inconsistent with the terms, conditions and provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 22, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 22, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 22, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 22, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 22 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46 -120 from "City ordinances and state law considered part of contract" to "No suspension of laws." Sec. 46-121. - Peaceful employment. From and after the effective date of this article, the city and the company shall be and are hereby authorized and entitled to act in reliance upon the terms, conditions and provisions of this article and any resulting contract and, subject thereto, the company shall collect rates for service, operate and conduct its business and work within the city, and enjoy the benefits and privileges of this article during the term hereof. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 23, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 23, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 23, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 23, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 23 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46 -121 from "City and company to rely on this chapter" to "Peaceful employment." Sec. 46-122. - Endorsements and records. The city clerk is directed to make endorsements as appropriate over his/her official hand and the seal of the city on the form provided at the conclusion of this article, for the public record and convenience of the citizens, of the date upon which this article is finally passed and adopted. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 25, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 25, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 25, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 25, 11-15-2010) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 21 of 21 Sec. 46-123. - Acceptance by company. Within 30 days after the passage of this article, or within 30 days of establishing a business within the corporate city limits, all companies operating a residential or commercial refuse waste service shall file with the city its acceptance of the terms and provisions of this article, and request for contract. The acceptance and request for contract shall be in writing on the company's letterhead and provide as follows: City of Milton Attention: City Manager 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107F Milton, GA 30004 ____________ (the "Company"), acting by and through an officer who is acting within its official capacity and authority, hereby accepts the City of Milton Solid Waste Ordinance to operate a refuse and solid waste collection and disposal system within the City as said Ordinance is set forth and provided herewith. The Company agrees to be bound and governed by each term, provision and condition of the Ordinance, to accept and to give the benefits provided by the Ordinance, and to perform each service and duty set forth and provided for in the Ordinance in a businesslike and reasonable manner and in compliance with the Ordinance. Company: ..... By: ..... Printed Name: ..... Title: ..... (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 26, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 26, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 26, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 26, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 26 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46 -123 from "Written acceptance of company required" to "Acceptance by company." 46-124. – Decal Upon satisfactory compliance with the requirements set forth in this Chapter in order to allow the company to collect and/or dispose of waste, garbage and/or refuse, the City shall issue to the company a decal designating the company as an approved Milton hauler in compliance with the City’s solid waste ordinance. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 1 of 21 AN ORDINANCE REAFFIRMING AND ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 46 OF THE MILTON CODE OF ORDINANCES GOVERNING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY OF MILTON; PROVIDING FOR THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE OPERATION; PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE, SOLID WASTE AND REFUSE; REQUIRING THE EXECUTION BY SERVICE PROVIDERS OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MILTON; PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR THE HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS; PROVIDING FOR AN INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE FEE; REQUIRING INDEMNITY INSURANCE; PROVIDING FOR REVOCATION AND AMENDMENT; PROHIBITING ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING WITHOUT CONSENT; PROVIDING FOR FORFEITURE; AND FOR MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Milton, GA while in a regularly called council meeting on December 5, at 6:00 p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. The City of Milton (“City”) seeks to provide standards of operation, regulation, and oversight in the providing of solid waste services within the corporate city limits; SECTION 2. The City currently recognizes the following companies as “Approved Haulers” in the City limits: Advanced Disposal, Allegiance Sanitation, American Disposal Services, Arrow Inc., Custom Disposal, Grogan’s Disposal, GW Lovelace, Henry Edward Kincaid, M&M Waste, Republic Services, Sanitation Solutions, Waste Management, and Waste Pro; SECTION 3. The City seeks to confirm the “Approved Haulers” list as long as the companies are found to be acting consistently with the Ordinance and recognizes that the City Council may seek to amend the Approved Haulers List as need arises and in accordance with the established Solid Waste Ordinance; SECTION 4. It is in the interest of the City and its citizens to offer companies currently providing such services a non-exclusive contract on such terms and conditions that will provide the City with the controls and options necessary to provide for the public good; SECTION 5. Chapter 46 of the Milton City Code of Ordinances, the Milton Solid Waste Ordinance, attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby ratified, approved and affirmed, subject to those redline modifications set forth in attached Exhibit A; SECTION 6. All ordinances, parts of ordinances, or regulations in conflict herewith are rejected; SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption; ORDAINED this the 5th day of December, 2016. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 2 of 21 __________________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk (Seal) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 3 of 21 EXHIBIT A Chapter 46 - SOLID WASTE [46] (46) State Law reference— Solid waste management generally, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-20 et seq.; Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-9-1; hazardous waste management, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-79; local and regional solid waste plans, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-31.1; tire disposal restrictions, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-40.1; yard trimmings and disposal restrictions, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-40.2; authorization for local government units to enforce collection of taxes, fees, or assessments for solid waste management, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-39.3; authority of local governments to adopt and enforce local regulations for the handling and disposal of solid waste, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-30.9; Litter Control Law, O.C.G.A. § 16-7-40; transporting garbage or waste across state or county boundaries pursuant to contract, O.C.G.A. § 36-1-16; Resource Recovery Development Authorities Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-63-1 et seq.; littering highways, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-249. ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL ARTICLE II. - LITTERING ARTICLE III. - COLLECTION SERVICES ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL Sec. 46-1. - Definitions. Sec. 46-2. - Purpose. Sec. 46-3. - Collection fees. Sec. 46-4. - Medical waste to be disposed of according to state and federal regulations. Secs. 46-5—46-23. - Reserved Sec. 46-1. - Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, whenever inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words in the plural include the singular, words in the singular include the plural, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders whenever the sense requires. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory and the word "may" is permissive. Words not defined in this section or otherwise in this chapter shall be given their common and ordinary meaning. The following words, terms, phrases and their derivations shall, in this chapter, have the meaning given in this section. Approved container or approved bag or container or bag means those containers used in the collection of solid waste, as defined in this chapter, which have been approved by the company for use by both residential and commercial customers. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 4 of 21 Area shall mean the area within the boundaries of the incorporated areas of the City of Milton, as they exist as of the effective date in addition to future boundary changes as outlined in [the term "city"]. City means the City of Milton, Georgia, an incorporated municipal government in Fulton County, State of Georgia. Boundaries defining the city limits may be changed via ordinances approved by the city council, for which any new boundary created shall be subject to this contract. Commercial unit shall mean any structure, whether freestanding or designed to serve multiple tenants, whose primary purpose is for conducting business. Company means any organization, firm, person, entity, corporation or other business that contracts with customers to provide for the collection and disposal of solid waste material as defined in this article, and including but not limited to construction/demolition debris, dead animals, garbage, waste, storm debris, yard trimmings, and recyclable material. Construction/demolition debris shall have the meaning set forth by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD Chapter 391-3- 4.01(14)). Construction site shall mean any parcel of land or real property having land disturbance, clearing and grading, demolition, improvements and betterments, renovation, remodeling and/or new construction work performed thereon or about the real property or premises whether or not a land disturbance and/or building permit is required. Customer shall mean any firm, person, entity, corporation or organization that contracts with a company for the collection and disposal of solid waste material as defined in this chapter, and including, but not limited to, construction/demolition debris, dead animals, garbage, waste, storm debris, yard trimmings, and recyclable material. Dead animals shall mean animals or portions thereof equal to or greater than ten pounds in weight that have died from any cause, except those slaughtered or killed for human use. Effective date means any contract executed between the city and any company on or after December 1, 2009. Environmental laws means all applicable laws, directives, rules, ordinances, codes, guidelines, regulations, governmental, administrative or judicial orders or decrees or other legal requirements of any kind, including, without limitation, common law, whether currently in existence or hereafter promulgated, enacted, adopted or amended, relating to safety, preservation or protection of human health and the environment (including ambient air, surface water, groundwater, land, or subsurface strata) and/or relating to the handling, treatment, transportation or disposal of waste, substances or materials, including, withou t limitation, any matters related to releases and threatened releases of materials and substances. Garbage shall have the meaning set forth at Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division ("Georgia EPD Chapter 391-3-4-.01(21)). Gross receipts shall mean the total amount collected by the company from any and all customers for services rendered under authority of this chapter as a result of charges for STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 5 of 21 service. Gross receipts shall not include the infrastructure maintenance fee identified in this chapter. Hazardous materials means any pollutant, contaminant, hazardous or toxic substance, constituent or material, including, without limitation, petroleum products and their derivatives, or other substances, regulated under or pursuant to any environmental laws. The term "hazardous materials" also includes any pollutant, contaminant, hazardous or toxic substance, constituent or material, including, without limitation, petroleum products and their derivatives, or other substance that is, after the date first written above, deemed hazardous be any judicial or governmental entity, body or agency having jurisdiction to make that determination. Hazardous waste means any waste regulated under or pursuant to any environmental laws, including, but not limited to, any solid waste which has been defined as a hazardous waste in regulations promulgated by the Board of Natural Resources, Chapter 291-3-11. The term "hazardous waste" also includes hazardous materials and any waste that is, after the effective date of this agreement, deemed hazardous by any judicial or governmental entity, board, body or agency having jurisdiction to make that determination. The term "hazardous waste" will be construed to have the broader, more encompassing definition where a conflict exists in the definitions employed by two or more governmental entities having concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction over hazardous waste. Recycling shall have the meaning set forth at Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division ("Georgia EPD") Chapter 391-3-4-.01(57). Residential unit shall mean any structure, whether single family, multi-family, or otherwise whose primary purpose is for living. Solid waste means the collection of residential and commercial nonrecyclable waste, residential and commercial recyclable waste, and residential yard trimmings/waste. Term shall mean a period of one year from the effective date. Waste means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semi-solid, and liquid wastes, including residential or commercial garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid wastes, and other discarded solid and semi-solid wastes. Yard trimmings shall have the meaning set forth at Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division ("Georgia EPD") Chapter 391-3-4-.01(77). (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 1, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 1, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 1, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 1, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-2. - Purpose. This chapter regulates the collection and disposal of waste and garbage including, but not limited to, all waste byproducts of manufacturing or commercial establishments, cinders and ashes from commercial boilers, and cardboard and wooden boxes, crates and barrels, as well domestic waste including meat, vegetable and fruit scraps, cans, bottles, paper, cardboard, rags, ashes, and other such waste material ordinarily disposed from residences, churches, schools, small business establishments, and other such places. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 6 of 21 (1) The term "garbage" does not include animals, fowl, and fish entrails, bones and carcasses whether in whole or in part, from business establishments such as slaughterhouses and meat and fish markets. Such material means "other waste." (2) The term "waste" also includes animal, fowl, and fish excrement, entrails, bones, carcasses in whole or in part and dead animals, and any other refuse material not otherwise classified herein. (Ord. No. 08-03-04, § 1(ch. 17, art. 1, § 1), 3-17-2008) Sec. 46-3. - Collection fees. All fees are listed in Sec. 46-70 Contract and Rental Fees. Sec. 46-4. - Medical waste to be disposed of according to state and federal regulations. Hospitals and health care professionals or other entities disposing of medical waste including, but not limited to, any device used to puncture or lacerate skin, shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with federal and state regulations. (Ord. No. 08-03-04, § 1(ch. 17, art. 1, § 4), 3-17-2008) Secs. 46-5—46-23. - Reserved ARTICLE II. - LITTERING Sec. 46-24. - Prohibited. Secs. 46-25—46-43. - Reserved. Sec. 46-24. - Prohibited. (a) Unlawful acts defined. (1) Public littering. It shall be unlawful for any person, in person or by his or her agent, employee, or servant, to cast, throw, sweep, sift, or deposit in any manner in or upon any public way or other public place in the city or the river, creek, branch, public water, drain, sewer, or receiving basin within the city's jurisdiction, any kind of leaves, dirt, rubbish, waste article, thing, or substance whatsoever, whether liquid or solid. Nor shall any person cast, throw, sweep, sift, or deposit any of the aforementioned items anywhere within the city's jurisdiction in such a manner that it may be carried or deposited in whole or in part, by the action of the sun, wind, rain, or snow, into any of the aforementioned places; provided that this section shall not apply to: a. The deposit of material under a permit authorized by any city ordinance; b. Goods, wares, or merchandise deposited upon any public way or other public place temporarily, in the necessary course of trade, and removed there from within two hours after being so deposited; or STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 7 of 21 c. Articles or things deposited in or conducted into the city sewer system through lawful drains in accordance with the city ordinances relating thereto. (2) Private littering. The acts described in subsection (a)(1) of this section shall also apply to acts committed to or against private property without the consent of the owner. (b) All business firms dispensing their product in cups, plates, wrappers, sacks, and other similar forms of containers shall provide adequate metal or plastic containers upon the premises for collection of refuse. It shall be the express responsibility of all such business firms to collect all cups, plates, wrappers, sacks, and other similar forms of containers dispensed by said business that may discarded upon the premises or neighboring street and sidewalks. It further shall be the responsibility of said business to collect the aforementioned items from the premises of the neighboring property when the owners of the property specifically request and authorize the business personnel to enter upon their property for that purpose. (c) Construction site operators must properly dispose (or discard) building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water quality. All construction site operators shall provide adequate containers upon the premises for collection of said materials and any waste generated or collected at the site. (d) Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of, or who fails to perform any duty imposed by this section or who violates any order or determination of the department promulgated pursuant to this article shall be punished as directed by law, and in addition thereto, may be enjoined from continuing the violation. Each day a violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense. Any willful and wanton violation of this subsection resulting in the unlawful littering of the streets, sidewalks, and neighboring property shall be deemed a nuisance and on conviction thereof by the city court, the mayor and city council may after a notice and a hearing revoke the business license of the violator. (Ord. No. 08-03-04, § 1(ch. 17, art. 1, § 5), 3-17-2008) Secs. 46-25—46-43. - Reserved. ARTICLE III. - COLLECTION SERVICES DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY DIVISION 2. - CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS DIVISION 3. - TERMINATION OF CONTRACT DIVISION 4. - ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Secs. 46-44—46-62. - Reserved. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 8 of 21 Secs. 46-44—46-62. - Reserved. DIVISION 2. - CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS Sec. 46-63. - Authority. Sec. 46-64. - Grant of nonexclusive contract. Sec. 46-65. - Term. Sec. 46-66. - Scope and nature of operation. Sec. 46-67. - Vehicles to be covered and identified. Sec. 46-68. - Regulation of containers. Sec. 46-69. - Disposal of refuse. Sec. 46-70. - Contract and rental fees. Sec. 46-71. - Compliance with law. Sec. 46-72. - Insurance provided by company. Sec. 46-73. - Indemnification and hold harmless. Secs. 46-74—46-92. - Reserved. Sec. 46-63. - Authority. The city is empowered to contract with one or several third parties to collect and dispose of all garbage, waste, commercial waste, and yard waste generated by the city. In addition, the city may sell franchise rights in garbage collection to third parties. (Ord. No. 08-03-04, § 1(ch. 17, art. 1, § 2), 3-17-2008) Sec. 46-64. - Grant of nonexclusive contract. The city shall hereby grant to companies a nonexclusive contract pursuant to the terms set forth herein to use the public streets, alleys, roads and thoroughfares within the city for the purpose of operating and engaging in the business of collecting and disposing of waste; including, but not limited to, contracting with customers and providing service pursuant to contract therefore, placing and servicing containers, operating trucks, vehicles and trailers, and such other operations and activity as are customary and/or incidental to such business and service. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 2, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 2, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 2, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 2, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-65. - Term. The term of any agreement shall be for a period of one year beginning on the effective date of the contract execution and terminating on the first anniversary of said date. The company shall begin performance under this contract immediately after the effective date of the contract execution. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 3, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 3, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 3, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 3, 11-15-2010) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 9 of 21 Editor's note— Section 3 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-65 from "One year in length" to "Term." Sec. 46-66. - Scope and nature of operation. (a) Residential and commercial refuse and waste. The company may collect and deliver for disposal all residential and commercial refuse and waste accumulated within the corporate limits of the city by the company's customers and the words "refuse", "garbage", "trash" and "waste" when used in this article are used for convenience and, unless the context shows otherwise, refer to yard trimmings, recycling, storm debris, garbage, and construction/demolition debris. The company will furnish the personnel and equipment to collect refuse, provide the services described herein, and as contracted for with its customers, in an efficient and businesslike manner. (b) Service provided. Company shall provide container, bin and other collection service for the collection of residential and commercial refuse and waste according to the individual customer agreements and applicable city regulations and shall make provision for the special collection of such refuse and waste upon request. The company shall cause or require its equipment, containers and bins to be kept and maintained in a manner to not cause or create a threat to the public health and shall keep the same in a good state of repair. (c) Collection operation. (a) Save and except as provided in this section, collection shall not start before 7:30 a.m. or continue after 7:30 p.m. at any location. Company may request variances to this collection period provided that collections: (i) are made in a manner that does not cause or result in loud noise; and (ii) that are made at a location which will not cause the disturbance of persons occupying the premises or neighboring property must first be confirmed prior to the request. All requests for variances of times must be submitted to the city manager, or his designee, and include documentation on the hardship created by the collection operation period. Should such a collection operation variance be granted and the city receives two complaints about the collection operation in any six-month time period, the city shall verify and substantiate the factual basis for any complaints. Should the complaints be substantiated, the collection operation variance will be revoked. The frequency of collection shall be determined by each individual customer agreement. (d) Holidays. The company shall observe such holidays as it, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate. Notification must be given by the company to it's customers of the holidays and resulting collection cycles. (e) All companies must maintain a local customer service telephone number while conducting business within the city. The telephone number must be publicly listed in a phone book and available through directory assistance. Each company providing trash receptacles, whether commercial or residential, must mark each receptacle with the company's name and telephone number in letters not less than four inches in height. Each company must provide a mechanism to accept, investigate, and respond to customer complaints. Companies are strongly encouraged to use multi-media devices including interactive websites, e-mail, fax, and automated telephone systems. Service calls received by the city as a result of noncompany performance will result in the consideration of revocation of a nonexclusive contract or the city's choice to not renew an existing agreement. (f) Any invoice, bill, statement, or other device intended to request remittance by the customer to the company of funds for payment of service shall include at a minimum, the STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 10 of 21 company's telephone number and payment methods available to customers. (g) All companies providing residential service or service to residential multi-family units must provide a recycling program to all customers. This program is intended to promote recycling programs throughout the city by reducing the amount of waste landfilled. Commodities may be commingled by the consumer and collected commingled by the hauler. Recycled commodities which must be offered in all programs are as follows: brown, clear, and green glass; steel and tin cans; aluminum cans, foil, pie pans, plastic items (#1, #2, and #3); cardboard, cereal boxes and any nonwaxed paper containers; brown paper grocery bags; newspapers; magazines; telephone books; junk mail; office papers; and school papers. Customers shall be charged for the recycling program by the company regardless of utilization of the service. Haulers are to include this service with their residential rate structure; however, the charge for recycling shall be shown separate from other services provided. (h) All companies providing commercial service must offer and promote a recycling program to all customers. This program is intended to promote recycling programs throughout the city by reducing the amount of waste landfilled. (i) All companies providing residential service must offer the collection of yard trimmings to all customers. This program is intended to assist in the collection and disposal of grass clippings; leaves; pine cones and needles; twigs, limbs, and trunks of trees meeting size limitations set by company; bushes, brush, and all other general debris generated from the maintenance of residential yards and lawns. (j) It shall be the company's obligation and responsibility to educate all customers on industry trends and best practices relating to solid waste collection, removal, and disposal. Such education programs must consist of the following elements: Recycling; holiday schedules; new customer information; and any service related items. All companies have the obligation to inform customers of any noncollected trash or items placed for collection by the customer but not covered under the agreement between the customer and the company. Further, it shall be the company's obligation and responsibility to educate customers on days of collection for each specific service provided. All education and communication between the company and customers should promote the placement of residential collectibles at the curb the night before pick-up. Receptacles, containers, or bagged materials shall not be left at the curb for longer than a 24-hour period. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 4, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 4, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 4, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 4, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-67. - Vehicles to be covered and identified. (a) All vehicles used by company for the collection and transportation of refuse shall be covered at all times while loaded and in transit to prevent the blowing or scattering of refuse onto the public streets or properties adjacent thereto, and such vehicles shall be clearly marked with the company's name and telephone number in letters not less than four inches in height. (b) Company must provide a comprehensive and proactive driver safety education program which encourages safety on city streets. Such program must be demonstrated and conveyed to the city. Company must comply with all other regulatory agencies, both local, STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 11 of 21 state, or otherwise with respect to commercial vehicle operation within the city. Service calls received by the city as a result of noncompany performance will result in the consideration of revoking a nonexclusive contract or the city's choice to not renew an existing agreement. (c) Company must manage collection services delivered within the city to minimize the number of vehicles on city roads. Coordination between haulers and service providers is strongly encouraged to manage service vehicles on residential streets and neighborhoods. (d) Should company utilize "scout" trucks to facilitate collection in residential areas where it is not feasible to use standard collection vehicles, such vehicles must be covered at all times while loaded and in transit should they exceed 30 miles per hour or be driven more than 300 yards on a public street. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 5, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 5, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 5, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 5, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-68. - Regulation of containers. The company may rent, lease, provide or define specifications for containers to any customer within the corporate limits of the city for refuse storage and collection purposes subject to the following requirements: (1) All containers shall be constructed and maintained according to industry practice; (2) All containers shall be equipped with stable covers to prevent blowing or scattering of refuse while being transported for disposal of their contents; (3) All containers, save and except those being used for the purpose of collecting and storing rubble, building and scrap construction materials, shall be equipped with covers suitable to prevent blowing or scattering refuse and access to the container by animals while the container is at the site designated by customer; (4) All containers shall be periodically cleaned, maintained, serviced and kept in a reasonably good state of repair, to prevent the unreasonable accumulation of refuse residues, to avoid excessive odor and harborage for rodents and flies resulting from excessive residues remaining after collection of containers; (5) All containers shall be clearly marked with the company's name and telephone number in letters not less than four inches in height; (6) All containers shall not be on public rights-of-way and shall be located so as to not interfere, block, obstruct or impede the normal use of any sidewalk, street, alley driveway or fire lane, or to block, obstruct or impede sight distance at street, road or alley intersections; (7) All containers, bins, or other collection instruments must be kept free from graffiti, rust, broken and nonoperational parts and pieces, and litter in and around the area; and (8) It shall be the responsibility of each company to educate their customers on the regulations of containers and maintain industry standards, policies, and procedures, which promote an aesthetically pleasing environment in and around all refuse and waste containers and receptacles. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 12 of 21 (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 6, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 6, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 6, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 6, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 6 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-68 from "Container requirements" to "Regulation of containers." Sec. 46-69. - Disposal of refuse. The company will deliver all waste collected by it from it's customers within the city, except for materials which the company may select for recovery and recycling, to a disposal facility that is permitted by the EPD to accept such refuse and waste. Rules and regulations governing hours of operation and disposal practices at the disposal facility will be observed and followed by the company while engaged in the disposal of refuse pursuant to this article. Any items collected as part of a recycling program must be delivered to a facility where recovery and reuse occurs. Should any company choose to offload or dispose of materials collected by one vehicle into another for transport to the final disposal facility, company shall make every available effort to perform such refuse transfer on property owned by the company or privately owned property where the company has an agreement with the property owner to perform such activity. In the event any transfer occurs on public land, including streets, alleys, rights-of- ways, roads, thoroughfares, avenues, parkways, expressways, or other areas designed and designated for public travel, company shall make every effort available to clean the area after completion of the transfer to insure the area is maintained at the same or better level than if the area was not used for this activity. In the event the city receives complaints regarding this practice, company shall be required to cease from this activity at the location of the complaint. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 7, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 7, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 7, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 7, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-70. - Contract and rental fees. Contract fee. The streets, rights-of-way, and public easements to be used by the company in the operation of its business within the boundaries of the city as such boundaries now exist and exist from time to time during the term of this contract, are valuable public properties acquired and maintained by the city at great expense to its taxpayers, and the city will incur costs to regulate and administer this article. In consideration of such benefits, costs and expenses, the company shall through the term of its contract collect an "infrastructure maintenance fee" equal to five percent of the company's gross receipts to customers within the city (exclusive of sales tax). The term "infrastructure maintenance fee" shall be used on all bills, invoices, or statements sent by any company to a customer under this article. This fee is applicable to haulers that are providing trash and recycling collection to residential accounts as well as haulers serving commercial accounts. (1) Fees paid. The infrastructure maintenance fee shall be payable quarterly to the city and delivered to the city in conjunction with a statement indicating the derivation and calculation of such payment. Each such quarterly payment shall be due on the fifteenth day of the second month following the end of the quarterly period for which said payment is due. The quarterly payments shall be due on February 15, May 15, August 15, and November 15 of each year during the term hereof, with the February 15 payment being based upon the company's gross receipts during the calendar quarter ending the prior December 31 and being payment for the rights and privileges granted STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 13 of 21 hereunder for said calendar quarter, the May 15 payment being based upon the company's gross receipts during the calendar quarter ending the prior March 31 and being payment for the rights and privileges granted hereunder for said calendar quarter, the August 15 payment being based upon the company's gross receipts during the calendar quarter ending the prior June 30 and being payment for the rights and privileges granted hereunder for said calendar quarter, and the November 15 payment being based upon the company's gross receipts during the calendar quarter ending the prior September 30 and being payment for the rights and privileges granted hereunder for said calendar quarter. During the implementation of this article, all bills generated by companies after December 1, 2006, shall include the infrastructure maintenance fee. The city shall provide material relating to the education and marketing efforts of the infrastructure maintenance fee as well as provide education and training to compa ny employees to ensure a consistent message is conveyed to constituents of the City of Milton. For purposes of verifying the amount of such fee, the books of the company shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection by the duly authorized representatives of the city. If the infrastructure maintenance fee is not paid by the due date as set forth herein, the company from whom the fee was due shall be assessed and shall pay a late fee in the amount of 10% of the amount not timely paid. In addition, all amounts otherwise due, including late fees, shall accrue interest at the rate of 1.5% per calendar month beginning 30 days after the original due date. (2) No other rental fees. The contract fee shall be in lieu of any and all other city- imposed rentals or compensation or contract, privilege, instrument, occupation, excise or revenue taxes or fees and all other exactions or charges (except ad valorem property taxes, special assessments for local improvements, city sales tax, and such other charges for utility services imposed uniformly upon persons, firms or corporations then engaged in business within the city) or permits upon or relating to the business, revenue, installations and systems, fixtures, and any other facilities of the company and all other property of the company and its activities, or any part thereof, in the city which relate to the operations of the company pursuant to this article; provided, that this shall not be construed to prevent the company from being required to pay any and all applicable fees and charges in effect from time to time for dumping at a landfill or transfer station. (3) Credit for fees paid. Should the city not have the legal power to agree that the payment of the foregoing sums of money shall be in lieu of contracts, fees, street or alley rentals or charges, easement or ordinance fees or charges aforesaid, then city agrees that it will apply so much of said sums of money paid as may be necessary to company's obligations, if any, to pay any such contract, ordinance charges, other charges, fees, rentals, easement, taxes or charges. (4) Reporting. Any company providing service pursuant to this article or a resulting contract shall from time to time provide the city with the necessary statistics regarding waste collected and disposed which shall allow the city to comply with state reporting requirements. Such information shall be in the manner and format requested by the city and provide adequate details for the city to maintain compliance with local, state, federal, and all other guidelines relating to solid waste collection, removal, and disposal. (5) Dedicated revenue. The infrastructure maintenance fee collected by the city under this article shall be dedicated to the following: (i) maintenance of the city's streets, STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 14 of 21 corridors, alleys, thoroughfares, and transportation routes; (ii) administration of contract compliance between customers and companies where service is received as provided in this article; and (iii) collection of litter, trash and hazardous waste materials within the city. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 8, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 8, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 8, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 8, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 8 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-70 from "Fees" to "Contract and rental fees." Sec. 46-71. - Compliance with law. The company shall conduct under this article in compliance with the material provisions of all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the general specifications contained in this article. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 9, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 9, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11-30, § 9, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 9, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 9 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-71 from "Compliance with local, state and federal regulations required" to "Contract and rental fees." Sec. 46-72. - Insurance provided by company. (a) Minimum coverage requirements. The company shall maintain throughout the term of its contract, property damage coverage, general liability insurance, and automobile liability insurance for any automobile owned or operated by company, with an insurance company authorized and licensed to do business in the State of Georgia and acceptable to the city, insuring against claims for liability and damages for the benefit of the city. The insurance shall include the city as an additional insured. General liability coverage insurance under this section shall be a minimum of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence with a $2,000,000.00 aggregate. Automobile liability insurance under this section shall, at a minimum, have limits of $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence. Additionally, umbrella coverage of $1,000,000.00 on both automobile liability insurance and general liability insurance is required. (b) Employer's liability. If the company is required by Georgia Statute, the company shall maintain throughout the term of the contract resulting from this article the requisite statutory workers' compensation insurance, and a minimum of $100,000.00 employer's liability insurance. Company shall be required to show compliance to this section by submitting documentation of such coverage from an approved carrier licensed in the State of Georgia, or documentation explaining the exemption from employer's liability insurance should they not meet the state requirements to carry such coverage. (c) Certificate of insurance. The insurance policy, or policies, obtained by the company in compliance with this section shall be approved by the city manager or his designee in the city manager's or his designee's reasonable discretion, and the certificate of insurance for the insurance policy shall be filed and maintained with the city during the term of the contract resulting from this article with a copy of the endorsement required under subsection (d) to be attached or made a part of such certificate. (d) Endorsements. All insurance policies maintained pursuant to this article shall contain the following conditions by endorsement: STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 15 of 21 (1) Additional insured. The city shall be an additional insured and the term "owner" and "city" shall include all authorities, boards, bureaus, commissions, divisions, departments and offices of the city and the individual members, officers, employees and agents thereof in their official capacities and/or while acting on behalf of the city. (2) Other insurance clause. The policy clause "other insurance" shall not apply to the city when the city is an insured on the policy. (3) No recourse. Companies issuing the insurance policies shall not recourse against the city for payment of any premium or assessment. (e) Increase requirements. The city may choose to amend this article to make reasonable adjustments to the insurance coverage and their limits when deemed necessary and prudent based upon changes in statutory law, court decisions, or the claims history of the industry. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 10, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 10, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 10, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 10, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 10 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-72 from "Company to provide insurance" to "Insurance provided by company." Sec. 46-73. - Indemnification and hold harmless. The company agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the city, its agents, officers and employees, against and from any and all claims by or on behalf of any person, firm, corporation or other entity arising from any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of the company, or any of its agents, contractors, servants, employees or contractors, and from and against all costs, counsel fees, expenses and liabilities incurred in or about any such claim or proceeding brought thereon. Promptly after receipt from any third party by city of a written notice of any demand, claim or circumstance that, immediately or with the lapse of time, would give rise to a claim or the commencement (or threatened commencement) of any action, proceeding or investigation (an "asserted claim") that may result in losses for which indemnification may be sought hereunder, the city shall give written notice thereof (the "claims notice") to the company provided, however, that a failure to give such notice shall not prejudice the city's right to indemnification hereunder except to the extent that the company is actually and materially prejudiced thereby. The claims notice shall describe the asserted claim in reasonable detail, and shall indicate the amount (estimated, if necessary) of the losses that have been or may be suffered by the city when such information is available. The company may elect to compromise or defend, at its own expense and by its own counsel, any asserted claim. If the company elects to compromise or defend such asserted claim, it shall, within 20 business days following its receipt of the claims notice (or sooner, if the nature of the asserted claim so required) notify the city of its intent to do so, and the city shall cooperate, at the expense of the company, in the compromise of, or defense against, such asserted claim. If the company elects not to compromise or defend the asserted claim, fails to notify the city of its election as herein provided or contests its obligation to provide indemnification under this agreement, the city may pay, compromise or defend such asserted claim with all reasonable costs and expenses borne by the company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither the company nor the city may settle or compromise any claim without the consent of the other party; provided, however, that such consent to settlement or compromise shall not be unreasonably withheld. In any event, the city and the company may participate at their own expense, in the defense of such asserted claim. If the company STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 16 of 21 chooses to defend any asserted claim, the city shall make available to the company any books, records or other documents within its control that are necessary or appropriate for such defense. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 11, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 11, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 11, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 11, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 11 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-73 from "Company to indemnify city; defense of suits" to "Indemnification and hold harmless." Secs. 46-74—46-92. - Reserved. DIVISION 3. - TERMINATION OF CONTRACT Sec. 46-93. - Forfeiture and terminating of contract. Sec. 46-94. - Transfer, sale or conveyance by company. Sec. 46-95. - Foreclosure. Sec. 46-96. - Receivership and bankruptcy. Secs. 46-97—46-115. - Reserved. Sec. 46-93. - Forfeiture and terminating of contract. (a) Material breach. In addition to all other rights and powers retained by the city under this article or otherwise, the city reserves the right to declare any resulting contract from this article forfeited and to terminate the contract and all rights and privileges of the company hereunder in the event of a material breach of the terms and conditions hereof. A material breach by company shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (1) Fees. Failure to pay the fees set out in section 46-70 (2) Telephone listings. Failure to keep and maintain a local telephone listing and office or answering service that is available by phone without long distance charge during regular business hours for service to the public, and which telephone or office shall, at minimum, provide and maintain the following services: a. Coordinate and provide information concerning deposits, payments and accounts to customers and prospective customers; b. Respond to customer and prospective customer questions and issues about billings, accounts, deposits and services; c. Coordination with the city with respect to private sector and public works projects and issues related to or affecting the company's operation; and d. Immediate response, upon request, to police, fire and other emergency situations in which the public health and safety requires action with respect to or assistance regarding company's property. (3) Failure to provide service. Failure to materially provide the services provided for STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 17 of 21 in this article; (4) Misrepresentation. Material misrepresentation of fact in the application for or negotiation of any contract resulting from this article; or (5) Conviction. Conviction of any director, officer, employee, or agent of the company of the offense of bribery or fraud connected with or resulting from the award of a contract from this article. (b) Operation information. Material misrepresentation of fact knowingly made to the city with respect to or regarding company's operations, management, revenues, services or reports required pursuant to this article. (c) Economic hardship. Company shall not be excused by mere economic hardship nor by misfeasance or malfeasance of its directors, officers or employees. (d) Forfeiture and proceedings. Any unwarranted and intentional neglect, failure or refusal of the company to comply with any material provision of this article or resulting contract within 30 days after written notice from city setting forth the specific provision and noncompliance, said notice to be mailed to company at its principal place of business by certified mail, return receipt requested, shall be deemed a breach of this article, and the city council, upon notice to company and hearing, may, for good cause declare a contract forfeited and exclude company from further use of the streets of the city under this article, and the company shall thereupon surrender all rights in and under this article and contract. (1) Proceedings. In order for the city to declare a forfeiture pursuant to subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), the city shall make a written demand that the company comply with any such provision, rule, order, or determination under or pursuant to this article. If such violation by the company continues for a period of 30 days following such written demand without written proof that the corrective action has been taken or is being actively and expeditiously pursued, the council may take under consideration the issue of termination of the resulting contract from this article. The city shall cause to be served upon company, at least 20 days prior to the date of such a council meeting, a written notice of intent to request such termination and the time and place of the meeting. Notice shall be given of the meeting and issue which the council is to consider. (2) Hearing. The council shall hear and consider the issue, hear any person interested therein, and shall determine whether or not any violation by the company has occurred. (3) Forfeiture. If the council shall determine that the violation by the company was the fault of company and within its control, the council may declare the contract forfeited and terminated, or the council may grant to company a period of time for compliance. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 12, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 12, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 12, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 12, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 12 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-93 from "Forfeiture" to "Forfeiture and terminating of contract." Sec. 46-94. - Transfer, sale or conveyance by company. The company shall not transfer, assign, sell or convey any rights granted under any resulting STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 18 of 21 contract from this article without the prior approval of the city council; provided that this section shall not apply to vehicles, replacements, maintenance, upgrades or modifications of equipment, machinery, containers and buildings by company for the purpose of maintaining and continuing its operation within the city; and provided further that company may, in its sole discretion and upon written notice to the city, transfer, assign, sell or convey their rights under this article to a wholly owned subsidiary of the company or to an affiliated entity that is under common control with company (i.e., has a common parent entity). (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 13, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 13, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 13, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 13, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 13 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-94 from "Transfer, sale or conveyance by company prohibited; exceptions" to "Transfer, sale or con veyance by company." Sec. 46-95. - Foreclosure. upon the foreclosure or other judicial sale of all or a substantial part of the assets and property of the company used for and dedicated to providing service pursuant to this article, the company shall notify the city of such fact, and such notification shall by treated as a notification that a change in control of the company has taken place and the provisions of this article governing the consent of the council to such change in control of the company sha ll apply. Upon the foreclosure or judicial sale, or the leasing of all or a substantial part of the property and assets of the company dedicated to and used for the purposes of providing service pursuant to this article, without the prior approval of the c ouncil, the council may, upon hearing and notice, terminate any contract resulting from this article. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 14, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 14, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 14, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 14, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 14 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-95 from "Foreclosure or judicial sale" to "Foreclosure." Sec. 46-96. - Receivership and bankruptcy. Cancellation option. The council shall have the right to cancel any contract resulting from this article 120 days after the appointment of a receiver or trustee to take over and conduct the business of the company, whether in receivership, reorganization, bankruptcy, other action or preceding, whether voluntary or involuntary, unless such receivership or trusteeship shall have been vacated prior to the expiration of said 120 days, unless: (1) Trustee compliance. Within 120 days after his election or appointment, such receiver trustee shall have fully complied with all the provisions of this article and remedied all defaults thereunder; or (2) Trustee agreement. Such receiver or trustee, within 120 days, shall have executed an agreement, duly-approved by the court having jurisdiction, whereby the receiver or trustee assumes and agrees to be bound by each and every provision of this article granted to the company. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 15, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 15, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 15, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 15, 11-15-2010) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 19 of 21 Secs. 46-97—46-115. - Reserved. DIVISION 4. - ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS Sec. 46-116. - Retention of city police powers. Sec. 46-117. - Amendments of city ordinances and regulations. Sec. 46-118. - Taxes. Sec. 46-119. - Public necessity. Sec. 46-120. - No suspension of laws. Sec. 46-121. - Peaceful employment. Sec. 46-122. - Endorsements and records. Sec. 46-123. - Acceptance by company. Sec. 46-116. - Retention of city police powers. The city retains and reserves all of its police powers and the rights, privileges, and immunities that it now has under the law to regulate, patrol and police the streets and public ways within the city, and the granting of any contract as a result of this article shall in no way interfere with the improvements to, or maintenance of, any street, alley or public way, and the rights of the city to use said streets, alleys and public ways. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 16, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 16, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 16, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 16, 11-15-2010) Sec. 46-117. - Amendments of city ordinances and regulations. The city reserves the right and power, pursuant to its police power, after due notice to company, to modify, amend, alter, change or eliminate any rules, regulations, fees, charges and rates of the city, and to impose such additional conditions, that are not inconsistent with the rights granted by this article, upon the company and all persons, firms or entities of the same class as the company, as may be reasonably necessary in the discretion of the city council to preserve and protect the public, health, safety and welfare and/or insure adequate service to the public. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 17, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 17, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 17 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 17, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 17 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-117 from "Reservation to amend city ordinances and regulations" to "Amendments of city ordinances and regulations." Sec. 46-118. - Taxes. The company shall promptly pay all lawful ad valorem taxes, levies and assessments, if any, that are imposed upon the company. Absent an administrative or judicial challenge, or appeal, the failure to pay any such tax, levy or assessment shall be a breach of this article. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 18, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 18, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 18, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 18, 11-15-2010) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 20 of 21 Editor's note— Section 18 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-118 from "Payment of taxes required" to "Taxes." Sec. 46-119. - Public necessity. The council hereby finds and declares that the public welfare, convenience and necessity require the service which is to be furnished by the company. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 19, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 19, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 19, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 19, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 19 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-119 from "Disposal of solid waste deemed public necessity" to "Public necessity." Sec. 46-120. - No suspension of laws. All provisions of the ordinances of the city as now existing or as may be amended from time to time, and all provisions of the statutes of the State of Georgia applicable to general law cities shall be a part of any resulting contract from this article as fully as if the same had been expressly stated herein, and said the city retains and may exercise all of the governmental and police powers and all other rights and powers not directly inconsistent with the terms, conditions and provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 22, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 22, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 22, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 22, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 22 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-120 from "City ordinances and state law considered part of contract" to "No suspension of laws." Sec. 46-121. - Peaceful employment. From and after the effective date of this article, the city and the company shall be and are hereby authorized and entitled to act in reliance upon the terms, conditions and provisions of this article and any resulting contract and, subject thereto, the company shall collect rates for service, operate and conduct its business and work within the city, and enjoy the benefits and privileges of this article during the term hereof. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 23, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 23, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 23, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 23, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 23 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-121 from "City and company to rely on this chapter" to "Peaceful employment." Sec. 46-122. - Endorsements and records. The city clerk is directed to make endorsements as appropriate over his/her official hand and the seal of the city on the form provided at the conclusion of this article, for the public record and convenience of the citizens, of the date upon which this article is finally passed and adopted. (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 25, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 25, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 25, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 25, 11-15-2010) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON Page 21 of 21 Sec. 46-123. - Acceptance by company. Within 30 days after the passage of this article, or within 30 days of establishing a business within the corporate city limits, all companies operating a residential or commercial refuse waste service shall file with the city its acceptance of the terms and provisions of this article, and request for contract. The acceptance and request for contract shall be in writing on the company's letterhead and provide as follows: City of Milton Attention: City Manager 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107F Milton, GA 30004 ____________ (the "Company"), acting by and through an officer who is acting within its official capacity and authority, hereby accepts the City of Milton Solid Waste Ordinance to operate a refuse and solid waste collection and disposal system within the City as said Ordinance is set forth and provided herewith. The Company agrees to be bound and governed by each term, provision and condition of the Ordinance, to accept and to give the benefits provided by the Ordinance, and to perform each service and duty set forth and provided for in the Ordinance in a businesslike and reasonable manner and in compliance with the Ordinance. Company: ..... By: ..... Printed Name: ..... Title: ..... (Ord. No. 06-11-04, § 26, 11-21-2006; Ord. No. 07-11-54, § 26, 11-15-2007; Ord. No. 08-11- 30, § 26, 11-17-2008; Ord. No. 10-11-84, § 26, 11-15-2010) Editor's note— Section 26 of Ord. No. 10-11-84, adopted Nov. 15, 2010, changed the title of § 46-123 from "Written acceptance of company required" to "Acceptance by company." 46-124. – Decal Upon satisfactory compliance with the requirements set forth in this Chapter in order to allow the company to collect and/or dispose of waste, garbage and/or refuse, the City shall issue to the company a decal designating the company as an approved Milton hauler in compliance with the City’s solid waste ordinance. HOME OF'THE BEST QUALITY OF LIPS IN GEORGIA' M11TON ESTABLISHED 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: N ember 22, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the 2017 City of Milton City Council Regular Meeting and Work Session Schedule. MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: (.�PPROVED /) NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: () YES (4<0 CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: () YES () NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY: ( )APPROVED (J NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: !4/0i?)06 REMARKS: y You( PHONE: 678.242.25001 FAX: 678.242.2499 Green 4► *c`k„a infoacityofmiltanga.us l u .cHyo%lNonga.us wrmuvt Community +o'v^r 130DO Deerfield Parkway. Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 !A! _m To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Sudie Gordon, City Clerk Date: Submitted on November 23, 2016 for the December 5, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Item: Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the 2017 City of Milton City Council Regular Meeting and Work Session Schedule. ____________________________________________________________________________ Department Recommendation: Approve the Council and Work Session meeting dates for 2017. Executive Summary: The City of Milton is committed to conducting city business in a manner that complies with all legal requirements, fosters citizen confidence in city government, and promotes efficient and effective government operations. As part of our open and transparent government process, the Mayor and City Council will adopt a yearly meeting schedule. Funding and Fiscal Impact: N/A Alternatives: N/A Legal Review: N/A Concurrent Review: Steve Krokoff, City Manager Attachment(s): Resolution Adopting the 2017 City of Milton City Council Regular Meeting and Work Session Schedule Council and Work Session Meeting Schedule 2017 City of Milton 2017 Holiday Schedule STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2017 CITY OF MILTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AND WORK SESSION SCHEDULE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Milton, Georgia while in Regular Session on the 5th day of December 2016 at 6:00 pm as follows: SECTION 1. That the schedule for the 2017 City Council Regular and Work Session Council Meeting Dates is hereby approved as attached; and SECTION 2. That resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby repealed; and SECTION 3. That this Resolution will become effective January 1, 2017. RESOLVED this 5th day of December 2016. Approved: __________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: _____________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk CITY OF MILTON 2017 HOLIDAY SCHEDULE HOLIDAY DATE OBSERVED New Year’s Day Monday, January 2, 2017 Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday Monday, January 16, 2017 President’s Day Monday, February 20, 2017 Memorial Day Monday, May 29, 2017 Independence Day Observed Tuesday, July 4, 2017 Labor Day Monday, September 4, 2017 Veteran’s Day Friday, November 10, 2017 Thanksgiving Day Thursday, November 23, 2017 Day After Thanksgiving Friday, November 24, 2017 Christmas Day Monday, December 25, 2017 City Manager’s Floating Holiday Tuesday, December 26, 2017 Employee’s Holiday Employee’s Birthday J A N U A R Y S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 F E B R U A R Y S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M A R C H S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 A P R I L S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 M AY S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 J U N E S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 J U L Y S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 A UGUST S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 S E P T E M B E R S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 O C T O B E R S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 N O V E M B E R S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 D E C E M B E R S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2017 MEETING CALENDAR 2017 Council and Work Session Meeting Calendar Work Session Dates Work Sessions may be cancelled by Council if not needed. Regular Council Meeting Days 2017 Holidays Observed 1/2 New Year’s Day 1/16 Martin Luther King Day 2/20 Presidents Day 5/29 Memorial Day 7/4 Independence Day 9/4 Labor Day 11/10 Veterans Day 11/23-24 Thanksgiving 12/25 Christmas Day 12/26 City Manager’s Floating Day 2017 Fulton County School Calendar 1/16 Martin Luther King 2/20 Presidents Day 4/3-7 Spring Break 5/25 Last Day of School 8/7 First Day of School 9/4 Labor Day 10/9 Columbus Day 11/20-24 Thanksgiving 12/22/16 -1/8/18 Holiday Break January 20-23 Mayor’s Day Conference Atlanta, GA June 23-28 GMA Conference Savannah, GA HOME OF'THE BEST QUALITY LIFE W GEORGIA' MILTION'tESTABLISHED 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: November 22, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the 2016 City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan. MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: ( KAPPROVED / NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: W. IES (J NO CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: (�/ES () NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY: NIAPPROVED (/ NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: REMARKS: ©* i00® PHONE: 678.242,25001 FAX: 678.242.2499 � ���a f"'S�FI`� •c.�* `^_`�^ u ni rzt COmmuul 1aF"9°r' info@cltyofmllfonga.us www.cHyohnlXonga.ua `® ' 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 1- •:. a To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Sara Leaders, PE, Transportation Engineer Date: Submitted on November 28, 2016 for the December 5, 2016 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Item: Consideration of a Resolution to Adopt an Updated City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Recommendation: Approval Executive Summary: The City of Milton adopted its first Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) on December 9, 2009. In June 2015 the City issued a Request for Qualifications for an update to the 2009 CTP and selected Kimley-Horn and Associates as the consultant for the plan update. The 2016 CTP Update included substantial public involvement in creating an Existing Conditions/Needs Assessment Report and a Recommendations Report including: policy recommendations, project prioritization, funding scenarios, recommendations, and action plan. The outreach for the CTP Update began in fall 2015 with a City Council meeting presentation, an online survey, two community events and a public meeting. Three focus group meetings were held in late 2015/early 2016. Spring 2016 included another online survey, a public meeting, two community events, and a City Council meeting presentation. The final report was presented and discussed at two City Council meetings in October 2016. Funding and Fiscal Impact: None Alternatives: None Legal Review: Review of Resolution by Sam VanVolkenburgh – Jarrard & Davis 11-28-2016 Concurrent Review: Steven Krokoff, City Manager Attachment(s): A Resolution to Adopt an Updated City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Exhibit “A” – Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update 2016 STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AN UPDATED CITY OF MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, Article IX, Section II, Paragraphs III and IV of the Const itution of the State of Georgia authorizes the City of Milton (the “City”) to adopt plans for the future growth and development of transportation in the City; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the existing City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan, adopted in 2009, is in need of updating; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Milton, Georgia while in Regular called Council meeting on the 5th day of December, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. That the Comprehensive Transportation Plan for the City of Milton, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “A,” is hereby adopted and approved; and, SECTION 2. That the hereby-adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan for the City of Milton shall supersede any previous versions; and, SECTION 3. That all resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed; and SECTION 4. That this Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. RESOLVED this 5th day of December, 2016. Approved: ____________________________ Mayor Attest: _____________________________ Sudie Gordon, City Clerk (Seal) Exhibit “A” COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT June 2016 CITY OF MILTON pg. i Acknowledgements City Government Mayor Joe Lockwood Councilwoman Karen Thurman, District 1/Post 1 Mayor Pro Tem Matt Kunz, District 2/Post 2 Councilman William C. “Bill” Lusk, P.E., District 2/Post 1 Councilman Burt Hewitt, District 1/Post 2 Councilman Joe Longoria, District 3/Post 1 Councilman Rick Mohrig, District 3/Post 2 City Staff Steven Krokoff, City Manager Carter Lucas, P.E., Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Sara Leaders, P.E., LSIT, Transportation Engineer Other City of Milton Staff Consultant Team pg. ii Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 VISION AND GOALS .................................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Vision ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2 3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Project Management Team ................................................................................................. 3 3.2 Community Events ................................................................................................................ 4 3.3 Public Meetings ..................................................................................................................... 4 3.4 Focus Groups ......................................................................................................................... 5 3.5 Web Outreach and Social Media ....................................................................................... 6 3.6 MetroQuest Survey ................................................................................................................ 6 3.7 City Council Engagement .................................................................................................... 7 4.0 DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 7 4.1 Traffic Growth Comparison .................................................................................................. 7 4.2 Projects Implemented Since the Last Plan .......................................................................... 9 5.0 PREVIOUS TRANSPORTATION PLANS ...................................................................................... 11 5.1 Previous Plans’ Key Findings................................................................................................ 11 6.0 LAND USE AND MARKET ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 12 6.1 Demographics & Economy ................................................................................................ 12 6.1.1 Demographic Profile .................................................................................................... 12 6.1.2 Economic Profile ........................................................................................................... 15 6.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 18 6.2.1 Deerfield ........................................................................................................................ 19 6.2.2 Crabapple .................................................................................................................... 20 6.2.3 Birmingham Crossroads ............................................................................................... 20 6.2.4 Arnold Mill Corridor ....................................................................................................... 20 6.3 Current Market Conditions ................................................................................................. 21 6.3.1 Competitive Regional Developments ............................................................................. 21 6.3.2 Macro-Level Market Considerations........................................................................... 22 6.3.3 Local Market Conditions .............................................................................................. 23 7.0 TRANSPORTATION INVENTORY ............................................................................................... 25 7.1 Places Connected by Transportation ................................................................................ 25 pg. iii 7.2 Vehicular Inventory ............................................................................................................. 27 7.2.1 Study Network............................................................................................................... 27 7.2.2 Functional Classification .............................................................................................. 28 7.2.3 Roadway Laneage and Intersection Control ............................................................ 30 7.2.4 Posted Speeds .............................................................................................................. 31 7.2.5 Medians ........................................................................................................................ 32 7.2.6 Bridges ........................................................................................................................... 33 7.2.7 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) .......................................................................... 34 7.2.8 Travel Demand Model Analysis ................................................................................... 35 7.2.8.1 Model Calibration ........................................................................................................ 35 7.2.8.2 2015 PM Level-of-Service ............................................................................................. 35 7.2.8.3 2040 PM Level-of-Service ............................................................................................. 36 7.2.10 Crash History ................................................................................................................. 37 7.2.11 Vehicular Needs .............................................................................................................. 39 7.3 Pedestrian & Bicycle Inventory ........................................................................................... 41 7.3.1 Existing Infrastructure .................................................................................................... 41 7.3.2 Crash History ................................................................................................................. 42 7.3.3 Pedestrian Needs ......................................................................................................... 42 7.3.4 Bicycle Suitability and Needs ...................................................................................... 44 7.3.4.1 Bicycle Suitability .......................................................................................................... 44 7.3.4.2 Bicycle Needs ............................................................................................................... 46 7.4 Transit .................................................................................................................................... 47 7.4.1 History ............................................................................................................................ 47 7.4.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 48 7.4.3 Connect 400 ................................................................................................................. 49 7.4.4 Transit Needs ................................................................................................................. 49 8.0 EXISTING NEEDS CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 51 pg. iv Appendix Appendix A: Public Meeting/Focus Group Notes ........................................................................ A-2 Appendix B: MetroQuest Survey Results .......................................................................................A-15 1.0 MetroQuest Survey Results ..................................................................................................A-16 1.1 Priority Ranking .................................................................................................................A-16 1.2 Survey Questions ..............................................................................................................A-17 1.2.1 Introduction Questions ..............................................................................................A-17 1.2.2 Connectivity Questions .............................................................................................A-18 1.2.3 Roadway Repair Questions ......................................................................................A-19 1.2.4 Vehicular Travel Questions .......................................................................................A-21 1.2.5 Walking/Biking Questions ..........................................................................................A-22 1.2.6 Transit Service Questions ...........................................................................................A-23 1.2.7 Economic Vitality Questions .....................................................................................A-24 1.2.8 Neighborhood Questions .........................................................................................A-25 1.2.9 Transportation Safety Questions ...............................................................................A-26 1.3 MetroQuest Mapped Responses ....................................................................................A-27 Appendix C: Full Comprehensive Market Analysis ......................................................................A-28 1.0 Comprehensive Market Analysis..........................................................................................A-29 1.1 Demographic Profile .................................................................................................A-29 1.2 Economic Profile ........................................................................................................A-36 1.3 Macro-Level Market Considerations........................................................................A-40 1.4 Local Market Conditions ...........................................................................................A-41 pg. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Milton is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) that will benefit citizens and visitors over the next 25 years. Since completion of the 2009 CTP, Milton has experienced continued growth, which has impacted the overall transportation system — including vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit. This current update will serve as a way to prepare for future anticipated growth across all modes of transportation and help the City of Milton’s elected officials and staff make crucial transportation decisions. This document is an interim deliverable that has been prepared to assist in the development of the transportation plan. This document will focus primarily on the existing transportation system and the needs identified within the transportation system. This will be done by concentrating on the following areas: ·Vision and Goals ·Public Involvement ·Diagnostic Review Since the Previous 2009 City of Milton CTP ·Previous Transportation Plans ·Land Use and Market Analysis ·Transportation Inventory and Needs Assessment 2.0 VISION AND GOALS Prior to undertaking a CTP, a vision and a set of goals to reach that vision should be developed. This ensures that the plan’s development is reflective of Milton’s unique characteristics and growth aspirations. 2.1 Vision In 2015, the City of Milton completed its 2016 – 2020 Strategic Plan, which outlines a “strategic road map and focus on projects to move Milton into the future.” This plan set the tone for how Milton anticipates to grow in relation to infrastructure, civic engagement, conservation, the economy, and other areas of life that effect Milton residents. Given this plan’s strong vision for Milton’s future, it also serves as the vision for the 2016 Milton CTP update. The vision can be seen in the figure below. pg. 2 2.2 Goals and Objectives With a vision for the future of Milton’s transportation system firmly established, goals were needed to achieve success. Goals from the 2009 CTP were used as a baseline then edited by staff and members of the public to reflect current thoughts and perspectives. These goals are outlined below. pg. 3 3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement is an important part of the planning process as it allows direct interaction with citizens, elected officials, and other key stakeholders. This chapter documents public involvement strategies and activities that have occurred, are currently underway, or planned for the 2016 Milton CTP update. 3.1 Project Management Team The Project Management Team (PMT) serves as a sounding board for the overall CTP planning process to ensure that the plan’s outcomes are consistent with the aforementioned Vision and Goals. The PMT is comprised of key staff and decision-makers from the City of Milton, the Georgia Department of Transportation, and the Atlanta Regional Commission. Identified members of the PMT are shown below in the table below. First Name Last Name Organization/Affiliation Title/Role Carter Lucas City of Milton Public Works Director/ Assistant City Manager Sara Leaders City of Milton Transportation Engineer/Planner Angela Thompson City of Milton Communications Manager Kathleen Field City of Milton Community Development Director Robert Edgar City of Milton Fire Chief Steven Krokoff City of Milton Police Chief Sarah LaDart City of Milton Economic Development Manager Chris Woods GDOT District Seven Traffic Engineer Patrick Bradshaw Atlanta Regional Commission Fulton County Representative pg. 4 3.2 Community Events Community events are a great way to seek citizen feedback by providing the option to engage in the planning process at a social setting they have already planned to attend. In total there are four community events planned for the CTP, two of which have happened and two that are being planned for the Recommendations phase of the process. The events are outlined in the table below. Event Name Date Event Location Information (to be) Provided Milton High School vs. Alpharetta High School Football Game August 28, 2015 Milton High School Visioning Board, CTP Informational Cards Cambridge High School vs. Forsyth Central High School Football Game October 30, 2015 Cambridge High School Visioning Board, CTP Informational Cards, MetroQuest Survey Public Meeting #2 Bell Memorial Park outreach April 2016 Bell Memorial Park Project Recommendations, MetroQuest Survey Milton Hometown Jubilee May 2016 Historic Downtown Crabapple Project Recommendations, MetroQuest Survey 3.3 Public Meetings Public meetings offer a more traditional venue for educating, informing, and hearing from the public. Two public meetings were planned for the 2016 Milton CTP update — one was completed in November 2015 and another is planned for Spring 2016. More information on public meetings is outlined below: ·Public Meeting #1, November 18 th, 2015: This meeting was held at the Milton Public Library from 5:30 to 7:30 PM. The meeting aimed to garner feedback from citizens on existing and future transportation infrastructure needs. Agenda items included a brief presentation highlighting what had been completed since the 2009 CTP, an overview of existing transportation infrastructure and potential needs, and an assessment of land use and market conditions. Next, breakout groups with attendees focused on existing and future transportation needs related to roadways, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure. Attendees also had the option to take a MetroQuest survey to further express their opinions. ·Public Meeting #2, Spring 2016: This public meeting is anticipated to take place at Bell Memorial Park. Although planned to be an open house format, it will have a few pg. 5 scheduled presentation times for those who would like to hear a short, formal presentation. The meeting will focus on specific project recommendations and gauge feedback from citizens regarding these recommendations as well as funding, transportation policy, and other relevant transportation topics. Attendees will have the option to take a MetroQuest survey. 3.4 Focus Groups Even with a range of public outreach efforts completed and planned, it is important to focus on key groups within the community to ensure that diverse feedback is received. Given Milton’s community characteristics, the PMT chose the following three focus groups for further outreach — bicyclists, pedestrians, and one inclusionary group (comprised of persons with disability(s), the elderly, environmental advocates, and others). The table below summarizes these focus group discussions. Summaries of the meetings are also provided in the Appendix. Focus Group Date Location Key Findings Inclusionary January 13, 2016 Milton City Hall ·Need better pedestrian and transit access to key destinations such as the library, grocery stores, parks, and the Crabapple area. ·Need better sidewalk access to MARTA bus routes; Need ADA- accessible buses; Need more MARTA bus routes ·Safer crossings in Crabapple area and near schools ·Uber is another transportation option available in Milton Bicyclists February 4, 2016 Crabapple ·Need more education for drivers and bicyclists to improve overall interaction and safety ·Existing gravel roads are utilized and should be considered in the future for improvement ·More bicycle friendly infrastructure is needed (improved shoulders, signage, roundabouts, bicycle lanes, road diets, traffic calming, etc.) Pedestrians February 27, 2016 Deerfield ·Need better pedestrian safety and access throughout the Deerfield and Crabapple areas. ·Utilize Cogburn Road for additional pedestrian facilities. ·Need to fill sidewalk gaps along key corridors and near schools. pg. 6 3.5 Web Outreach and Social Media Online interaction is an efficient and popular means of communicating CTP news and updates. A website was created for the CTP (www.connectmilton.com) and is used to provide opportunities for participation and other information on the plan. The website advertises three primary ways to give feedback: ·Taking the MetroQuest online survey (with a Survey Monkey option for those with accessibility needs) ·Providing contact information and/or comments (through email, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) ·Attending public outreach events and organized meetings Additionally, the CTP team works with Milton staff periodically throughout the planning process (i.e., public meetings) to develop information email blasts and YouTube videos that provide high-level content and key findings. 3.6 MetroQuest Survey A MetroQuest survey was conducted between October 28 th, 2015 and February 8 th, 2016 to gauge public opinion on transportation issues on a variety of topics. This survey assessed transportation priorities for residents, asked them survey questions related to their top four priorities, and allowed residents to utilize an on-line mapping tool to communicate their transportation needs. Overall, 2,100 people viewed the survey and out of this number, 1,297 people provided feedback. Out of the 36,291 people estimated to live in Milton (2015 estimate), this represents 3.6% of the population – which is an extremely high level of feedback. The survey results showed that vehicular travel and walking/biking were the highest-rated transportation-related priorities, as residents believe that transportation has worsened in the last five years in both the City of Milton and the Atlanta region. To residents, more reliable travel and connections to activity centers and employment are the most important factors in guaranteeing an adequate transportation system. Multimodal transportation options are also important to the residents of Milton, according to the survey. Sidewalks and trails are the most used alternative mode and nearly three-quarters of the survey respondents are much more likely to use these modes with facility expansion and improvements. Most respondents infrequently use transit services; however, a majority of them favor more bus routes and a MARTA rail extension for Milton. Along with these modes, respondents believe that Milton can be more economically viable with improved and new roadways, more walkable communities, slower speeds through neighborhoods using more pg. 7 speed limit enforcement and traffic calming, and easier access to the many amenities available in the community. Additionally, nearly three-quarters of respondents believe that roadways benefit the most from safety improvements such as constructing roundabouts, new signals, and turning lanes. The online mapping tool showed many key locations that residents want transportation improvements. These locations were included in the development of projects to be considered in the recommendation phase of this project. It is during this phase that a second MetroQuest survey will be released to gain additional public input. 3.7 City Council Engagement Engaging the Milton City Council is crucial since they represent the broader Milton community and are the key decision-makers responsible for eventual adoption of the plan. The CTP team provides updates to the City Council at key milestones throughout the project. City Council updates that have occurred and/or planned are shown in the table below. Date Session Type Key Findings October 19, 2015 Council Meeting Diagnostic Review Since Previous Plan, CTP Process/Schedule, Community Engagement March 21, 2016 Work Session or Council Meeting Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment, MetroQuest Survey 1 Results, Community Engagement Summer 2016 Work Session or Council Meeting Recommendations, MetroQuest Survey 2 Results, Community Engagement Summer 2016 Work Session or Council Meeting Adoption 4.0 DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW At the beginning of any planning process, it is important to evaluate past efforts and assess what recommendations have been implemented. Therefore, a diagnostic review of the 2009 CTP and the City’s implementation progress was conducted. 4.1 Traffic Growth Comparison As part of the 2009 CTP, the Atlanta Regional Commission’s travel demand model was used to forecast vehicular traffic growth through the year 2030. This traffic growth included new population and employment expected throughout metropolitan Atlanta over a 20-year period. Annually, traffic was projected to increase on roadways in and around Milton from 0% to more than 4% per year. In comparison, the average annual traffic growth was less than projected throughout most of the City of Milton. pg. 8 pg. 9 4.2 Projects Implemented Since the Last Plan Milton has had many infrastructure successes since the completion of the 2009 CTP. pg. 10 The City of Milton has made substantial progress in completing transportation projects recommended in the previous CTP. Progress is being made on many intersection, bridge, and corridor projects. Corridor projects tend to be long-term projects that require a large investment so there are many corridor projects that have not yet begun. The projects that have not been completed will be reexamined in the Recommendation phase of this project. pg. 11 5.0 PREVIOUS TRANSPORTATION PLANS Understanding previous planning efforts is important to any planning process. It provides for a more cohesive understanding of vision, goals, recommendations, and other significant characteristics. This section documents key findings from previous transportation plans. 5.1 Previous Plans’ Key Findings Below are key findings from previous transportation plans reviewed for this CTP’s update. ·The 2009 Milton CTP recommended 30 intersections for improvement, of which six were roundabouts. ·Corridors identified and recommended for improvement in the 2009 Milton CTP included SR 9 (Cumming Hwy.), SR 140 (Arnold Mill Road), Morris Road, Hamby Road, Hopewell Road, and School Drive. ·High crash intersections (greater than 100, from 2006 – 2008) identified in the 2009 Milton CTP were Birmingham Hwy./New Providence Road and SR 9 (Cumming Hwy.)/Bethany Bend. ·Managing roadway speeds and adding widened shoulders or bicycle lanes are key strategies in the 2009 Milton CTP for improving mobility and safety for bicyclists. ·Milton’s employment is predicted to effectively double from 17,000 jobs in 2010 to 34,000 jobs in 2030. ·The proposed interchange at SR 400 and McGinnis Ferry Road is expected to increase traffic along McGinnis Ferry Road between Bethany Bend and SR 400 from 11,500 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2011 to approximately 24,300 vpd in 2020 and 26,500 vpd in 2040. ·The Crabapple Crossroads and SR 9/Windward Parkway/Deerfield Parkway areas are two major commercial centers within Milton anticipated to see further growth. o Outside of these areas, Milton’s future land use is predominately focused on preserving rural character. ·The 2010 North Fulton CTP recommended that a major bicycle/pedestrian connection be made from SR 9 to the existing Alpharetta Big Creek Greenway and proposed Forsyth County Big Creek Trail. ·SR 140 (Arnold Mill Road) and SR 9 (Cumming Hwy.) are important arterials that provide regional access to and through Milton from Cherokee County and Forsyth County. ·Milton lacks significant paratransit coverage due to minimal MARTA fixed route coverage throughout the City. Plans Reviewed ·2009 Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan ·2010 North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan ·McGinnis Ferry Interchange Justification Report pg. 12 6.0 LAND USE AND MARKET ANALYSIS To better understand existing and potential traffic demand and travel destinations, the Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes a review of area demographics, land use patterns, and market trends. A more detailed version of this Land Use and Market Analysis can be found in Appendix C. 6.1 Demographics & Economy 6.1.1 Demographic Profile A demographic profile for residents within the City of Milton, including age, ethnicity, and education levels are included in the appendix of this document. As a benchmark, these measures have been compared to Fulton County and the larger Atlanta MSA. This section highlights several key facts and trends. Data in the following section references the year 2000. Although the City of Milton was not incorporated until 2006, the 2000 data uses the current city limit boundaries. 6.1.1.1 Population Trends Population in the City of Milton has more than doubled since 2000, reaching over 36,000 estimated residents in 2015. The City captured nearly 12% of the total population growth in Fulton County between 2000 and 2015, increasing its total county share from 2.2% in 2000 to 3.7% in 2015. This is demonstrated in the table below. The larger 29-county Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) grew by nearly 30% over the last 15 years, reaching over 5.5 million residents. It should be noted that GEOGRAHPY 2000 2010 2015 #%CAGR City of Milton 17,968 32,661 36,291 18,323 102.0%4.8% Fulton County 816,006 920,581 969,375 153,369 18.8%1.2% Altanta MSA 4,263,438 5,286,728 5,527,230 1,263,792 29.6%1.7% MILTON % of COUNTY 2.2%3.5%3.7%11.9% MILTON % of MSA 0.4%0.6%0.7%1.4% Source: ESRI; US Census; Kimley-Horn 2000-2015 Δ pg. 13 Fulton County comprised only 12.1% of the regional growth, demonstrating strong growth in other suburban counties outside the central core. Within the City of Milton, residents aged 55 to 64 experienced the strongest growth over the last five years, comprising nearly one half of the total increase. The younger segment of Millennials, the 15 to 24 age cohort, increased by 1,601 residents over the last five years. It is likely that many of these individuals are still living with their parents. Losses were recorded in older Millennials, between 25 and 34, as well as residents between 35 and 44. This could be a reflection of these residents seeking more affordable housing prices elsewhere in the region or locations closer to employment. The maps above and below illustrate population density and the percentage of residents over age 65. Although nationally Baby Boomers and Millennials make up the largest age cohorts, the City of Milton has comparatively higher shares of Generation X (aged 45 to 54). This represents pg. 14 population at the prime of their earning potential, typically driving demand for single-family residential product. This group is also an important generator of retail demand. The slightly higher share of children less than 14 years of age is reflective of family households led by Generation X. Approximately 46.5% of the households in Milton are defined as family, compared to 38.2% for the Atlanta MSA. This breakdown of age, by cohort, between 2000 and 2015 can be seen below. 6.1.1.2 Household Trends Households in the City of Milton have increased by 92.8%, from 6,670 in 2000 to nearly 13,000 in 2015. The increase in households in Milton comprised 8.0% and 1.3% of growth in Fulton County and the Atlanta MSA, respectively. This can be seen in the table below. It is important to note that the growth in households was less than the increase in population over the same time period, indicating an increase in overall household size. Nationally, household size has been declining, largely due to growth in the Millennial and Baby Boomer generation segments. The average household size in Milton has increased from 2.69 in 2010 to 2.80 in 2015, a trend that is projected to continue. COHORT 2010 2015 #% 0-14 8,296 7,948 -348 -4.2% 15-24 3,625 5,226 1,601 44.1% 25-34 3,625 3,339 -287 -7.9% 35-44 5,846 5,008 -838 -14.3% 45-54 6,206 6,895 690 11.1% 55-64 3,037 4,645 1,608 52.9% 65-74 1,274 2,141 867 68.1% 75-84 588 798 211 35.8% 85+163 290 127 77.8% TOTAL 32,661 36,291 3,630 11.1% Source: ESRI; US Census; Kimley-Horn 2000-2015 Δ GEOGRAPHY 2000 2010 2015 #%CAGR City of Milton 6,670 11,659 12,859 6,189 92.8%4.5% Fulton County 321,242 376,377 398,398 77,156 24.0%1.4% Altanta MSA 1,559,712 1,943,885 2,033,479 473,767 30.4%1.8% MILTON % OF COUNTY 2.1%3.1%3.2%8.0% MILTON % MSA 0.4%0.6%0.6%1.3% Source: ESRI; US Census; Kimley-Horn 2000-2015 Δ pg. 15 In 2015, the estimated median household income in the City of Milton was nearly $115,000, more than double that of Fulton County and the Atlanta MSA. According to the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Milton’s median household income is expected to continue to increase, reaching nearly $130,000 annually by 2020. This compares to a median household income of $54,780 in Fulton County and $56,889 for Atlanta as a whole. This is not to suggest that the City of Milton is comprised of only upper income households. The map to the left illustrates the percent of residents below the poverty threshold. 6.1.2 Economic Profile This section provides an overview of employment trends for the Atlanta MSA, Fulton County, and, more specifically, for the City of Milton. Trends indicate shifts in employment sectors that could impact transportation needs in the future. 6.1.2.1 Fulton County The 764,952 jobs in Fulton County in 2014 made up 32.8% of the total employment in the Atlanta MSA. Containing the majority of the City of Atlanta, Fulton County is the economic hub of the region, adding nearly 38,000 jobs in the last 10 years. Professional Services is the largest sector in Fulton County, with the 177,682 jobs in this industry making up nearly one- quarter of the total county employment in 2014. The largest growth sectors in Fulton County between 2004 and 2014 include: ·Professional Services (+30,131) ·Healthcare (+16,189) ·Leisure and Hospitality (+12,478) ·Education (+3,244) ·Public Administration (+2,924) Fulton County comprises nearly one-third of the total employment in the Atlanta MSA. By sector, Fulton County has a notable higher share of Professional Services and Finance and Insurance jobs driven by concentrations in and near downtown Atlanta. pg. 16 6.1.2.2 City of Milton Employment data for the City of Milton was provided by US Census’ Longitudinal Employer dataset. The most recent employment data provided is from 2013. There were nearly 10,000 jobs located in the City of Milton in 2013, heavily concentrated in the Deerfield area with proximity to GA 400. Jobs in this area of Milton are heavily focused in the Professional Services and Information sectors. A secondary concentration is focused in the Crabapple area of Milton, hosting primarily local jobs in the Retail Services sector. These employment concentration areas are demonstrated in the figure below. Employment in Milton increased by 33.1% between 2004 and 2013, with the strongest growth in the Professional Services, Information, and Retail Trade sectors. Over 25% of the total jobs in Milton are in the Information sector, driven by major employers including AT&T and Verizon Wireless. The City of Milton also has a higher share of total employment for Professional Services than Fulton County and the Atlanta MSA. This can be seen below in the graph on the following page. pg. 17 As shown in the graphic below, approximately 9,000 people commute into the City of Milton on a daily basis for employment, while nearly 15,000 residents commute to work outside. An estimated 765 people live and work in the City. A review of in- and out-commuting trends demonstrates that the number of people living in Milton and commuting to jobs outside the City have more than doubled in the last 10 years. Non-residents commuting into Milton for jobs have increased at a more modest pace. Residents that also work in Milton nearly doubled from 390 people in 2004 to 765 people in 2013. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%ShareofTotalJobsCity of Milton Fulton County Atlanta MSA pg. 18 6.2 Land Use The City of Milton was incorporated in November 2006. Since then, a series of community- based planning efforts have been undertaken to help maintain the area’s character and guide future land use and development. The City of Milton 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2011, is the foundation of all of the City’s planning documents and studies. The Comprehensive Plan includes the Future Land Use Map, Future Development Map, and Character Areas Map. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to concentrate commercial development within the City of Milton in three activity centers: ·Hwy. 9 Corridor/Deerfield Area ·Crabapple Crossroads ·Birmingham Crossroads To promote greater definition, coordinated decision-making, and a stronger sense of place, the City of Milton has conducted a series of small area plans and developed additional codes and design/development requirements within these focus areas. In 2012, the City of Milton completed Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) Studies for the Hwy. 9/ GA 400 area (shown in the figure below) and the Crabapple area. The Deerfield LCI identifies five sub areas and provides a framework for future development character and transportation improvements. The Crabapple LCI proposes a conceptual Master Plan to create a “village center” that would accommodate new development while maintaining the area’s rural character. Following the Master Plans, the City of Milton adopted Form-Based Code and a Transfer of Development Rights ordinance for both the Deerfield and Crabapple activity centers. A form-based code is a zoning ordinance that regulates development to ensure architecture and character are consistent with community’s vision. The Transfer of Development Rights program encourages development in suitable areas while protecting valuable rural land, farmland, habitat, and environmentally sensitive land. The following sections provide additional details regarding the City’s activity centers and future development vision based on the master plans and updated codes and regulations as pg. 19 much of the City’s current and future traffic demand will occur within from and between these areas. The section also provides an overview of regional developments that may generate additional traffic demand to and through the City of Milton. The City of Milton has identified several nodes where commercial, office, and retail developments exist today and have potential to expand over the next two decades. The figure below illustrates the four areas of concentration: Deerfield Activity Center at GA 400 and Windward Parkway, Crabapple Activity Center at the crossroads of Georgia Highways 140 and 372, the Arnold Mill Corridor, and Birmingham Crossroads in northern Milton. Deerfield and Crabapple are Milton’s two largest activity centers. 6.2.1 Deerfield The Deerfield activity center is characterized by both regional and local development and is the City’s highest intensity character area. Deerfield is home to the City’s largest concentration of office buildings, many of which are occupied by Verizon Wireless. Most local activities, including retail goods and services are located along Windward Parkway and Hwy. 9. Five sub areas were identified in the Deerfield/Hwy. 9 Master Plan. These areas include a regional activity center near GA 400 where the City’s highest intensity uses may be accommodated, a local activity center along Hwy. 9 allowing for a mix of uses, a McGinnis Ferry transitional area, residential transitional areas between Hwy. 9 and Milton’s established residential areas, and a North Main Street District on the south end of the Hwy. 9 corridor in neighboring Alpharetta. The LCI Plan outlines preferred development characteristics that became the foundation for a new form-based code and transfer of development rights ordinance for the Deerfield/Hwy. 9 area. The LCI identified priority transportation projects pg. 20 including widening roadways, intersections, restriping, local bus connections and bicycle/pedestrian improvements. 6.2.2 Crabapple While Deerfield is the regional activity center in Milton, Crabapple is characterized as the small-scale, village center. Crabapple consists of a collection of local retail goods, services and restaurants. The Crabapple LCI Plan provided a detailed concept plan to guide the character of future development within the district, including a new City Hall. The Master Plan also identified priority transportation, parking, pedestrian, signage, and open space projects. In addition, the City adopted a form-based code and transfer of development rights ordinance for the Crabapple area. Most of the City’s future development is intended to occur within the Deerfield and Crabapple areas to preserve the rural nature of central and northern Milton. 6.2.3 Birmingham Crossroads Birmingham Crossroads is identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as the northern commercial node for the City. Birmingham Crossroads is planned to accommodate a rural mixed-use village with neighborhood goods and services. The crossroads will maintain its low intensity development character. 6.2.4 Arnold Mill Corridor The Arnold Mill Corridor is a heavily traveled roadway between Alpharetta and Cherokee County. The Atlanta Regional Commission’s (ARC) Community Development Division led a visioning study for the Arnold Mill Corridor in 2014 resulting in recommendations related to land use, transportation, and recreation. The land use vision recognizes development pressure along Arnold Mill and recommends identifying one to two small development nodes to prevent sprawl and maintain the area’s character. Most of the City’s future development is intended to occur within the Deerfield and Crabapple areas to conserve rural central and northern Milton. pg. 21 6.3 Current Market Conditions 6.3.1 Competitive Regional Developments Four significant commercial developments have the potential to impact the real estate market and, therefore, transportation patterns in and around the City of Milton. The figure below illustrates the location of the following areas: ·Downtown Woodstock , located west of Milton, is becoming more popular as a local and regional destination. Significant traffic is generated in the south and western portions of Milton due to the limited options for east-west connectivity in the area. ·Downtown Alpharetta, south of Milton, is currently experiencing significant new development, including the City’s $29 million mixed-use city center — a 25-acre city center project that includes a new Fulton County library, a five-acre public park, a town square, a new Alpharetta City Hall, and a 450-space parking deck. The first phase Alpharetta City Hall has been completed. Additional commercial and residential development is anticipated to begin in 2016. ·Avalon, south of Milton at Westside Parkway and Old Milton Parkway, is a $600 million mixed-use development that is quickly becoming a regional attraction and traffic generator. Plans for Phase 1 of the 86-acre site include 500,000 square feet of retail, a movie theater, 105,000 square feet of office space, 101 single-family detached residences, and 250 apartments. A second phase is expected to open in 2016, including additional retail and office space, multi-family residences, and a hotel/conference center. ·Forsyth County’s land use policies are fostering a regional mixed-use center on Ronald Reagan Blvd. just east of GA 400 and the City of Milton. Future development is projected to include a mall, corporate office space, restaurants, hotel, and residential dwelling units. This development, as well as potential construction of an interchange on GA 400 at McGinnis Ferry has the potential to impact traffic patterns in Milton, particularly near the Deerfield Parkway and Bethany Bend areas. pg. 22 6.3.2 Macro-Level Market Considerations The Atlanta region, defined as the 29-county MSA, is in the midst of recovery following the economic recession from 2007 to 2009. The Atlanta MSA has grown by over 240,000 people since 2010, approaching a total population of nearly 5.6 million in 2015. As a region, the strongest growth was experienced in Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb, DeKalb, and Forsyth counties, comprising more than three-quarters of the total increase. Although growth in the Atlanta MSA has slowed from the rapid pace recorded between 2000 and 2010, it is still one of the fastest growing areas in the U.S. Some of the macro-level demographic shifts impacting the region include: ·Rise of the Millennials. Born roughly between 1980 and 2000, Millennials have overtaken the Baby Boomers as the largest generation. This shift will shape the form of development for years to come, as only a portion of this generation has moved out of their childhood homes. Impacts will come particularly in regards to housing, employment, and transportation choices. ·Aging Baby Boomers . Although Millennials are now the largest cohort, Baby Boomers still comprise nearly 22% of the total national population. Some in this cohort are still working, driving spending potential. This cohort is also driving demand for a maintenance-free lifestyle close to family, friends, shopping, dining, church, and cultural or recreational amenities. ·Stabilization of Household Formation . Household formation was highest nationally and in the Atlanta region between 2004 and 2006, before falling during the 2007-2009 recession. The drop in household formation was partially impacted by young adults living at home longer or relying on roommates. Since 2010, household formation has stabilized, but it is unlikely to reach the same pre-recession measures (see figure below). pg. 23 ·Decline in Home-ownership Rate . Challenges with obtaining financing, coupled with shifting preferences of Millennials and Baby Boomers, have caused a notable decline in the rate of home-ownership. In fact, the current national home-ownership rate is the lowest since 1967. The share of renter-occupied housing units in the Atlanta MSA increased by 3.3%, from 30.3% in 2010 to 33.6% in 2015. Milton, on the contrary, has experienced a decline of renter-occupied housing units in the last five years. ·Smaller Household Sizes . Nationally, the average household size has gradually declined, impacted by the large Millennial and Baby Boomer generations. Single-person household in the region have experienced strong growth since 2000 and could overtake two-person households as the most common size by 2020. This impacts the demand for a variety of housing types, including single-family detached, townhouses, and multi-family units. Attracted by the high quality of life for families, including high- performing schools, Milton has experienced an increase in household size during the same time period. 6.3.3 Local Market Conditions This section provides high-level market considerations for the City of Milton, including the potential impact of the competitive regional developments highlighted above. Future development, driven by market demand, will impact transportation patterns in and around the City of Milton. 6.3.3.1 Residential The dominant land use in the City of Milton is single-family, detached residential. The City, which more than doubled in population between 2000 and 2015, has emerged as an attractive place to live. Contrary to national trends, average household sizes have increased in Milton indicating the continued attractiveness for families. This will continue to drive demand for low- to moderate-density single-family residential units in the future. However, it should be noted that the Millennial and Baby Boomer cohorts in Milton have experienced some of the fastest population increases in the last 15 years. These segments of the population will create demand for a variety of housing types, including single-family detached, townhouses, and multi-family units. Nearly one-half of the population is over age 45, and could seek to downsize as children move out and form separate households. Higher density residential development would likely gravitate to the Deerfield and Crabapple areas. True multi-family development, including both condominiums and apartments, would be most attracted to the Deerfield area offering proximity to GA 400, jobs, and shopping. 6.3.3.2 Retail Regional retail opportunities in northern Fulton County and southern Forsyth County will be heavily impacted by the Avalon development and the planned mall, corporate office space, restaurants, hotel, and residential dwelling units at Ronald Reagan Boulevard and GA 400. Given proximity to Milton, these developments are likely to attract a large share of the regional retail demand in the area. pg. 24 In the short-term, the Deerfield and Crabapple areas will remain an attractive location for smaller scale, neighborhood-focused retail serving residents and employees. As Milton continues to grow, additional opportunities for neighborhood-serving retail could be accommodated in the Birmingham Crossroads area or in key nodes along the Arnold Mill Corridor. 6.3.3.3 Employment Given the area’s proximity to GA 400 and potential for clustering near other existing employment sectors, Deerfield will be the primary location for new office space development. Demand for small-scale professional office space could also be generated in Crabapple. pg. 25 7.0 TRANSPORTATION INVENTORY 7.1 Places Connected by Transportation Transportation facilities and mobility patterns can substantially impact the way land uses develop and where major destinations are located. As stated, the Deerfield and Crabapple Livable Centers Initiatives are two major development areas located in the City of Milton. Multi-modal improvements within and adjacent to these areas will aid in connecting residents and attracting future development. While Milton has developed more recently and remains largely rural, there are many areas and locations that could benefit substantially from multi- modal improvements to the transportation system. The City includes three completed Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs), which are substantial development projects worthy of regional attention, two Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) study areas, and is a part of the SR 400 Regional Employment Corridor, which has pg. 26 experienced much recent growth, and the Windward Activity Center. Additionally, there are other activity centers nearby. Community facilities in the City will benefit from substantial multi-modal improvements to the transportation system in the future. Such benefits include, but are not limited to, children being able to walk and bike to school, seniors being able to walk and take transit to the senior community facility, and more access to parks, the library, and City Hall. These multi-modal improvements create more possibilities to travel to local destinations without a single occupancy vehicle. *Alpharetta North Park, located at Bethany Bend and Cogburn Road, is owned and operated by the City of Alpharetta; however, it is surrounded by the City of Milton. Other community facilities are Freedom Park, Broadwell Pavilion, and Bethwell Community Center. pg. 27 7.2 Vehicular Inventory 7.2.1 Study Network Approximately 247 miles of roadway exist in the City of Milton. The study network used in the transportation plan is a subset of the overall roadway system and includes all roadways that are a collector or higher on the GDOT functional classification system (described in more detail below) for a total of 93 miles of roadway. The majority of inventory and mapping occurred on the selected study network; however, some data was available to map and analyze additional facilities. Additional roadway mileage was inventoried outside of Milton for continuity. ·93 miles of Study Network within Milton ·154 miles of Local Roads (not included in the Study Network) ·247 miles of Total Roadway within Milton pg. 28 7.2.2 Functional Classification Functional classifications are defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and used by policy makers, planners, engineers, and citizens to designate the characteristics and purposes of the roadways in a system. The functional classification system categorizes streets along a general hierarchy that accounts for the inverse relationship between access and mobility, and how that relates to distinguishing between arterials and local roads. Roadways that are higher speed and higher volume typically provide less access while roadways that are lower volume and lower speed can more comfortably accommodate greater access. The following functional classifications are characterized by GDOT: ·Interstates are designed and constructed for long distance travel. These roads have the highest design speeds and the most limited access to facilitate high mobility. ·Other Freeways are similar to interstates, having controlled access and limited at-grade crossings. They may have fewer lanes than interstates, but the directional travel lanes are usually divided by a physical barrier. ·Other Principal Arterials provide service to urban and rural areas, generally radiating outward from a city center to serve the surrounding region. Unlike interstates, principal arterials can often be accessed directly by adjacent businesses. ·Minor Arterials connect smaller geographic areas within a larger urban arterial network and are often used to carry local bus routes. ·Major Collectors are used by residents to access the arterial network from their places of origin. An example of a major collector would be the longer roads in a given residential neighborhood. ·Minor Collectors are similar to major collectors, but generally shorter in length and with fewer lanes. ·Local Roads provide direct access to property for the very beginning and the very end of a trip. Local roads have low design speeds and often prevent through traffic. Source:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/ statewide/related/functional classification/fc02.cfm pg. 29 As stated previously, the GDOT functional classification system was used to identify the study network for this study. From the list above, there are no interstates or other principal arterials located within the study area. Aside from local roads, minor arterials and major collectors make up the most road miles in Milton. Functional Classification Total Miles Urban Freeway 2 (bi-directional) Minor Arterials 25 Major Collectors 28 Minor Collectors 3 Local Roads 33 pg. 30 ·16 Traffic Signals and 12 Traffic Signal Flashers ·2 Existing Roundabouts ·5 Additional Planned Roundabouts 7.2.3 Roadway Laneage and Intersection Control Number of lanes is a primary characteristic used to determine a roadway’s capacity. The majority of roads in Milton and in the study network are two-lane roadways. The table presents the number of miles for the different number of travel lanes throughout the study network. There are 16 traffic signals located within the City of Milton as well as 13 flashing signals. The flashing signals are operated as pedestrian-only signals, flashing beacons, and School Zone Flashers. Additionally, there are two roundabouts currently in operation with five more planned. Some of these roundabouts are solutions to geometrically-skewed, stop-controlled intersections. Number of Lanes Total Miles 8 2 (bi-directional) 4 7 2 78 Dirt/Gravel 5 pg. 31 7.2.4 Posted Speeds Posted speed limits were collected along each of the roadways within the Milton study network. Posted speed limits exist in 5-mph increments between 25 mph and 65 mph. A road’s posted speed limit typically falls within a range that is based on function, area type, and specific conditions. Most of the study network has posted speeds of 40-45 mph. SR 400 is signed for 65 mph through the study area. The arterials and collectors through the Deerfield area, and Crabapple Road through the Crabapple area are signed for 30-35 mph. Crabapple Road continues into Alpharetta at Arnold Mill Road as Hardscrabble Road. The dirt and gravel roads in the center of the city are signed for 25 mph and less due to the travel surface and the smaller cross- section widths. *The speed limit along Mayfield Road from SR 372 to Freemanville Road was lowered to 35 mph in May 2016. pg. 32 7.2.5 Medians Different types of medians can provide varying levels of access management. Landscaped or concrete medians are non-traversable in nature and allow the driver to turn left only at designated locations. When medians break and signals are well-spaced, these types of medians have an ability to reduce turning conflicts and improve traffic flow. Two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTL) provide a separate lane for left-turning traffic, which allows the through movements to continue efficiently. When a roadway lacks a median treatment, vehicles are able to turn at any roadway or driveway, which reduces travel speeds and increases the number of vehicle conflicts, thus reducing safety and efficiency. Most areas of Milton do not have median treatments, as most roads along the study network are typical two-lane residential roads. The more-developed Deerfield area near SR 400 has different types of median treatments throughout. Windward Parkway from east of SR 400 to Cogburn Road has a landscaped median. Deerfield Parkway and Morris Road from Deerfield Parkway to Webb Road also have landscaped medians. SR 9 through the Deerfield area and Morris Road/McGinnis Ferry Road have varying areas of striped and TWLTL medians. pg. 33 7.2.6 Bridges The City of Milton has made substantial progress in reducing the number of deficient bridges since the last CTP. Two bridges have been replaced and seven have been repaired. Additionally, the Birmingham Road Bridge over a tributary to Chicken Creek, east of Freemanville Road, is currently being repaired. Bridges are inspected by GDOT for sufficiency every two years, as required by the Federal Highway Administration. These reviews have shown that 16 of the 25 bridges that have had no recent activity are functionally obsolete. It is likely that these bridges will become priority in the future for repair or replacement, if they are not already programmed. Bridge Sufficiency Total Existing 25 Programmed 3 Repaired 7 Replaced 2 Underway 1 pg. 34 7.2.7 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes for 2014 were obtained from the Georgia Department of Transportation. The Diagnostics Report, shown in Section 4, shows the comparison in the average annual percentage growth in AADT volumes from 2010 to 2014 and the average annual percentage growth projected by the travel demand model. A majority of the traffic volumes have not experienced the growth that was projected in the previous CTP. In the map below, the larger the circle, the higher the volume of traffic at that section of the roadway. As expected, the highest traffic volumes are found in the Deerfield area near SR 400 and toward the denser development in Alpharetta. Deerfield is one of two areas in Milton that also experienced higher growth in traffic volumes than was projected by the travel demand model. The other area was along SR 372, north of Birmingham Hwy.. pg. 35 7.2.8 Travel Demand Model Analysis 7.2.8.1 Model Calibration The latest version of the Atlanta Regional Commission’s (ARC) PLAN 2040 model was used for travel demand analysis. Given the regional scope of the model, localized calibration was performed for the studied roads within the Milton CTP study area. The 2015 model network’s average weekday volume was calibrated to the latest annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts available from GDOT for the year 2014, as seen in the previous section. While there is a year discrepancy between the estimated model data and the observed traffic count data, this calibration represents a best case scenario using the latest data. For calibration, most of the changes focused on the model network with one additional change to the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) and associated socio-economic data. The majority of model network changes involved modifications to speed, link length, centroid connector locations, and facility type. Model volumes were calibrated to thresholds established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These thresholds are stratified based upon Functional Classification and targeted AADT ranges. 7.2.8.2 2015 PM Level-of-Service Shown on the next page is the existing 2015 Level-of-Service in the PM peak period (3-7 PM) along the roadways within the study network of Milton. Roadways considered to be operating at a poor Level-of-Service (LOS) (LOS E or LOS F) are shown in orange or red, respectively. It is important to note two things about the travel demand model maps. One, the map shows the peak four hours, so travel in the peak hour may be even worse than the aggregate four hours. Second, the LOS depicted on this map represents the volume to capacity ratio along a link only. If the volume on the roadway exceeds the capacity (V/C > 1.0), the link is considered to be an LOS F. While also a contributing factor to congestion levels, delay associated with poorly operating intersections is not represented in this analysis. It is possible, therefore, for a road or corridor to operate at a lower LOS than shown in the map if the intersections are not operating at full efficiency along the corridor. It is not surprising that much of SR 400 operates at LOS E or F during the PM peak period. Numerous other arterial and collector facilities operate at substandard Levels-of-Service as well including Arnold Mill Road, Batesville Road, Windward Parkway, and Cogburn Road, among others. pg. 36 7.2.8.3 2040 PM Level-of-Service In addition to studying the 2015 Existing Levels-of-Service in the travel demand model, future conditions were modeled to understand how congestion likely will increase. The 2040 No-Build Travel Demand Model assumes the current roadway and transit network from 2015 (no additional infrastructure improvements) with the population and employment projections for 2040. This model provides an understanding of what vehicular congestion may look like if people and jobs continue to move to the region and no additional infrastructure improvements are made. The model shows that the vast majority of major roadways show as LOS E or F in 25 years, an extreme degradation in operations from the existing conditions. Improvements along key roadways will be needed to maintain the current quality of service. The direction of travel shows typical PM travel to and from the major regional employment centers to the south. The northbound and westbound directions of flow along major roadways experience LOS E or F conditions during the PM peak. Key corridors projected to experience substandard travel conditions in 2040 include Arnold Mill Road, Birmingham Road, Cogburn Road, Francis Road, SR 9, SR 372, SR 400, and Windward Parkway, among others. pg. 37 7.2.10 Crash History Examining crash history and traffic patterns can suggest locations that could benefit from traffic safety improvements. Vehicular crashes can be costly when considering medical care, emergency services, victim work loss, employer cost, traffic delay, property damage, and a reduction in the quality of life due to longer travel times. The City of Milton has made substantial improvements at intersections around the City where previous high crash frequencies were occurring. Many of the planned roundabout projects seek to improve road safety while also improving traffic flow. Many intersection and corridor improvements have been made; however, there are still locations experiencing a high frequency of crashes. Crash data for this study was collected from January 2012 to August 2015. According to GDOT and City of Milton data, from January 2012 to August 2015, there were 1,871 crashes along the study network, including 388 injuries in 305 separate crashes. Along the study network, two fatalities occurred due to two separate crashes. pg. 38 Based on City of Milton data, the intersections that experienced 15 or more crashes are shown above. Many of the intersections are located along state routes and higher speed corridors. There were 108 crashes at the intersection of SR 9 at Bethany Bend, nearly double the amount of crashes than any other intersection. There were 64 crashes at the intersection of SR 372 at Providence Road; however, this intersection recently became a roundabout and likely experiences less crashes than previously recorded. Intersection Number of Crashes Intersection Number of Crashes SR 9 at Bethany Bend 108 Bethany Bend at Cogburn Road 25 SR 372 at Providence Road 64 Hopewell Road at Hamby Road 25 SR 9 at Deerfield Parkway 53 Morris Road at Webb Road 22 Deerfield Parkway at Webb Road 49 SR 372 at Birmingham Road 19 Birmingham Road at Hopewell Road 39 Hopewell Road at Cogburn Road 17 SR 372 at Mayfield Road 32 SR 140 at Ranchette Road 17 SR 9 at Webb Road 31 SR 9 at Marrywood Drive 16 SR 140 at New Providence Road 30 Birmingham Road at Freemanville Road 15 SR 140 at Cox Road 29 Freemanville Road at Redd Road 15 SR 140 at Green Road 26 SR 9 at Windward Village 15 pg. 39 7.2.11 Vehicular Needs Like many areas in the Atlanta metropolitan area, the City of Milton is expected to experience increased levels of congestion along several of its primary and secondary roadways by the year 2040. Additionally, Milton has numerous intersections that may have safety concerns and will experience more congestion in the future. As stated, the ARC travel demand model was used to estimate travel conditions and to better understand future levels of congestions. Additionally, crash data was obtained from GDOT and local sources between January 2012 and August 2015. Using 2040 travel demand model results, an understanding of future corridor improvement needs were assessed. This was done by looking at corridors with a worsening level of service (LOS F) that connected key destinations and activity centers within Milton and adjacent areas. Many of the roadways within the core of Milton may benefit from turn lanes at key intersections or driveways and the flattening of roadway curves. New potential connections were also identified within the Deerfield area due to focused congestion in southeastern Milton near SR 9 (Cumming Hwy.), Windward Parkway, Deerfield Parkway, and SR 400. pg. 40 Potential new connection projects include: ·SR 9 (Cumming Highway) and Deerfield Parkway connection, potentially providing a new connection between SR 9 and Deerfield Parkway between Webb Road and Windward Parkway. ·Webb Road Extension, potentially extending Webb Road to the east, over SR 400, connecting near Alderman Drive in Alpharetta. ·Crabapple Northwest Connection,extending Crabapple Chase Drive, McFarlin Lane, and Branyan Trail to connect SR 372 Crabapple Road at Crabapple Chase Drive to SR 372 Birmingham Highway at McFarlin Lane ·Crabapple Northeast Connection , extending Charlotte Drive from Mayfield Road to SR 372 Birmingham Highway at McFarlin Lane Intersections with high levels of congestion and crash frequency were also identified. Intersections with higher levels of congestion were identified by assessing link level LOS from 2040 PM model results. Intersections that had two or more approaches with either an LOS E or F were classified as intersections with high levels of congestion by 2040. Additionally, high crash pg. 41 intersections were those identified with more than 10 crashes in the data sets provided from GDOT and local sources. The areas of vehicular needs will be considered when determining possible projects during the recommendations phase of this plan. These needs will be vetted against projects that are currently under design or construction so as not to duplicate existing efforts. 7.3 Pedestrian & Bicycle Inventory 7.3.1 Existing Infrastructure The pedestrian and bicycle modes are also important transportation modes for the future of Milton. Investments in these networks have been more recent and have mostly occurred where new development has taken place with deliberate additional investment within the two LCI areas of Deerfield and Crabapple. Short trail and bicycle facility segments have been completed along Arnold Mill Road, Bethany Bend, Crabapple Road, SR 372, and around the new roundabout at New Providence Road and SR 372. pg. 42 7.3.2 Crash History The City of Milton has made substantial improvements in pedestrian and bicycle safety at intersections around the City where previous high crash frequencies were occurring. Many intersection and corridor improvements have been made; however, there are still locations where pedestrian and bicycle crashes have occurred. Crash data for this study was collected between January 2012 and August 2015. During the study period, there were four traffic incidences that involved a pedestrian or bicycle. These locations include: Cogburn Road at Bethany Bend Road, Cogburn Road at Francis Road, Arnold Mill Road at New Providence Road, and Freemanville Road near Dartmouth Road. There may be opportunity to make safety enhancements to mitigate future incidents at these locations and others. 7.3.3 Pedestrian Needs Milton has an expansive pedestrian network with many sidewalks and some trails. However, pedestrian needs are present throughout the study area due to gaps in sidewalk connectivity and the need to connect activity centers, community facilities, schools, and other key destinations. To understand areas of greatest pedestrian need, key activity centers and destinations were identified within the study as these are some areas where pedestrian connectivity is valuable. These areas included schools, civic centers, parks, regional employment areas, Livable Community Initiatives (LCIs), and regionally significant activity centers. A half mile radial buffer, used to represent an approximate walkability zone, was created around each of the activity locations. Sidewalks and trails exist along roadways within the buffers, but they can be fragmented, creating gaps in pedestrian connectivity. Gaps within the buffers and connecting between the buffers were identified and classified into the following three categories: ·Small gaps – 30 to 1,000 feet ·Medium gaps – 1,000 to 2,500 feet ·Large gaps – 2,500 feet to 5,200 feet pg. 43 The small gaps may be easiest to fill and will create a stronger pedestrian network. The larger the gap, the more challenging it may be to provide a contiguous network. Pedestrian needs within the study area are identified below. Areas with pedestrian needs will be considered when determining possible projects during the Recommendations phase of this plan. pg. 44 7.3.4 Bicycle Suitability and Needs 7.3.4.1 Bicycle Suitability To identify bicycle needs within the Milton study area, existing bicycling suitability needed to be understood. A bicycle suitability methodology was created using a hybrid of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual’s (HCM) Bicycle Level of Service (LOS) approach and a qualitative assessment of existing conditions. The developed methodology uses key parameters from the 2010 HCM methodology such as speed or roadway traffic volume. Within these parameters, a stratification of data and scoring was developed that is unique to Milton’s transportation system. The scoring matrix is shown below. Bicycle LOS Category Data Stratification and Scoring Max Score Volume (vehicles per day)0 - 2,300 2,301 - 6,000 6,001 - 9,800 9,801 - 13,500 13,501 - 31,000 4 Score 4 3 2 1 0 Total Thru Lanes <= 2 lanes > 2 lanes 1 Score 1 0 Outside Lane Width >= 12 feet 11 feet to < 12 feet 10 feet to < 11 feet < 10 feet 3 Score 3 2 1 0 Posted Speed 0 - 25 mph 30 - 40 mph 45 mph 50+ mph 3 Score 3 2 1 0 Truck Route Yes No 2Score02 Highest Potential Score 13 After examining all roadways within the study network, a score of low (score = 6 to 8), medium (score = 9), and high (score = 10 to 13) suitability was created using logical breakpoints within the data set. A map of Milton’s roadway’s bicycle suitability, along with key activity centers, employment areas, schools, roadway grade (slope), bicycle/pedestrian crashes, and existing bicycle infrastructure is displayed below. pg. 45 When looking at combinations of roadway grade and bike suitability, some interesting patterns are present. Areas where suitability is high (dark blue) and grade is relatively flat (black) indicate generally favorable conditions for average bicyclists. However, when examining areas with low suitability (light blue) and areas with higher roadway grades (light gray), bicycle suitability is at its lowest. It should be noted that roadways with limited suitability options should be considered in the future. These roadways typically are gravel and unpaved which could eventually be paved or be used by certain types of bicyclists (i.e., mountain bicycles). Additionally, the area adjacent to SR 400’s right-of-way (ROW) could be used for a future greenway or pathway system — similar to what is being developed by PATH 400 in Buckhead, Atlanta, GA. pg. 46 7.3.4.2 Bicycle Needs With an understanding of bicycle suitability, bicycle needs become more apparent. Bicycling needs in Milton are focused on using the existing transportation system to connect key destinations, including Crabapple Crossroads, the SR 9/Deerfield Parkway area, Birmingham Crossroads, schools, civic buildings, parks, and employment centers. In addition to locations within Milton, it is important to connect to surrounding cities and counties such as Alpharetta, Forsyth County, and Cherokee County. pg. 47 7.4 Transit 7.4.1 History Transit service in Metro Atlanta has existed as far back as the 1860s with the Atlanta Street Railway. While modest in size, the railway — along with other private entities — ran private streetcar, trolley bus, and bus systems in Atlanta until the creation of Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). In the 1950s, planners and officials began to develop momentum for creating a public transportation system in the Atlanta region as whole. In the 1960s, a Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Study Commission report recommended a 66-mile, five-county rail system with feeder bus operation and park-and-ride facilities. By 1965, legislation authorizing a referendum on MARTA was passed by the state and subsequently approved in four counties and the City of Atlanta, creating MARTA. However, in 1972 voters in Gwinnett and Cobb counties voted against a sales tax increase to fund MARTA, and thus were left out of the system. (Even to this day, the lack of sales tax revenue from the two counties has limited MARTA’s ability to provide service on a regional basis). Through the 1970s, MARTA received grants of more than $800 million from the federal government for planning, design, land acquisition, and construction of a rapid rail system. On June 30, 1979 MARTA’s first train, the East Line, began operating in DeKalb County between Avondale and Georgia State Station. The 1980s saw continued growth in the MARTA rail system with the construction of nine more miles of track and many more stations. As a result, rail ridership increased by 29% by the mid- 1980s. By 1990, frequency of rail service also increased to achieve eight-minute headways throughout the system. Service to the airport and northward to Chamblee also began. The expansion continued through the 1990s with service extending beyond the I-285 perimeter with major projects including the seven-mile North Line — a line segment that spanned the three funding jurisdictions of City of Atlanta, Fulton County, and DeKalb County. In the late 1990s, MARTA began to focus more on transit’s link to community development as an alternative to highway congestion with involvement in the Lindbergh Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) — the largest multi-use development of its kind in the U.S. at the time. During the same time period, the Cobb County Transit (CCT) agency was founded to provide local bus service in Cobb County. Transit expansion continued into 2000 when Gwinnett County Transit (GCT) was formed to offer local bus service in Gwinnett and express bus service connecting Gwinnett County with Lindbergh, Midtown, and Downtown Atlanta. pg. 48 7.4.2 Existing Conditions The City of Milton is serviced by MARTA Bus Route 143 and Route 185 in the southeast area of the City in Deerfield. These routes experience similar levels of average ridership at over 200 boardings per day. Route 140 also runs near Milton, servicing Alpharetta and Windward Parkway, east of SR 400. There was a route change during the CTP process that expanded service along Deerfield Road and SR 9. MARTA Mobility paratransit service is available within the ADA designated service area within a ¾ mile buffer of MARTA fixed bus routes. This service provides special lift-equipment vans on a curb-to-curb, shared ride basis. pg. 49 7.4.3 Connect 400 The Georgia 400 Corridor Transit Initiative was undertaken by MARTA to identify transit alternatives along the SR 400 corridor. The study corridor extends approximately 12 miles from the existing northern extent of the MARTA Red Line at North Springs Station to Windward Parkway in Alpharetta. In March 2015, the MARTA Board of Directors adopted a Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the study corridor, along with additional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternatives. The HRT and two BRT alternatives are currently being evaluated in the federal Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) process. The Connect 400 project, if funded and constructed, has the potential of greatly expanding transit service for the City of Milton and could substantially impact the landscape and demand of the Deerfield area adjacent to SR 400. 7.4.4 Transit Needs Public transportation within Milton is currently focused in the southeastern portion of the City, and future transit needs are anticipated to stay focused in this area. This area is also where the greatest levels of population density occur, which is a strong indicator of transit propensity. The highest levels of captive ridership in the City, and where incomes are the lowest, also exist in the southeastern quadrant of Milton. Transit expansion into the northern quadrants of the City would be unlikely due to lower densities, and therefore lower transit propensity. Because of the demographic and density factors, a transit needs area was identified within southeastern Milton. This was done by assessing roads within the area that have potential for future bus service. These roads include: ·Crabapple Road ·Broadwell Road ·Hagood Road ·Mayfield Road ·Bethany Road ·Providence Road ·Bethany Way ·Hopewell Road ·Bethany Bend ·Cogburn Road ·Windward Parkway ·SR 9 (Cumming Hwy.) ·Deerfield Parkway ·Webb Road ·Morris Road From these roads, a contiguous area using a ¾ mile radial buffer was created to represent a transit needs area. A ¾ mile distance was used due to its significance for paratransit service (also referred to as on-demand or on-call service). A ¾ mile distance from bus routes is the maximum service distance used by other transit agencies in the Atlanta metropolitan region. Future transit services need to be coordinated with the Metropolitan Area Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). Current limitations on expanding bus service are primarily due to the locations of MARTA bus maintenance facilities — with the closest being Brady Garage, approximately 30 miles away in pg. 50 Atlanta. If more coverage and additional routes are desired, a bus maintenance facility would be needed in northern Fulton County. Areas of transit needs will be considered when determining possible projects during the recommendations phase of this plan. pg. 51 8.0 EXISTING NEEDS CONCLUSION The City of Milton has a robust and changing transportation system. Even though the future will bring change, Milton has a strong desire to preserve its heritage and unique rural character. Striking a balance between meeting future transportation demands and preserving Milton’s distinctive quality of life will require focused transportation recommendations, initiatives, and policies. Prior to developing transportation related recommendations, an understanding of Milton’s existing transportation system and needs was necessary. This report has documented where Milton has been, where they currently are, and what needs are present regarding its overall transportation system. This document has done this by providing in depth discussions in the following areas: ·Vision and Goals ·Public Involvement ·Diagnostic Review Since the Previous 2009 City of Milton CTP ·Previous Transportation Plans ·Land Use and Market Analysis ·Transportation Inventory and Needs Assessment Following the completion of this report, a multimodal list of potential projects will be compiled. These projects will be subjected to an evaluation process that considers both quantitative and qualitative factors. In addition to the project evaluation process, public involvement in Spring 2016 will help determine a final list of recommendations. This study is anticipated to be completed in Summer 2016. pg. A-1 A.Appendix ·Appendix A: Public Meeting/Focus Group Notes ·Appendix B: MetroQuest Survey Results ·Appendix C: Full Comprehensive Market Analysis pg. A-2 Appendix A: Public Meeting/Focus Group Notes pg. A-3 City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Public Workshop #1 Wednesday, November 18, 2015 5:30 – 7:30 PM Milton Public Library Format The meeting began with a brief Open House period which allowed attendees to review project display boards, data, and other information collected to date for the purpose of the CTP update. Sara Leaders from the City of Milton welcomed meeting attendees and led the consultant team through introductions. The consultant team led by Project Manager Cristina Pastore and Eric Bosman followed with a presentation that outlined the purpose of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, existing conditions, national market considerations, public involvement, and the project schedule. A video of the presentation can be viewed here -https://youtu.be/Bhtr8-moYpo. After the presentation, meeting attendees were invited to provide input on transportation in three areas: roadways/intersection control, transit, and bike/pedestrian. The input received during these discussions is summarized below. Roadway & Intersection Control [congested areas, possible road diets, unsafe intersections/corridors, access management needs, new connections needed, signals needing retiming, turn lanes needed] Table 1 Facilitators: Robert Binder, Cody Zanni ·Traffic from McGinnis Ferry interchange ·Educate people on driving in roundabout ·Birmingham Road traffic from Cherokee ·Batesville Road and Birmingham Hwy. intersection congested needs turn lane, traffic light, or roundabout ·Arnold Mill Road congested ·Bethany Road needs traffic calming measures (speed bumps, street trees, etc.) ·Bethany Way/Hopewell Road/Bethany Bend needs reconfiguring, a lot of wrecks ·Hopewell Road/Redd Road very congested ·Birmingham Crossroads needs traffic signal with turn lanes or roundabout ·Birmingham Road needs traffic calming measures ·Bethany Bend to Cogburn Road right turn lane needed ·Cogburn Road/Hopewell Road congested ·Bicycle lanes not enough right now ·Rucker Road – widen pg. A-4 Table 2 Facilitators: Mark Eatman, Jen Price ·Concerns at Crabapple (5 point intersection): o Need left turn lane on Mayfield Road going to Broadwell Road o Drivers make illegal left turns from Mayfield Road onto Old Broadwell Road o Could a countdown timer be used to aid vehicular traffic at intersections? o How the proposed roundabouts will function: §Many kids cross here – is this safe? §Drivers need education regarding how to use them §There are three roundabouts planned for a short span of space. How will they coordinate? o Speed limits are an issue and create dangerous environment when combined with heavy traffic and pedestrians o Inconsistent speed limits in Crabapple (goes from 35 mph to 45 mph to 35 mph throughout) ·Police presence needed throughout Milton to control speeds ·New downtown Milton/City Hall should be 25 mph throughout Transit [where do you live, go to work/school, and what other destinations do you use; where may transit connections be needed] Table 1 Facilitators: Robert Binder, Cody Zanni ·MARTA terminal north of Windward Parkway because of Forsyth traffic; don’t congest Windward Parkway ·North Point Parkway MARTA station ·Milton Park & Ride in Deerfield ·MARTA bus needed to connect Crabapple to Downtown Alpharetta Table 2 Facilitators: Mark Eatman, Jen Price ·The MARTA Park & Ride lot at Windward Parkway is great ·Paratransit would be a good alternative for transit dependent population ·Need to better coordinate private transit like Uber and Lyft as it can be used for ‘last mile’ connectivity pg. A-5 Bike/Pedestrian [bike/walk destinations, high priority bicycle routes, unsafe roadways for cycling, gaps in sidewalk that are important to fill, unsafe/challenging crossings, bike lane/shoulder/off-road trail preferences for cycling] Table 1 Facilitators: Robert Binder, Cody Zanni ·Find out where LA Fitness cyclist routes are and add bike lanes ·Find out where Roswell Bikes routes are and add bike lanes ·Find out where Alpharetta Bikes routes are and add bike lanes ·Power lines for bike lanes ·Cogburn Road sidewalks are priority ·Thompson Road to Hagood Road to Bethany Road bike trail ·Trails between schools and parks Table 2 Facilitators: Mark Eatman, Jen Price ·Pedestrian concerns: o There needs to be a buffer between existing sidewalks and street o Across Milton there are disconnected sidewalks – lead to nowhere o Crabapple area was not built with pedestrians in mind o Need sidewalks to connect pedestrians to Bell Park o Implement Milton’s form based code at Crabapple; it will improve walkability o Need better pedestrian access to Friendship Park and Bell Park ·Cyclist concerns: o Need wider bike lanes (approx. 2 – 2.5 feet) o Enforce passing laws (the 3-foot requirement) o Enforce cyclist rules by citing riders who do ride two abreast o Crabapple/Mayfield area is dangerous for cyclists and is usually avoided by riders o Deerfield area is dangerous for cyclists and is usually avoided by riders o Need “Share the Road” signage on Freemanville/Birmingham Hwy. o Need wider shoulder for cyclists on Freemanville/Birmingham Hwy. o Throughout Milton, shoulders are not uniform/consistent o “No Passing” signage throughout Milton would be beneficial · The meeting concluded with a quick discussion of next steps, an invitation to complete the MetroQuest survey on site via the iPads, and a reminder for attendees to sign up for Focus Groups that will meet beginning in 2016. pg. A-6 Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Inclusionary Focus Group Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:30 PM, Milton City Hall, Large Conference Room Attendees Dudley Arnold, Milton Disability Awareness Committee Olga Espinola, Milton Disability Awareness Committee Sudie Gordon, City of Milton James Keating, Milton Disability Awareness Committee Paul Schiell, Milton Disability Awareness Committee Tass Welch, Milton Disability Awareness Committee Nancilee Wolfe, Milton Disability Awareness Committee Project Team Attendees Jen Price, Sycamore Consulting, Inc. Sara Leaders, City of Milton Robert Binder, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Carter Lucas, City of Milton Summary Sara Leaders, City of Milton Transportation Engineer, provided a welcome to the attendees and described the purpose of the Focus Group. She thanked the attendees for coming and turned the session over to Robert Binder of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. who began with a brief overview of the CTP process and the importance of the Focus Group sessions in identifying issues that cannot be revealed without community input. The group engaged in a discussion about transportation issues and challenges. A summary of the points raised by topic is included below. What’s Working Well ·The signal timing at the Deerfield Parkway and Morris Rd traffic light is very well set. ·On Windward Parkway at Deerfield Parkway, the sensors work well at night. ·Survey was not accessible to visually challenged – it was fixed very quickly – thank you for addressing that and listening ·On Hwy 9 near Big Lots, putting in middle turn lanes – has made a tremendous difference. pg. A-7 Challenges ·Next light at Webb Rd and Deerfield Parkway is not well timed. The sensors do not work. It is a very short light. ·The roundabout is wonderful (near Cambridge HS) but traffic seems to have caught up with it. We do experience traffic issues in the evenings. Can the road we could be eventually widened to a 4 lane to accommodate traffic? ·In south Milton (near Hopewell Middle School), it is great to have all of the schools concentrated in one area, however, the speed limit changes several times. Is there a way to make it 25 mph during certain times of day to keep the speeds consistent? ·Is there a plan to expand the public transit system? ·Traffic at the light at Bethany Bend and Hopewell Rd is very bad. I sat at that light for 19 minutes because of the congestion. o This section is one of the highest volume roads in the City o City has looked at improvements that include a combination of solutions to alleviate the traffic here. ·The City could use more new signals that change to flashing during low volume times. ·Regarding widening roads to 4 lanes, every time you widen a road it fills up fast. It is not a long term solution, and usually creates more problems. It also makes it harder for pedestrians to cross, no matter your mobility. People who may need more time will not be able to cross. We have to make considerations for a broader spectrum other than just for those who drive. ·Going to a doctor’s appointment using paratransit can take a full day. There are issues with paratransit not being thorough and not knowing when people may need to be picked up/dropped off. ·Crossing safely at Webb Rd near Target is a challenge for the visually impaired. ·It would help if MARTA came out farther maybe all the way to Bethany Bend so that you could get to where the Publix is. ·The new library is inaccessible. There is no public transit that goes there, so transit dependent residents cannot get there. ·Need to ensure that new development considers including amenities for mobility constrained residents in their plans. What are key destinations that need connecting or improved connections? ·Library ·I need to be able to access the grocery store (across Webb Rd). It is not safe for me to cross to get there. pg. A-8 ·As Crabapple develops that should be a key destination for MARTA to have service. Transit Issues ·I have MARTA near me but the sidewalks stop and that is a problem. ·MARTA stops in places without sidewalks is a common problem. If MARTA is extended, there is other development that needs to occur along with it – sidewalks, proper setbacks, ways for non-sighted to be able to find the bus stop, etc. ·MARTA does not run all of the time. A second route would be helpful (from Bethany Bend to Hwy 9). ·Cannot get to Cambridge High School by MARTA. It may be the only school not on a MARTA route. ·During the times when I can’t drive myself I would not consider using MARTA. The height of the steps have done damage to my knees, so I have to wait on people who can drive me. Crabapple Roundabouts ·In the Crabapple area, there will be two new roundabouts constructed. My concern is the safety of the many kids who walk from school to the commercial area. ·There needs to be a plan to ensure that road is safe to cross, not just for people in chairs, but to get kids across the street. This may be more of a speed issue. ·Distracted drivers are not paying attention. ·The thought is that something similar to what is in front of Milton HS with stamped concrete would be a good solution here. It promotes a safe crossing and will slow traffic down. ·Festivals are also in that area and brings lots of traffic. Crossings/Intersection Challenges ·The skewed intersection at Bethany Bend across Hwy 9 is at such an angle that the intersection is very big and wide. The crosswalk there follows the long angle of the road however that means that people crossing are in the intersection for a long time. Maybe the City could make the crossing more direct/straight across; even without re-aligning the road this would be a good fix. Pedestrians should be in the intersection the shortest amount of time possible. ·Pedestrian refuge islands are built to give pedestrians a break in between crossing a large/big intersection. It is easy to miss these if you are blind. Traffic needs to be stopped all the way across intersections. Those turning right on red or distracted drivers are a danger. Is it possible to make this an option (stopping traffic) when a pedestrian is in the intersection and pushes a button? pg. A-9 ·Suburban design does not work well and has to be retrofitted to deal with intersection issues. ·When crossing intersections, I thought I was going to be mowed down trying to get to the pedestrian refuge area. I do not walk where I have to cross intersections. I have changed my whole life based on my mobility. ·There are a lot of kids that walk/bike from Cambridge High School to Starbucks and then to Target. There need to be safer crossing options for them. ·School kids cross at Bethany Bend and Hwy 9 all of the time. We do not want there to be someone hit. ·Consider benches along the way (with the widening of Hwy 9). This area will grow and people will walk more. ·There are a few pocket parks in this area, but would love to see more. The parks that we have are difficult to access. Bell Memorial Park is totally inaccessible. Barriers to transit/MARTA Expansion ·Milton feels like a driver friendly/pedestrian unfriendly community. MARTA having more routes would be a great benefit. ·If you offer more bike/pedestrian options, people will use them. ·Expansion of MARTA depends on traffic flow, where stops are and if there are places to establish stops. ·My son uses Uber. Are there other transportation options that we have not talked about or considered? o Uber is accessible here ·Would our infrastructure need to change to accommodate advances in technology such as driverless cars? Should we be planning into the future? Other Concerns ·Milton Library – seems like a tremendous amount of traffic near there in the afternoon. Will roundabouts help? The traffic lights are not synced well. Charlotte Dr. and Mayfield Road both back up. ·Is there still a plan to extend Charlotte Dr? Is that still in the works? o Yes, this is still a concept for improvement. ·It is expensive but what about the idea of pedestrian bridges? Can that be looked at in the long term for some of these roads? o The City is considering that with the proposed widening on Hwy 9 at Bethany Bend. We are looking at creating an underpass/underground crossing at that location. pg. A-10 Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Cyclists Focus Group Thursday, February 4, 2016 Olde Blind Dog Pub Organizations Represented Bike Alpharetta Bike Roswell! Cambridge High School Endurance House Georgia High School Cycling League Katalyst Athletics Kind Bikes Olde Blind Dog Cycling Club Stand & Hammer Traxxion Dynamics Project Team Attendees Jen Price, Sycamore Consulting, Inc. Sara Leaders, City of Milton Cristina Pastore, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Carter Lucas, City of Milton Summary The session began with a welcome by a member of the Olde Blind Dog Cycling Club. He thanked the City of Milton for coming out to listen to what cyclists had to say regarding safety and bike facilities in the city. Leader Sara Leaders, City of Milton Transportation Engineer, thanked the group for coming and described the purpose of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the Focus Group. She then turned the session over to Cristina Pastore of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. who began with a brief overview of the CTP process and the importance of the Focus Group sessions in identifying needs regarding commuting and recreational cycling. She explained the importance of understanding where the City’s priorities can be channeled, especially in light of limited resources. The Focus Group began with an open discussion followed by an opportunity to allow cyclists to provide input via a series of maps. Input is summarized below. pg. A-11 C: There are some general things that can be implemented on a limited budget before spending funds on expensive projects like dedicated lanes. These things include: ·Public awareness – implement a signage program along roads making the state 3-foot passing law a public awareness issue. ·Educate drivers – that would make many of our problems go away as cyclists. The 3-foot passing law is a global standard that gives cyclists room to pass. This distance gives the cyclist and the driver room for error. Cars accelerate to pass us at an unnecessary rate of speed. On some roads, the group can maintain the speed limit. The faster the car goes, the greater the wind behind the car – that is enough to push the cyclist off the road. Educating drivers would increase the safety of cyclists. C: We hope that bike routes will one day be connected. The network is off to a good start. C: As a way of life, cycling will continue to grow as a mode of transportation. The USA is the only place where biking is not a common mode of transportation used. Educating motorists now will be a benefit in the future. C: We need cooperation from local authorities. C: There are different types of motorists that make it dangerous for cyclists: ·Motorists that don’t believe cyclists should be on the road – they think it’s against the law for us to be on the road. Need to make the public aware that we are legally allowed to share the road with the motorist. ·Motorists that will not pass us is the worst kind of driver. Keeps all the cars behind that car from passing too, so drivers become aggravated/angry and there are then more motorists angry – horn blowing, cutting in, etc. These motorists will not cross the double yellow line to pass us. We need to let them know that it is not against the law to pass us. ·Motorists that pass at high speeds. ·Motorists that go into the oncoming lane unnecessarily. C: This cycling group rides in a safe fashion – not in a string. We ride as a tight pack, 2 abreast (this is legal in GA). It gives motorists a shorter length to pass. C: Bike Alpharetta educates its own cyclists. There are things that we should not be doing as a group, as well. C: Bike Roswell uses a ride leader who is responsible for the group during that ride – keeping everyone safe during the ride, helping riders change flats, etc. Q: How much does a bike lane cost vs an extended shoulder? A: I am not sure if there is a set amount; it depends on right of way, the cost of extending the slope, etc. It’s difficult to define this generally. During road reconstructions, the city is trying to give a little more lane space for motorist as well as a safety shoulder lane (about 18 in) for cyclists. There are a number of roads that will be pg. A-12 upgraded to this new standard. Other impacts include increased impervious surface, runoff, etc. Q: How do we go about cleaning safety shoulders? A: The City does not have a street sweeping program. We would have to contract that service out. C: Bike GA has an estimate per mile cost for bike signage, striping, etc. It is about $250 per sign. Q: How much does an awareness campaign cost per mile? Is there a number/standard? A: There is not a standard, but not very many signs are needed. May depend on terrain (hilly versus flat terrain). C: Cars expect cyclists to ride on the right of the white line. Drivers expect us to ride on the shoulder. This is not legally a part of the roadway. C: The “Share the Road” signage does not give a clear definition of who is sharing what. Delaware has moved to a new sign that says “bikes may use full lane”. This takes the ambiguity away and educates drivers. It is a simple and cost efficient solution. C: In Florida, they are also using new signage – look to them and other progressive states as an example of what we can do in Milton. C: We have inherited infrastructure that is awful. Anything we can do incrementally would be great. C: In Alpharetta, a citizen’s advocacy group was formed by the city. Bike Roswell is active in the governmental process in their city and the mayor has an advisory committee there too. C: Regarding connectivity from Roswell to Alpharetta to Milton – there is a route that incorporates all of the communities. If the experience for drivers and cyclists is the same (consistent) that would be great. C: Road diets offer a simpler, easier to follow road for motorists by redistributing existing cross sections. If we can do that, it would be great. C: In downtown Alpharetta, the traffic calming – narrowing down lanes to slow traffic down – works sometimes and at other times, it does not. C: Cyclists avoid Birmingham Road and use Freemanville Road, instead. There are other streets/roads that we could use but they are just not safe for cyclists at this time. C: There are people afraid to go on road bikes at all in Milton. We try to go on other streets and to use the gravel roads. There’s nothing that connects these roads and we can’t get more mileage in with those roads. We don’t have options in Milton. That would be great for cyclists that may be more afraid or less experienced. pg. A-13 C: In Roswell about 15 yrs ago, you would have never wanted to be on the road on a bike. Now, it’s different. The culture has changed. Motorists are used to it. If you want safety, you have to be on your bike on the road. C: It would be great if the City could work to connect neighborhoods in Milton with bike and pedestrian pathways between neighborhoods. This would get riders off of the major roads. Some riders would rather use those routes, but they’re all dead end roads that do not connect. C: We need to be sure that routes are at least 10 – 15 miles to accommodate the distance that someone who is not a cyclist can ride (10 mph) and the distance that experienced cyclists can cover (15 mph). Cyclists generally ride about 2 hours a few days per week. As a point of reference, the Alpharetta greenway is 18 miles. Q: We’ve talked about changing existing infrastructure. What can you do about having developers add bike lanes in front of their developments? A: Trail and bike paths that are installed now follow a trail master plan for the City. There is a lot of discussion about that now. C: The Comprehensive Plan is very detailed and plays to exactly what we as cyclists want. It’s up to us to be sure that some of these improvements happen – we need to attend council meetings and be involved. C: There are specific crosswalk triggers/buttons that would be conducive to cyclists and would keep us from having to clip out/dismount at crossings. Q: How can we have influence/impact this process? A: That’s one of the reasons why we’re here tonight. The info that we gathered here and through other channels will feed into the final plan. The process is wrapping up in June. The City of Milton, as a part of North Fulton will be engaged in another process. Recommendations from this plan will feed into that. C: I’ve been here 25 years and have been riding for 18. Milton has grown in population and traffic. I’m glad that you came to get our input. There are at least a thousand riders that hit Milton daily. There is that much activity here. Tonight, this is a small group. C: I travel Birmingham Road and like the roundabouts – as a driver and cyclist, we need roundabouts. They are safer. Q: Are there more easements in places that have sewer vs septic? A: The amount of space set aside for easements does not necessarily have anything to do with sewer versus septic systems. Q: Is there a mechanism to report roadway issues (potholes, etc.)? A: Yes, on the City’s website. Through Sunday, you can put this feedback in with your survey response. pg. A-14 C: The GA Athletic Cycling League is a group that focuses on middle and high school cyclists. If we can put the infrastructure in place to allow these kids to ride safely, everyone wins in the process. We need to look ahead in planning. C: The new library is surrounded by neighborhoods but there is no way to get there unless you drive. Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Pedestrian Focus Group Saturday, February 27, 2016 Milton Mayor’s Run – Jog for a Cause Project Team Attendees Mark Eatman, Kimley-Horn & Associates Sara Leaders, City of Milton Carter Lucas, City of Milton Jen Price, Sycamore Consulting, Inc. Summary The format of the focus group was kiosk-style and included an informational table at the annual Milton Mayor’s Run – Jog for a Cause at Freedom Park. Materials at the kiosk included a board displaying the City’s existing sidewalks, trails and bike paths. Identical maps were available on the table. Postcard sized handouts were available which included information about the purpose of the CTP update, the public involvement schedule and how to stay connected to the process. Race-goers who stopped by the kiosk were asked to mark up and supply comments on table maps regarding places where sidewalk improvements were needed; where trail connections should be considered; and where crosswalk challenges exist, among other things. Approximately 40 people stopped by the kiosk and provided input. Nine people asked to be added to the project email list. pg. A-15 Appendix B: MetroQuest Survey Results pg. A-16 1.0 MetroQuest Survey Results A MetroQuest survey was conducted between October 28 th, 2015 and February 8 th, 2016 to gauge public opinion on transportation issues on a variety of topics. This survey assessed transportation priorities for residents, asked them survey questions related to their top four priorities, and allowed residents to utilize an on-line mapping tool to communicate their transportation needs. Overall, 2,100 people attempted to take the survey and out of this number, 1,297 people provided feedback. Out of the 36,291 people estimated to live in Milton (2015 estimate), this represents 3.6% of the population – which is a very high level of feedback for a community of this size. 1.1 Priority Ranking One important aspect of this survey was to understand transportation related priorities for Milton residents. Survey respondents had the chance to rank the following priorities: ·Transportation Safety ·Neighborhoods ·Vehicular Travel ·Walking/Biking ·Economic Vitality ·Roadway Repair ·Transit Services ·Connectivity It should be noted that each survey respondent received a randomized ordering of priorities as to prevent bias. In order to normalize the rankings based on the number of responses for each category, the scores were weighted. For a ranking of 1, the priority received a score of 4, for a ranking of 2, the priority received a score of 3, and so on. The results of this ranking on demonstrated in the table below: Priority Rank Times Ranked No. 1 Weighted Score Vehicular Travel 1 566 3,278 Walking/Biking 2 189 1,825 Connectivity 3 99 1,717 Transportation Safety 4 130 2.60 Roadway Repair 5 102 1,561 Neighborhoods 6 70 832 Economic Vitality 7 44 819 Transit Services 8 50 463 pg. A-17 1.2 Survey Questions Each survey respondent was asked two introductory survey question and questions associated with their top four transportation priorities (two questions per priority). The results of these survey questions are demonstrated on the following pages. 1.2.1 Introduction Questions Over the last five years, transportation in Milton has… Response Count Percentage Improved 245 21% Stayed the Same 174 15% Worsened 759 64% N/A 0 0% Transportation in Milton compared to other areas in the Atlanta Region is: Response Count Percentage Better 294 25% Equal 644 55% Worse 226 19% 21% 15% 64% 0% Over the last five years, transportation in Milton has... Improved Stayed the Same Worsened N/A pg. A-18 1.2.2 Connectivity Questions I want reliable access to… Response Count Percentage Employment 318 24% Housing 177 13% Education 233 17% Healthcare 112 8% Retail/Commercial/Activity Centers 443 33% Social Services 49 4% 25% 55% 19% Transportation in Milton compared to other areas in the Atlanta Region is: Better Equal Worse 24% 13% 17%8% 33% 4% I want reliable access to… Employment Housing Education Healthcare Retail/Commercial Social Services pg. A-19 An additional free response question asked “how would you increase connectivity within Milton?” A detailed list of responses were too numerous to be included in this summary. However, common themes from responses received are shown below. ·More pedestrian and bicycle accommodations are needed throughout Milton ·Widen roadways where appropriate (i.e. SR 9) ·Improving traffic signal timing and replacing traffic stop signs with signals and roundabouts ·New roadway connections, especially those that would provide east-west connectivity ·Improved bus service and extending MARTA rail to Windward Parkway ·Coordination with surrounding Counties and Cities. 1.2.3 Roadway Repair Questions Do you feel road repair/maintenance is adequate? Response Count Percentage Yes 124 23% Somewhat 287 53% No 126 23% I don’t know 3 1% What maintenance issues are most important to you? Response Count Percentage Potholes 447 42% Striping of lanes 149 14% Resurfacing Streets 351 33% Signage 116 11% 23% 53% 23% 1% Do you feel road repair/maintenance is adequate? Yes Somewhat No I dont know pg. A-20 42% 14% 33% 11% What maintenance issues are most important to you? Potholes Striping of lanes Resurfacing Streets Signage pg. A-21 1.2.4 Vehicular Travel Questions Which peak periods are most congested now? Response Count Percentage AM (7AM – 9 AM)674 44% Midday (9AM – 4PM)53 3% PM (4PM – 7PM)730 47% Evening/Early Morning (7PM – 7AM)80 5% Your average travel time to/from work (minutes) is: 42.8 minutes 44% 3% 47% 5% Which peak periods are most congested now? AM Midday PM Evening/Early Morning pg. A-22 1.2.5 Walking/Biking Questions Which of the following do you use the most? Response Count Percentage Sidewalks 308 50% Bicycle Facilities 47 8% Greenways/Multi-use Trails 256 42% If improvements are made, will you walk/bike more? Response Count Percentage Yes, much more likely 466 73% Yes, somewhat more likely 132 21% No 19 3% I don’t know 20 3% 50% 8% 42% Which of the following do you use the most? Sidewalks Bicycle Facilities Trails 73% 21% 3%3% If improvements are made, will you walk/bike more? Yes, much more likely Yes, somewhat more likely No I dont know pg. A-23 1.2.6 Transit Service Questions How often do you use transit services? Response Count Percentage Very often (4 – 5 days a week)19 12% Often (1 – 2 days a week)15 10% Occasionally (1 – 2 times a month)34 22% Infrequently (1 – 2 times a year)57 37% Never 28 18% Which transit improvements do you like? Response Count Percentage More bus routes 71 23% Modified bus routes 31 10% Increased on-demand (paratransit) services 33 11% Improved bus shelters/stop amenities 33 11% MARTA rail extension 136 45% 12% 10% 22%37% 18% How often do you use transit services? Very often Often Occasionally Infrequently Never 23% 10% 11%11% 45% Which transit improvements do you like? More bus routes Modified bus routes Increased on-demand services Improved bus shelters MARTA pg. A-24 1.2.7 Economic Vitality Questions Does great transportation add value to Milton? Response Count Percentage Yes 322 89% No 15 4% I don't know 23 6% I think ___ increases Milton's economic vitality? Response Count Percentage Improved/new roadways 221 60% Increased transit services 29 8% More walkable community 90 24% More bicycle-friendly community 30 8% 89% 4%6% Does great transportation add value to Milton? Yes No I don't know 60% 8% 24% 8% I think ___ increases Milton's economic vitality? Improved new roadways Increased transit services More walkable community Bicycle friendly community pg. A-25 1.2.8 Neighborhood Questions What improves transportation in your neighborhood? Response Count Percentage Monitoring and enforcing speed limits 87 35% Traffic calming measures 81 32% Making safety improvements (e.g. signage, lighting, etc.)54 21% Regulating parking on neighborhood streets 30 12% I want easier access to… Response Count Percentage Restaurants and retail 175 33% Schools, universities, and libraries 111 21% Parks and greenways 139 26% Employment centers 64 12% Other neighborhoods 46 9% 35% 32% 21% 12% What improves transportation in your neighborhood? Monitoring and enforcing speed limits Traffic calming measures Making safety improvements Regulating parking on neighborhood streets 33% 21% 26% 12% 9% I want easier access to… Restaurants and retail Schools Parks and Greenways Employment Centers Other neighborhoods pg. A-26 1.2.9 Transportation Safety Questions Which mode benefits most from safety improvements? Response Count Percentage Roadway 358 69% Walking 58 11% Bicycling 76 15% Transit 24 5% Which safety improvements are the most effective? Response Count Percentage Adding signals or improving signal timing 336 21% Adding roundabouts 378 24% Adding turning lanes 361 23% Adding crosswalks 113 7% Reducing driveways near intersections 73 5% Improved ped./bike separation 328 21% 69% 11% 15% 5% Which mode benefits most from safety improvements? Roadway Walking Bicycling Transit 21% 24% 23% 7% 5% 21% Which safety improvements are the most effective? Adding signals or improving Adding roundabout Adding turning lanes Adding crosswalks Reducing driveways near intersections Improved ped/bike separation pg. A-27 1.3 MetroQuest Mapped Responses MetroQuest’s online mapping tool allowed survey respondents to directly pinpoint recommendations, improvements, concerns, and other information. The map below demonstrates the high level of feedback through their use of this tool. The full list of user responses will be used later in the Recommendations phase. pg. A-28 Appendix C: Full Comprehensive Market Analysis pg. A-29 1.0 Comprehensive Market Analysis To better understand existing and potential traffic demand and travel destinations the Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes a review of area demographics, land use patterns, and market trends. 1.1 Demographic Profile A demographic profile for residents within the City of Milton, including age, ethnicity, and education levels are included in the appendix of this document. As a benchmark, these measures have been compared to Fulton County and the larger Atlanta MSA. This section highlights several key facts and trends. Data in the following section references the year 2000, and although the City of Milton was not incorporated until 2006, the 2000 data uses the current city limit boundaries. 1.1.1 Population Trends Population in the City of Milton has more than doubled since 2000, reaching over 36,000 estimated residents in 2015. The City captured nearly 12% of the total population growth in Fulton County between 2000 and 2015, increasing its total county share from 2.2% in 2000 to 3.7% in 2015. This is demonstrated in Table 1 below. Table 1.Comparison of Population Trends, 2000-2015 With nearly 970,000 estimated residents in 2015, Fulton is the most populous county in Georgia, including portions of the City of Atlanta’s urban footprint. Fulton County has grown by over 153,000 residents since 2000. GEOGRAHPY 2000 2010 2015 #%CAGR City of Milton 17,968 32,661 36,291 18,323 102.0%4.8% Fulton County 816,006 920,581 969,375 153,369 18.8%1.2% Altanta MSA 4,263,438 5,286,728 5,527,230 1,263,792 29.6%1.7% MILTON % of COUNTY 2.2%3.5%3.7%11.9% MILTON % of MSA 0.4%0.6%0.7%1.4% Source: ESRI; US Census; Kimley-Horn 2000-2015 Δ pg. A-30 The larger 29-county Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) grew by nearly 30% over the last 15 years, reaching over 5.5 million residents. It should be noted that Fulton County comprised only 12.1% of the regional growth, demonstrating strong growth in other suburban counties outside the central core. Within the City of Milton, residents aged 55 to 64 experienced the strongest growth over the last five years, comprising nearly one half of the total increase. The younger segment of Millennials, the 15 to 24 age cohort, increased by 1,601 residents over the last five years. It is likely that many of these individuals are still living with their parents. Losses were recorded in older Millennials, between 25 and 34, as well as residents between 35 and 44. This could be a reflection of these residents seeking more affordable housing prices elsewhere in the region to locations closer to employment. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate population density and the percentage of residents over age 65. Table 2 shows population by age cohort for Milton. Figure 1.Population Density Atlanta MSA Barrow County Bartow County Butts County Carroll County Cherokee County Clayton County Cobb County Coweta County Dawson County DeKalb County Douglas County Fayette County Forsyth County Fulton County Gwinnett County Haralson County Heard County Henry County Jasper County Lamar County Meriwether County Morgan County Newton County Paulding County Pickens County Pike County Rockdale County Spalding County Walton County pg. A-31 46.5% of the Figure 2.Population Age 65 and Over Table 2.Population by Age Cohort, City of Milton, 2010-2015 Although nationally, Baby Boomers and Millennials make up the largest age cohorts, the City of Milton has comparatively higher shares of Generation X (aged 45 to 54). This represents population at the prime of their earning potential, typically driving demand for single-family residential product. This group is also an important generator of retail demand. The slightly higher share of children less than 14 years of age is reflective of family households led by COHORT 2010 2015 #% 0-14 8,296 7,948 -348 -4.2% 15-24 3,625 5,226 1,601 44.1% 25-34 3,625 3,339 -287 -7.9% 35-44 5,846 5,008 -838 -14.3% 45-54 6,206 6,895 690 11.1% 55-64 3,037 4,645 1,608 52.9% 65-74 1,274 2,141 867 68.1% 75-84 588 798 211 35.8% 85+163 290 127 77.8% TOTAL 32,661 36,291 3,630 11.1% Source: ESRI; US Census; Kimley-Horn 2000-2015 Δ pg. A-32 Generation X. Approximately 46.5% of the households in Milton are defined as family, compared to 38.2% for the Atlanta MSA. Figure 3 shows population by cohort comparisons between Milton and the Atlanta metropolitan region. Figure 3.Comparison of Shares of Population by Age Cohort, 2015 More than three-quarters of the total City of Milton population identifies as white, demonstrating minimal change in the last five years. Comparatively, Milton’s share of residents identifying as white is notably higher than 53.5% for the Atlanta MSA. Residents identifying as having Hispanic Origin (of any race) comprise 5.7% of the population, lower than 10.7% for the larger region. Figure 4 demonstrates the ethnic diversity in Milton in 2015. Figure 4.Ethnic Diversity, City of Milton, 2015 Residents in the City of Milton are highly educated with approximately 65% of the total population over age 25 holding at least a Bachelor’s Degree. This measure is significantly higher than 35.6% for the larger Atlanta MSA. This comparison of educational attainment can be seen in Figure 5. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%ShareofTotalCity of Milton Altanta MSA 76.4% 8.6% 0.2% 10.9%1.5%2.4% White Alone Black Alone American Indian Alone Asian/Pacific Islander Alone Other Race Alone Two or More Races Alone pg. A-33 Figure 5.Comparison of Educational Attainment, 2015 1.1.2 Household Trends Households in the City of Milton have increased by 92.8%, from 6,670 in 2000 to nearly 13,000 in 2015. The increase in households in Milton comprised 8.0% and 1.3% of growth in Fulton County and the Atlanta MSA, respectively. This can be seen in Table 3 below. Table 3.Comparison of Household Trends, 2000-2015 It is important to note that the growth in households was less than the increase in population over the same time period, indicating an increase in overall household size. Nationally, household size has been declining, largely due to growth in the Millennial and Baby Boomer generation segments. The average household size in Milton has increased from 2.69 in 2010 to 2.80 in 2015, a trend that is projected to continue. Approximately 28.6% of Milton households contain two persons, followed by 20.7% with four. The comparatively higher share of four-person households than the surrounding Atlanta MSA is reflective of the higher share of families within the City. A comparison of household size between Milton and the Atlanta metropolitan area is demonstrated in Figure 6. 0.8%1.0% 8.4% 0.6% 16.6% 7.5% 41.4% 23.6% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% City of Milton Atlanta MSA GEOGRAPHY 2000 2010 2015 #%CAGR City of Milton 6,670 11,659 12,859 6,189 92.8%4.5% Fulton County 321,242 376,377 398,398 77,156 24.0%1.4% Altanta MSA 1,559,712 1,943,885 2,033,479 473,767 30.4%1.8% MILTON % OF COUNTY 2.1%3.1%3.2%8.0% MILTON % MSA 0.4%0.6%0.6%1.3% Source: ESRI; US Census; Kimley-Horn 2000-2015 Δ pg. A-34 Figure 6.Comparison of Households by Size, 2010 In 2015, the estimated median household income in the City of Milton was nearly $115,000, more than double that of Fulton County and the Atlanta MSA. According to the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Milton’s median household income is expected to continue to increase, reaching nearly $130,000 annually by 2020. This compares to a median household income of $54,780 in Fulton County and $56,889 for Atlanta as a whole. This is not to suggest that the City of Milton is comprised of only upper income households. Figure 7 illustrates the percent of residents below the poverty threshold. Figure 7.Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Threshold 20.2% 28.6% 18.6%20.7% 8.7% 2.3%0.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7+ Person City of Milton Atlanta MSA pg. A-35 Figure 8. Comparison of Median Household Income, 2015 With a median household income nearing $115,000 annually, it is no surprise that the City of Milton has notably higher shares of households earning over $100,000 than the larger Atlanta MSA. Conversely, Milton has lower shares of all households earning less than $100,000, especially those with the lowest annual incomes (less than $50,000). Median household income and household income, by cohort, comparisons can be seen in Figures 8 and 9. Figure 9. Comparison of Households by Income Cohort, 2015 $114,273 $54,780 $56,889 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 City of Milton Fulton County Atlanta MSA 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%ShareofTotalCity of Milton Altanta MSA pg. A-36 1.2 Economic Profile This section provides an overview of employment trends for the Atlanta MSA, Fulton County, and more specifically for the City of Milton. Trends indicate shifts in employment sectors that could impact transportation needs in the future. 1.2.1 Atlanta MSA The 29-county Atlanta MSA had over 2.3 million jobs in 2014, an increase of 7.1% from 2004. The gain was primarily attributable to growth in the Healthcare and Professional Services sectors. With over 261,000 jobs, the Retail Trade sector is the largest industry, representing 11.2% of the total employment in the region. Other key employment sectors include Healthcare and Leisure and Hospitality. The following sectors had the largest absolute gains in the last 10 years: ·Healthcare (+62,906) ·Professional Services (+61,999) ·Leisure and Hospitality (+43,157) ·Education (+21,233) ·Retail Trade (+15,201) Of the 14 reported sectors, six demonstrated declines since 2004, the most notable being in Manufacturing and Construction. Losses in these sectors are consistent with national and state- wide trends following the 2007-2009 Recession. Although losses were notable between 2004 and 2009, declines in Construction have slowed in the last five years following the return of development. The Manufacturing sector has rebounded, experiencing an increase in jobs since 2009. These trends can be seen in Table 4 below. Table 4.Annualized Employment Trends by Sector, Atlanta MSA, 2004-2014 INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION 2004 2009 2014 #%CAGR Natural Resources 3,890 3,003 2,974 -916 -23.5% -2.6% Construction 122,657 97,017 96,531 -26,126 -21.3% -2.4% Manufacturing 177,507 145,348 150,746 -26,761 -15.1% -1.6% Wholesale Trade 139,630 128,904 134,741 -4,889 -3.5% -0.4% Retail Trade 246,103 244,919 261,304 15,201 6.2%0.6% Transportation & Utilities 138,735 139,468 146,892 8,157 5.9%0.6% Information 92,605 79,523 85,869 -6,736 -7.3% -0.8% Finance & Real Estate 146,432 138,247 145,813 -619 -0.4%0.0% Professional Services 358,217 352,467 420,216 61,999 17.3%1.6% Education 178,732 208,741 199,965 21,233 11.9%1.1% Healthcare 194,344 221,734 257,250 62,906 32.4%2.8% Leisure & Hospitality 211,412 221,969 254,569 43,157 20.4%1.9% Other Services 58,872 56,902 60,693 1,821 3.1%0.3% Public Administration 108,471 120,571 114,696 6,225 5.7%0.6% TOTAL 2,177,607 2,158,813 2,332,259 154,652 7.1%0.7% Source: Georgia Department of Labor, QCEW, Kimley-Horn 2004-2014 Δ pg. A-37 1.2.2 Fulton County The 764,952 jobs in Fulton County in 2014, made up 32.8% of the total employment in the Atlanta MSA. Containing the majority of the City of Atlanta, Fulton County is the economic hub of the region, adding nearly 38,000 jobs in the last 10 years. Professional Services is the largest sector in Fulton County, with the 177,682 jobs in this industry making up nearly one- quarter of the total county employment in 2014. The largest growth sectors in Fulton County between 2004 and 2014 include: ·Professional Services (+30,131) ·Healthcare (+16,189) ·Leisure and Hospitality (+12,478) ·Education (+3,244) ·Public Administration (+2,924) These employment trends for Fulton county and comparisons between Milton and Fulton County can be seen below in Table 5 and Figure 10, respectively. §Table 5.Annualized Employment Trends by Sector, Fulton County, 2004-2014 Fulton County comprises nearly one-third of the total employment in the Atlanta MSA. By sector, Fulton County has a notable higher share of Professional Services and Finance and Insurance jobs driven by concentrations in and near downtown Atlanta. INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION 2004 2009 2014 #%CAGR Natural Resources 196 254 306 110 56.1% 4.6% Construction 20,918 16,970 16,056 -4,862 -23.2% -2.6% Manufacturing 35,331 27,328 25,504 -9,827 -27.8% -3.2% Wholesale Trade 42,288 38,456 39,150 -3,138 -7.4% -0.8% Retail Trade 56,453 52,962 58,045 1,592 2.8% 0.3% Transportation & Utilities 58,322 46,554 46,887 -11,435 -19.6% -2.2% Information 48,990 46,300 47,568 -1,422 -2.9% -0.3% Finance & Real Estate 67,137 66,763 66,784 -353 -0.5% -0.1% Professional Services 147,551 140,734 177,682 30,131 20.4% 1.9% Education 44,630 48,806 47,874 3,244 7.3% 0.7% Healthcare 64,455 67,754 80,644 16,189 25.1% 2.3% Leisure & Hospitality 75,289 77,193 87,767 12,478 16.6% 1.5% Other Services 19,888 20,088 21,901 2,013 10.1% 1.0% Public Administration 45,860 49,233 48,784 2,924 6.4% 0.6% TOTAL 727,308 699,395 764,952 37,644 5.2% 0.5% Source: Georgia Department of Labor, QCEW, Kimley-Horn 2004-2014 Δ pg. A-38 Figure 10. Comparison of Share of Employment by Sector, 2014 1.2.3 City of Milton Employment data for the City of Milton was provided by U.S. Census’ Longitudinal Employer dataset. The most recent employment data provided is from 2013. There were nearly 10,000 jobs located in the City of Milton in 2013, heavily concentrated in the Deerfield area, with proximity to GA 400. Jobs in this area of Milton are heavily focused in the Professional Services and Information sectors. A secondary concentration is focused on the Crabapple area of Milton, hosting primarily local jobs in the Retail Services sector (shown in Figure 11). Figure 11. Employment Concentrations, City of Milton, 2013 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%ShareofTotalJobsFulton County Atlanta MSA pg. A-39 Employment in Milton increased by 33.1% between 2004 and 2013, with the strongest growth in the Professional Services, Information, and Retail Trade sectors. Over 25% of the total jobs in Milton are in the Information sector, driven by major employers including AT&T and ACS Wireless companies. The City of Milton also has a higher share of total employment for Professional Services than Fulton County and the Atlanta MSA. Employment comparisons by sector between Milton and Fulton County can be seen below in Figure 12. Figure 12. Comparison of Share of Employment by Sector, 2013 As shown in the graphic below, approximately 9,000 people commute into the City of Milton on a daily basis for employment, while nearly 15,000 residents commute to work outside. An estimated 765 people live and work in the County. This is demonstrated below in Figure 13. Figure 13. Commuting Patterns, City of Milton, 2013 A review of in- and out-commuting trends demonstrates that the number of people living in Milton and commuting to jobs outside the City have more than doubled in the last 10 years. Non-residents commuting into Milton for jobs have increased at a more modest pace. Residents of Milton that also work in Milton nearly doubled from 390 people in 2004 to 765 people in 2013. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%ShareofTotalJobsCity of Milton Fulton County Atlanta MSA pg. A-40 1.3 Macro-Level Market Considerations The Atlanta region, defined as the 29-county MSA, is in the midst of recovery following the economic recession from 2007-2009. The Atlanta MSA has grown by over 240,000 people since 2010, approaching a total population of nearly 5.6 million in 2015. As a region, the strongest growth was experienced in Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb, DeKalb, and Forsyth counties, comprising more than three-quarters of the total increase. Although growth in the Atlanta MSA has slowed from the rapid pace recorded between 2000 and 2010, it is still one of the fastest growing areas in the United States. Based on 2014 U.S. Census estimates, the Atlanta MSA is the ninth largest region in the United States, and remains in the top ten for absolute population increase. Some of the macro-level demographic shifts impacting the region include: ·Rise of the Millennials. Born roughly between 1980 and 2000, Millennials have overtaken the Baby Boomers as the largest generation. This shift will shape the form of development for years to come, as only a portion of this generation has moved out of their childhood homes. Impacts will come particularly in regards to housing, employment, and transportation choices. Atlanta was within the top 30 regions of the United States with the fastest increase in Millennials. While some will seek to live in an urban location, rising housing prices will present opportunities for other well-connected areas of Fulton County. This will be especially relevant for places like Deerfield and Milton within Milton that have access to jobs and high quality of life measures. ·Aging Baby Boomers . Although Millennials are now the largest cohort, Baby Boomers still comprise nearly 22% of the total national population. Some in this cohort are still working, driving spending potential. This cohort is driving demand for a maintenance- free lifestyle close to family, friends, shopping, dining, church, and cultural or recreational amenities. While the vast majority of this cohort still prefer homeownership, some will seek higher density options, largely due to continued national issues related to financing and liability for condominium construction. A wide array of housing options, including a continuum of care facilities, will be in demand to accommodate this group in the future. ·Stabilization of Household Formation . Household formation was highest nationally and in the Atlanta region between 2004 and 2006, before falling during the 2007-2009 Recession. The drop in household formation was partially impacted by young adults living at home longer or relying on roommates. Since 2010, household formation has stabilized, but it is unlikely to reach the same pre-Recession measures. This can be seen below in Figure 14 pg. A-41 Figure 14.National Household Formation, 2002-2013 ·Decline in Home-ownership Rate . Challenges with obtaining financing, coupled with shifting preferences of Millennials and Baby Boomers, have caused a notable decline in the rate of home-ownership. In fact, the current national homeownership rate the lowest since 1967. The share of renter-occupied housing units in the Atlanta MSA increased by 3.3%, from 30.3% in 2010 to 33.6% in 2015. Milton, on the contrary, has experienced a decline of renter-occupied housing units in the last five years. Much of the renter decline in Milton is likely due to the reconversion of single-family properties from renter- to owner-occupied following recovery in the residential market. ·Smaller Household Sizes . Nationally, the average household size has gradually declined, impacted by the large Millennial and Baby Boomer generations. Single-person household in the region have experienced strong growth since 2000, and could overtake two-person households as the most common size by 2020. This impacts the demand for a variety of housing types, including single-family detached, townhouses, and multi-family units. Attracted by the high quality of life for families, including high- performing schools, Milton has experienced an increase in household size during the same time period. 1.4 Local Market Conditions This section provides high-level market considerations for the City of Milton, including the potential impact of the competitive regional developments highlighted above. Future development, driven by market demand, will impact transportation patterns in and around the City of Milton. pg. A-42 1.4.1 Residential The dominate land use in the City of Milton is single-family, detached residential. The City, which more than doubled in population between 2000 and 2015, has emerged as an attractive place to live. Contrary to national trends, average household sizes have increased in Milton indicating the continued attractiveness for families. This will continue to drive demand for low- to moderate-density single-family residential units in the future. However, it should be noted that the Millennial and Baby Boomer cohorts in Milton have experienced some of the fastest population increases in the last 15 years. These segments of the population will create demand for a variety of housing types, including single-family detached, townhouses, and multi-family units. Nearly one-half of the population is over age 45, and could seek to downsize as children move out and form a separate household. Higher density residential development would likely gravitate to the Deerfield and Crabapple areas of Milton. True multi-family development, including both condominiums and apartments, would be most attracted to the Deerfield area offering proximity to GA 400, jobs, and shopping. 1.4.2 Retail Regional retail opportunities in northern Fulton County and southern Forsyth County will be heavily impacted by the Avalon development and the planned mall, corporate office space, restaurants, hotel, and residential dwelling units at Ronald Reagan Boulevard and GA 400. Given proximity to Milton, these developments are likely to attract a large share of the regional retail demand in the area. In the short-term, the Deerfield and Crabapple areas will remain an attractive location for smaller scale, neighborhood focused retail serving residents and employees. As Milton continues to grow, additional opportunities for neighborhood-serving retail could be accommodated in the Birmingham Crossroads area or in key nodes along the Arnold Mill Corridor. 1.4.3 Employment Given the area’s proximity to GA 400 and potential for clustering near other existing employment sectors, Deerfield will be the primary location for new office space development. Demand for small-scale professional office space could also be generated in Crabapple. COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS October 2016 CITY OF MILTON No Text MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Project Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Community Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 CHAPTER 2: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Functional Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Asset Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Active Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Access Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 CHAPTER 3: PRIORITIZATION PROCESS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Project Categories and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 CHAPTER 4: FUNDING Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Transportation Funding and Level Structure . . . . . . . . .36 CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Projects for Milton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS 5-Year Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Next Steps for Milton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 W.- — MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1City of Milton Chapter 1: OVERVIEW Background Project Goals Planning Process Community Outreach MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2 October 2016 BACKGROUND The goal of the Milton CONNECTION Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is to assess the City of Milton’s existing and future long-range transportation needs in an effort to ensure a great quality of life for its residents. An update to its 2009 CTP, the plan identifies transportation priorities, establishes a relationship between local and regional expectations, and seeks to align the City with opportunities for transportation funding . The updated plan also enables the City to reflect on the progress made since the last plan and develop a future framework for sustainable growth . The update to the Milton CTP is well-positioned to take advantage of other regional transportation initiatives . As an update to the North Fulton County CTP kicks off, the City of Milton can elevate its priority transportation recommendations for consideration in the larger North Fulton process, a joint effort between the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) and the six North Fulton cities (Alpharetta, Johns Creek, Milton, Mountain Park, Roswell, and Sandy Springs) . Regionally significant recommendations from the North Fulton CTP then will be provided to ARC for evaluation in its Regional Transportation Planning (RTP) process . The RTP is the primary vehicle for identifying federal transportation sources for priority transportation projects in metro Atlanta . Opportunities for Transportation Funding— Federal, State, and Local The update to the Milton CTP is well timed to take advantage of recent funding changes in the regional, state, and federal landscape . At the time of the development of the 2009 CTP, federal transportation policy and funding was guided by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) . Since that time, two subsequent pieces of federal transportation legislation were passed—the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) . MAP-21 was notable for introducing an emphasis on system performance, but the stability of federal transportation funding was compromised when the bill expired . A series of extensions kept the federal transportation program moving until December 2015 and the passage of the FAST Act . The FAST Act is the first federal law in over a decade to provide long- term funding certainty for surface transportation improvements . This legislation sets a foundation for advancing transportation projects around the nation for the next five years. The fact remains that available transportation revenues are declining across the nation . This funding reality underscores the importance of having a realistic and implementable plan, along with strong funding partnership at the local, regional and state level . Great strides have been made in establishing reliable transportation funding sources at the state and local levels in the past two years . The Georgia State Legislature passed the Transportation Funding Act of 2015 (TFA) which stabilized revenues from the statewide gas tax and will result in an additional $750 million to $1 billion annually for infrastructure maintenance and the construction of new major mobility projects including a new managed lanes system along GA 400 . The TFA also allowed for county governments to pass local Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Taxes (TSPLOSTs) . MILTON IS A PREMIER CITY WHERE WE STRIVE TO: Promote a high quality of life Create a strong sense of community and place Respect our heritage while guiding our future Be the best place to call home MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3City of Milton On November 8, 2016, Fulton County residents (not including City of Atlanta) will be asked to vote on a 75-cent sales tax for transportation purposes that would result in nearly $37 million for the City of Milton over the next five years. In addition to the 75-cent tax being voted on this fall, another 25-cent tax for MARTA expansion could be considered in future years . The opportunities that exist through the TFA and the possible Fulton County TSPLOST far surpass the revenue streams that were available during the 2009 Milton CTP and have the ability to considerably advance transportation mobility in the City, Fulton County, and around the state . Project Goals In 2015, the City of Milton completed its 2016 – 2020 Strategic Plan which outlines a “strategic road map and focus on projects to move Milton into the future .” This plan set the tone for how Milton anticipates to grow in relation to infrastructure, civic engagement, conservation, the economy, and other areas of life that affect Milton residents . Given this plan’s strong vision for Milton’s future, it also serves as the vision for the 2016 Milton CTP update .PLANS PLANS PLANS Plans Public Involvement The Region’s Plan North Fulton CTP *to be updated in 2017 If approved by Fulton County voters, the November 2016 TSPLOST will result in nearly $37 million for the City of Milton over the next five years. MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 4 October 2016 This vision, in conjunction with the CTP’s goals, guided the overall planning process for the CTP as well as the development of projects and recommendations . Goals from the 2009 CTP were used as a baseline for creating the CONNECTION goals, which then were edited by staff and members of the public to reflect current thoughts and perspectives . Planning Process Throughout a 14-month process, the planning team assessed the existing transportation conditions and other relevant components—such as demographics, land uses, and economic climate, as well as previous plans and studies—to understand the current status of transportation infrastructure in the City . After inventorying critical transportation features—such as roadway level-of-service (LOS), bike/pedestrian facilities, and pavement quality—the planning team worked with City staff, various stakeholders, and the public (via in-person workshops, online surveys, and community events) to identify transportation needs through the next 10-15 years to best position Milton for success. A series of transportation projects identified to address the needs were then prioritized on various factors ultimately distilling the universe of possible projects down to a prioritized list of recommendations . These project recommendations, along with relevant transportation policies, constitute the CONNECTION Comprehensive Transportation Plan . Community Outreach Throughout the planning process, public input assisted the planning team in creating a plan that will help to meet the transportation needs of current and future Milton residents . The direct interaction with citizens, elected officials, and other key stakeholders was carried out via: Four community events (two local football games, a kiosk at Bell Memorial Park, and an event tent at the Milton Hometown Jubilee) Two traditional-style public workshops Three focus group sessions (inclusionary—persons with disabilities, the elderly, environmental advocates, and others; bicyclists; and pedestrians) A project-specific website (www .connectmilton .com) Social media blasts Two online surveys 1 Improve transportation network system level performance (level of service) with particular emphasis on the impacts of commuter traffi c and safety. Maintain and improve mobility and system performance through roadway improvements and alternative transportation improvements with specifi c consideration of transit investments appropriate to the community vision and multi-use paths and roadside improvements serving cyclists, pedestrians, equestrian users, and those with disabilities, including wheelchair access. 2 3 Protect and improve the environment recognizing its contribution to community economic vitality and quality of life. 4 Coordinate transportation investments with land use policies ensuring the creation of a “sense of place” as well as barrier-free connectivity to community assets such as schools, parks, and recreation areas. Leverage regional cooperation and regional solutions to transportation issues, including coordination with surrounding jurisdictions, while maintaining the singularly unique character of the City of Milton. 5 2016 CTP GOALS MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 5City of Milton Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 2016 Feb. March April May June Aug. 2015 Vision and Goals Inventory Existing Conditions Current and Future Needs Assessment Recommendations TASK 1 TASK 2 TASK 3 TASK 4 Public Engagement Public Outreach and Community Activities CTP INFO Community Event CTP INFO 1 2 3 4 Public Meeting Focus Group Major Website/Social Media Update 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 CTP INFO CTP INFO July Aug. Sept. 2016 CTP SCHEDULE MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 6 October 2016 In addition, the planning team maintained contact with and gathered input from the Mayor and City Council, who represent the broader Milton community and serve as the key decision-makers responsible for the adoption of the plan . These outreach formats enabled the planning team to gather input on issues such as overall transportation priorities, current and future transportation challenges and needs, mode usage, hubs of origins and destinations in, around, and outside of Milton, budget priorities (in relation to transportation projects), and specific project preferences and priorities. Based on public feedback, the guiding priorities for the CONNECTION plan are shown on the following page . MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 7City of Milton ECONOMIC VITALITY $$ 7 TRANSIT NEXT STOP 8 MAINTENANCE/ROADWAYREPAIR ROAD WORK AHEAD 5 NEIGHBORHOODS 6 A B CONNECTIVITY 3 TRANSPORTATIONSAFETY 4 VEHICULAR TRAVEL 1 SIDEWALKS/BIKES/TRAILS 2 2016 CTP GUIDING PRIORITIES 8 October 2016 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 9City of Milton MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Chapter 2: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Functional Classification Asset Management Active Transportation Transit Access Management MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 10 October 2016 INTRODUCTION In order to continue to provide an efficient and effective multimodal network, and contribute to the quality of life residents enjoy, new transportation policies have been identified for the City of Milton. The following polices were developed based on a review of existing conditions, current practices and procedures, and City and stakeholder input . These transportation policies will play a key role in the future development and maintenance of the community’s multimodal transportation infrastructure . FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Functional classifications are defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and used by policy makers, planners, engineers, and citizens to designate the characteristics and purposes of the roadways in a system. The functional classification system categorizes streets along a general hierarchy that accounts for the inverse relationship between access and mobility, and how that relates to distinguishing between arterials and local roads . Roadways that are higher speed and higher volume typically provide less access while roadways that are lower volume and lower speed can more comfortably accommodate greater access . GDOT and the Atlanta Regional Commission have a published functional classification map for the City of Milton; however, the City has requested to the ARC to update this functional classification map to characterize some roadways differently. The City should continue to monitor the functional classification system and request updates as the character of certain areas of the City shifts . The following roadways are proposed to change from Local Road to Minor Arterial: Deerfield Parkway from Windward Parkway to SR 9 Morris Road from Deerfield Parkway to Bethany Bend The following roadways are proposed to change from Local Road to Major Collector: Redd Road from Freemanville Road to Hagood Road (the section from Hagood Road to Hopewell Road is already a major collector) Thompson Road from Hopewell Road to Francis Road Webb Road from Cogburn Road to Morris Road Hamby Road from Hopewell Road to Forsyth County Line Green Road from SR 140 to SR 372 Additionally, Freemanville Road from Mayfield Road to Providence Road is proposed to change from Minor Collector to Major Collector . MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 11City of Milton Alpharetta Milton Roswell AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 WEBBRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D COGBURNRDBIRMINGHAMHWYCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSON R D DEER F IE L D PKWYMORRISRDDI N S M ORERD N . M A I N S TTHOMPSONRDWILKIE R D COWART RDREDD RD C R A B A P P L E R D FREEMANVILLERDBIRMINGH A M R D KINGRDW OOD RD C O XRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDPHILLIPS C I R HICKORYFLATRD BRITTLERDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDB E THANY B E NDSUMMIT RD B A T E S VIL L E RD STATE RTE 400HAGOODRDBETHANYRDR A N C H E TTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD NI X R D DORR IS R D WESTBROOKR D Milton Functional Classification Urban Freeway Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Road MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 12 October 2016 ASSET MANAGEMENT As detailed in the Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment Report, the City of Milton has made significant investment in implementation of the 2009 CTP, including: These accomplishments demonstrate the City’s commitment to transportation infrastructure . In addition to these capital investments, the City has allocated annual funding to the maintenance and repair of the transportation infrastructure for the next five years, including: $1.7 million for pavement management, resurfacing/reconstruction program (an additional $200,000 in GDOT Local Maintenance & Improvement Grant fund is anticipated) $115,000 for supplemental grading and maintenance activities for the 13 miles of gravel roads $80,000 for proactive restriping of existing roads (beginning FY 2018) $100,000 for sidewalk construction and repair (beginning FY 2018) $300,000 for the bridge repair and replacement program As the City’s transportation infrastructure ages and growth and development necessitates new investment, a commitment to annual maintenance and repair is expected to continue to be a priority . As such, the following policies should be considered in order to meet present and future resident expectations for quality asset management at the lowest long-term economic and environmental cost . A total of 30 intersection projects were recommended in the 2009 CTP. Of those projects, 12 are completed or under construction, and another 17 have initial concept work and funding requests underway. Approximately 1.7 miles of multi-use paths, 13.4 miles of sidewalks, and 0.6 miles of bike lanes as well as pedestrian improvements at 9 intersections and 11.8 miles of paved shoulders have been completed. In coordination with GDOT, widening design for SR 9 was initiated in 2013, right-of-way acquisition is programmed for 2018, and construction is planned for 2021. MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 13City of Milton Define LOS and apply asset management practices to maintain the confidence of the public in how City assets are managed. In order to effectively manage current assets, the City should define expectations or acceptable LOS (level-of-service) for transportation infrastructure in terms of quantity, quality, availability or accessibility . The level-of-service should take into consideration public expectations, risk, affordability, and timing constraints . These performance measures should be used as a benchmark to evaluate maintenance and repair needs, and to measure the City’s return on investment . The-level of-service would also guide funding decisions to meet future challenges, including but not limited to changing demographics, public expectations, legislative requirements, technological and environmental factors . Consider practices, operations, and technology to reduce the lifecycle cost of multimodal transportation assets, while satisfying LOS expectations. With new investments in multimodal infrastructure the lifecycle cost should be evaluated in order to determine the preferred implementation strategy . Lifecycle cost should include the anticipated maintenance and repair costs . Opportunities to implement new practices or apply new technology should be considered to reduce the cost of operations, maintenance and repair . Continue to seek funding alternatives for asset management. In order to maintain the defined LOS and continue to provide a high quality of life for residents, annual funding for transportation infrastructure maintenance and repair will continue to be a priority . In effort to offset the City’s financial obligations, opportunities for grant funding should continue to be explored . The City currently utilizes GDOT LMIG funds for the annual pavement management, resurfacing/ reconstruction program . Similar programs should be considered for bridge repair and replacement . Alternate funding opportunities for sidewalk repair and replacement may include grant funding or a cost sharing program with private property owners . Continue to monitor bridges for repair and replacement. The City should continue the program to conduct a detailed repair review of bridges and implement those repair improvements . The bridge replacement program has completed two new bridges and should continue to focus on all of the weight restricted bridges and bridges with wooden abutments . Maintain an inventory of existing transportation assets for ongoing maintenance and repair, as well as emergency response documentation. Consideration should be given to the development of a regular report on the state of the City’s transportation assets which can then be referenced during the capital improvement program budget process . Continue to monitor intersections and corridors for safety improvements The City has continued to put a major focus on transportation safety along its corridors and at its intersections . As shown in the Diagnostics Report in the Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment Report of this plan, the City has completed many intersection projects that were considered necessary due to high crash densities . Through design, many of the safety concerns can be mitigated by intersection improvements . Additionally, many roadway corridors have had shoulders widened which aids both vehicular and bicycle traffic. Similar to the previous 2009 CTP, there are still many intersections and corridors that can benefit from safety improvements. MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 14 October 2016 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Introduction Policies to enhance the overall mobility and safety for cyclists and pedestrians are outlined in the sections that follow . These policies incorporate information from the 2009 CTP, discussions with City staff, and feedback from the community . Based on input received throughout this planning process, demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities is focused on key activity centers, community amenities, and education and safety considerations . Underlying concepts of modal integration, livability, and connectivity are consistent themes in the feedback from the community and the policies that follow . Pedestrian Amenities As previously noted, the City of Milton maintains a uniquely rural character within the midst of a sprawling metropolitan region . To facilitate pedestrian accessibility and connectivity, the City’s development regulations require installation of sidewalk across the frontage of new developments located within 1/2 mile of an active park or school and requires easements and right of way along corridors included in the trail plan that would be needed for future trail construction . The recently adopted form-based codes for the Crabapple and Deerfield/GA-9 areas require pedestrian facilities . The form-based code requires a minimum sidewalk width of 8 feet in most locations, as well as enhanced pedestrian amenities such as planters, pedestrian-oriented building design elements (e.g., storefront windows, awnings). As defined by the Deerfield/GA-9 Form-Based Code, a minimum sidewalk width of six feet is required for development along Morris Road, McGinnis Ferry Road, Old Morris Road, Webb Road, Bethany Bend, and Cogburn Road. In addition to requirements for private investment in the sidewalk network, the City may install new sidewalk or multiuse trails as part of the annual capital program . It is the City’s policy to install sidewalk within a half-mile of priority activity centers such as schools, parks, and community facilities. A map of the defined sidewalk priority areas is in Figure 2 .1 . The City will continue to program sidewalk or multiuse trail installation in these priority areas on an annual basis . Installation of multiuse trails outside of these areas may also be completed as capital improvement projects . It is the City’s policy to install sidewalks in priority areas adjacent to activity centers such as schools, parks and community facilities. AB372 AB140 AB9 AB400CUMMINGHWYP R O VID E NCERDTHOMPSONRDBIRMINGHAMHWYTAYLORRDBIRMINGH A M R D KINGRDN IX RD DORR IS R D WESTBROOK RDSTATE RTE 400WO O DRDWEBB RD F R A N C IS R D REDD RD N . M A I N S T MOUNTAIN RD W ILKIE R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D C R A B AP P L E R D M O RRISRDHICKORYFLATRD COXR D HOPEWELLRDMCGINNIS FERRYRD BETHANY W A Y HE N D E RSO N R D FREEMANVILLERDCOWART RDLACKEYRDB A T E S VIL L E RD ARNOLD M I LLRDB E THANY B E N DDIN S M O R E RD BRITTLERDPHILLIPS C I R COGBURNRDR A N C H E T TE R D NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD BETHANYRD5 Private School 3 Public Schools Parks Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Sidewalk Priority Area Boundary Road Boundary Road City Boundary City Boundary OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary 5 Private School 3 Public Schools Parks Sidewalk Priority Area MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 15City of Milton Figure 2.1 Sidewalk Priority AB372 AB140 AB9 AB400CUMMINGHWYP R O VID E NCERDTHOMPSONRDBIRMINGHAMHWYTAYLORRDBIRMINGH A M R D KINGRDN IX RD DORR IS R D WESTBROOK RDSTATE RTE 400WO O DRDWEBB RD F R A N C IS R D REDD RD N . M A I N S T MOUNTAIN RD W ILKIE R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D C R A B AP P L E R D M O RRISRDHICKORYFLATRD COXR D HOPEWELLRDMCGINNIS FERRYRD BETHANY W A Y HE N D E RSO N R D FREEMANVILLERDCOWART RDLACKEYRDB A T E S VIL L E RD ARNOLD M I LLRDB E THANY B E N DDIN S M O R E RD BRITTLERDPHILLIPS C I R COGBURNRDR A N C H E T TE R D NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD BETHANYRD5Private School 3Public Schools Parks Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Sidewalk Priority Area Boundary Road Boundary Road City Boundary City Boundary OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary 5 Private School 3 Public Schools Parks Sidewalk Priority Area MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 16 October 2016 ADVANCED CYCLIST CASUAL RIDERS Advanced Cyclists are typically the most experienced on the road and can navigate arterial conditions with higher traffic volumes and speeds . Most advanced cyclists prefer shared roadways in lieu of trails . Casual Riders are less secure in their ability to ride in traffic without special accommodations. They may be casual or new adult/teen riders who typically prefer multi-use paths or bike lanes on collector or arterial streets . Such facilities reduce casual riders’ exposure to fast-moving and heavy traffic. Bicycle Priority Network The City of Milton is a preferred location for recreational cycling with growing opportunities for commuter cycling as well. With connections to Forsyth and Cherokee Counties to the north and the Cities of Alpharetta and Roswell to the south, opportunities for roadway and trail cycling are provided throughout Milton . Based on stakeholder input received throughout the planning process, it is clear there is a strong demand for cycling activity in Milton . Cyclists in Milton typically fall into two groups: HOW DOES MILTON ACCOMMODATE CYCLISTS? ON-STREET ROUTES: Exclusive space for bicyclists through pavement markings and signage, located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes. SHARED ROADWAYS: Road markings and signage are used to indicate a share lane environment for bicycles and automobiles to reinforce the legitimacy of bicycle traffic and recommend proper bicyclist positioning. TRAILS: Multi-Use pedestrian and bicycle facility located both adjacent or separate from a roadway corridor. The City of Milton strives to accommodate all cyclists through a combination of shared roadways, on-street routes, and trails. While the City currently provides a well-developed cyclist network, there are opportunities to enhance existing facilities, encourage ridership, and educate both cyclists and motorists . The following policies were developed based on input received throughout the planning process, including MetroQuest survey results, cyclist focus group discussions, and public meetings . MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 17City of Milton The City of Milton is a preferred location for recreational cycling with growing opportunities for commuter cycling. MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 18 October 2016 DEVELOP A PRIORITY NETWORK Based on input received during the planning process and cycling route frequency heat maps available from Strava1, a network of priority cyclist routes was developed as shown in the Bicycle Priority Network map. While alternate corridors in the City may be considered “vehicle priority”, the intent is to focus cyclist activity and infrastructure along these “bicycle priority” corridors . The Bicycle Priority Network should be considered in tandem with the Milton Trail Plan, which should continue to be implemented as these facilities serve different types of users . The Bicycle Priority Network is focused on enhanced on-road facilities . The trails recommended in this plan are not considered to be part of the Bicycle Priority Network . With the Bicycle Priority Network, cyclists should be directed to utilize the defined roadways, where cyclist infrastructure and amenities should be provided . In addition, bicycle-related capital improvements, signage and striping enhancements, educational campaigns, and enforcement measures should be focused along these roadways . Investments in bicycle infrastructure along alternate roadways may be completed as City capital improvement projects . It should be noted that the Bicycle Priority Network was designed to connect to Forsyth and Cherokee Counties to the north and the Cities of Alpharetta and Roswell to the south. While bicycle connectivity to adjacent communities is a high priority for the City of Milton, the exact location of these future connections will need to be vetted with adjacent agencies and the cyclist community . COORDINATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BICYCLE PRIORITY NETWORK WITH ROADWAY RESURFACING PROJECTS In order to implement the Bicycle Priority Network in a more efficient and cost effective manner, consideration should be given to implementation of signage and striping enhancements as part of planned roadway resurfacing projects . Coordination of these improvements should be managed by the City of Milton . 1Strava is a social network platform for runners, cyclists, and triathletes. The website and mobile app can be used to record athletic activity. The recordings are then compiled to form a Strava data set, which can be reviewed for a specific geographic area in the form of a heat map. MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 19City of Milton AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400CUMMINGHWYP R O VID E NCERDTHOMPSONRDNEWPROVI DEN C E RD BIRMINGHAMHWYTAYLORRDBIRMINGH A M R D KINGRDN IX RD DORR IS R D WESTBROOK RDSTATE RTE 400W OOD RD WEBB RD F R A N C IS R D D E E R FIELDPKWYREDD RD N . M A I N S T MOUNTAIN RD W ILK IE R D C R A B A P P L E R D MORRISRDHICKORYFLATRD COX R D HOPEWELLRDMCGINNIS FERRYRD BETHANY W A Y HE N D E RSO N R D FREEMANVILLERDCOWART RDLACKEYRDB A T E S VIL L E RD B ETHANY B E NDDIN S M O R E RD BRITTLERDPHILLIPS C I R COGBURNRDR A N C H ET TE RD NE WBULLPENRDHA MBY RD BETHANYRDProj_Type Priority Bicycle Network Connection to Alpharetta Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road City Boundary City Boundary Cities City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Priority Bicycle Network Connection to Alpharetta Figure 2.2 Bicycle Priority Network MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 20 October 2016 ENHANCE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING ALONG CORRIDORS INCLUDED IN THE BICYCLE PRIORITY NETWORK In order to address concerns raised by residents, opportunities to enhance bicycle route signage and striping should be considered . Traditional “Share the Road” signage is considered unclear and passive by some cyclists and motorists . Opportunities to more clearly define the Rules of the Road should be considered . This can be achieved through an education campaign as well as through enhanced striping and signage . Enhanced striping provides for a consistent treatment for each bicycle facility—shared roadways, on- street routes and trail access points . New signage provides an opportunity for a consistent message, as well as the potential to brand the Milton Bicycle Priority Network . A branding element increases public awareness and creates potential synergy between the bicycle infrastructure and public education campaign . There are many examples of successful bicycle route signage programs that have been implemented . Bike lanes and wide shoulders can be marked with “3-foot rule” signs with a designated route color and number of miles to/from key destinations . In addition, a coordinated bike routes map can be developed to distribute to the public . A similar coordinated effort is recommended for the City of Milton in order to continue to increase public awareness of cyclist and motorist roles and responsibilities, and the bicycle amenities provided throughout the community . MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 21City of Milton CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A ROBUST PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN FOR BOTH CYCLIST AND MOTORISTS Development and implementation of a robust public education campaign should be led by the City of Milton in partnership with employers, bike shops, media representatives, cycling organizations, and other non- profit organizations. These partnership opportunities exist at the regional and local levels . At the regional level, there is an opportunity to host a focus group for the North Fulton CTP . At the local level, the Olde Blind Dog Cycling Club can be utilized for continued coordination on outreach . Elements of the public education campaign may include the following: Bike training opportunities for local employers offered through the Milton Police Department in partnership with cycling organizations . Marketing materials (e .g ., newspaper, City website, social media) highlighting the City’s Bicycle Priority Network, the Rules of the Road, as well as cycling basics such as lights, helmets, and other safety equipment . In addition to the communitywide public outreach campaign, targeted outreach is recommended to provide a focused message to cyclist and motorists, including: Cyclists on Roads: Develop an education campaign for recreational cyclists on proper cycling techniques as it applies to cycling two abreast . Consider implementation of a public education campaign to remind motorists of the State Law requiring a minimum of three feet when passing, for cyclists to ride two abreast only when clear, and for cyclists to ride single file to allow for overtaking and passing vehicles . Cyclists on Trails: Recreational cyclists should also be educated to slow and yield to pedestrians and wheelchair users on trails . The City should explore and enhance current yield and passing signs along the trails and provide informational kiosks about the right-of-way for trail users . SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS In order to continue to provide safe conditions for cyclists, the City can focus public education efforts both through on-road and off-road programs . The on- road education can be successful through signing and striping programs that would make the Bicycle Priority Network recognizable to both vehicular and bicycle traffic. The off-road education can be successful through the City of Milton website, local outreach, and police officer interaction with the community. The existing off-road education program focuses on the three-foot rule safety legislation that, by law, requires drivers to leave at least three feet between their vehicle and a cyclist . As part of the 2016-2020 Milton Strategic Plan, there is an initiative to establish a traffic safety stakeholder group to make recommendations to improve traffic safety. This group will focus on cyclist safety and educations . The police department also will be adding three bicycles to the patrol fleet, which will help with both enforcement of bicycle safety, as well as continued community interaction . Image credit: Google MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 22 October 2016 CONSIDER REGULAR EVALUATION OF THE BICYCLE PRIORITY NETWORK In order to meet the community’s demand for cycling and in effort to provide the level-of-service desired by residents, workers and visitors, regular evaluation of the bicycle network is recommended . This analysis could be conducted in tandem with the asset management inventory; however, this evaluation would focus on the operational characteristics of the bicycle network . An analysis of route usage and cyclist satisfaction is recommended . In addition, an analysis of crash data for crashes involving cyclists should be conducted . As part of this analysis, strategies to enhance the Priority Bicycle Network may be identified. TRANSIT In 2011, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) initiated the GA 400 Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis (AA) to analyze the corridor and identify potential opportunities for rail extension of the MARTA Red Line north to Windward Parkway in Alpharetta, near the City of Milton . In 2015, MARTA initiated its Draft Environmental Impact Assessment for the corridor . Based on the AA, the preferred alignment and five new transit stations were identified, including a station at the Windward Parkway interchange . Based on its proximity to the City of Milton, a future Windward Parkway transit station is expected to enhance transit access for Milton residents and businesses . In order to capitalize on the Red Line extension and encourage transit ridership, the following policies should be considered as MARTA moves forward with the GA 400 Transit Initiative . EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRANSIT SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS In order to encourage transit ridership, the City of Milton and MARTA should explore the potential for existing local bus service modifications and new routes . The existing bus service currently only services the Deerfield area of the City and provides limited service throughout the day. Modifications to the existing routes to better serve the key destinations within the Deerfield area, as well as a new route that connects the MARTA system to the Crabapple area, could have a great impact on improving mobility and providing more connections for Milton residents . These enhanced and new routes would also provide better connectivity for residents to the planned MARTA station along Windward Parkway when the Red Line is extended . New route service to the Crabapple area could be provided along either Mayfield Road from the Deerfield area, or along Old Milton Parkway, Rucker Road, and Broadwell Road from SR 400 . Any potential service for the Crabapple area would be coordinated with the infrastructure and development plans . The transit needs map (Figure 2 .3) shows the areas of Milton that would benefit the most from enhanced and new transit service . IN PARTNERSHIP WITH MARTA AND ADJACENT COMMUNITIES, ENCOURAGE IMPLEMENTATION OF A BUS DEPOT TO ENHANCE CURRENT BUS SERVICE AND SUPPORT THE FUTURE RED LINE EXTENSION MARTA buses currently travel from the City of Atlanta to the Cities of Milton, Roswell, and Alpharetta daily . In order to improve efficiencies, it is recommended the City of Milton partner with MARTA, the City of Roswell and the City of Alpharetta to consider opportunities for a bus depot in the vicinity of the proposed Windward Parkway Red Line station . Alpharetta Milton Roswell AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E N C E RDCOGB U RNRDB A T E S VILLERD BETHANY W A Y BETHANY RDWEBB RD GREEN R D HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D N E W P R O V I D E N CE RD BIRMINGHAM H W Y CU M M I N G H W Y B E THANYBEN DTAYLORRD A R N O L D MILLRD H E NDERSON R D BROADWELL RDDEERFIELDP K W Y D I N S M O R E R D N . M A I N S T W ILK IE R D COWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRD FREEMANVILLERDM A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O O D RD CO X R D PHILLIPSCIR BRITTLERDT H O M P S ONRDMOUNTAIN RD LACKEYRDBIRMIN G H A M R D SUMMIT RD HAGOODRDR A NCHETTE RD N E WB U L LPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFRDNIX R D DORRISRD WESTBROOKR D Existing MARTA Bus Routes Transit Need Area MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 23City of Milton Alpharetta Milton Roswell AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E N C E RDCOGB U RNRDB A T E S VILLERD BETHANY W A Y BETHANY RDWEBB RD GREEN R D HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D N E W P R O V I D E N CE RD BIRMINGHAM H W Y CU M M I N G H W Y B E THANYBEN DTAYLORRD A R N O L D MILLRD H E NDERSON R D BROADWELL RDDEERFIELDP K W Y D I N S M O R E R D N . M A I N S T W ILK IE R D COWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRD FREEMANVILLERDM A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O O D RD CO X R D PHILLIPSCIR BRITTLERDT H O M P S ONRDMOUNTAIN RD LACKEYRDBIRMIN G H A M R D SUMMIT RD HAGOODRDR A NCHETTE RD N E WB U L LPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFRDNIX R D DORRISRD WESTBROOKR D Existing MARTA Bus Routes Transit Need Area Figure 2.3 Transit Needs MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 24 October 2016 To provide for an interim bus staging location, opportunities to utilize the existing Windward Park-and- Ride should also be considered . It is anticipated that a bus depot would improve operating costs and on-time performance for the current MARTA routes . Potential opportunities for schedule modifications, route modifications, or the addition of new routes could also be explored. Schedule modifications and improved on-time performance could provide a more efficient and effective alternative transportation option for Milton, Roswell and Alpharetta residents, workers, and visitors . UPGRADE TRANSIT STOP AMENITIES AT HIGH- DEMAND LOCATIONS TO ENCOURAGE RIDERSHIP The quality of bus stop amenities plays an important role in attracting and maintaining transit users . Reliable and useful transit service is often cited as a top priority for riders, but amenities (e .g ., benches, shelters, lighting, and trash receptacles) can often affect the user experience . Additionally, connectivity of sidewalks to transit stops is important for providing better access for transit riders, in particular, disabled riders . As such, installation and maintenance of transit amenities is important to support transit service and enhancing ridership . Amenities should be placed at high-demand transit stop locations and pursuant to transit design guidelines . It is important to note that transit amenities may have low installation costs, but maintenance can require significant time and effort. Partnerships with MARTA, businesses, and transit-friendly organizations should be explored as part of the evaluation of installation and maintenance of transit amenities . While current stop locations may be retrofitted to meet ridership demand, with any future transit route modifications, the City of Milton should coordinate with MARTA in order to identify opportunities for new stop locations and potential transit amenities . The current stop locations that experience higher ridership are located along Windward Parkway near SR 9 and SR 400. LEVERAGE THE NORTH FULTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO CREATE DIRECT COORDINATION OF ALL NORTH FULTON CITIES WITH MARTA The North Fulton CTP will bring together all six Cities of North Fulton to coordinate the future of the transportation system . Together the communities can continue discussion on the MARTA Red Line extension and other future initiatives, such as the implementation of a bus depot to enhance current bus service in the North Fulton communities as recommended in this report . The involvement of all of the communities could create a synergy to continue transit expansion in the North Fulton communities, including Milton . CONSIDER MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE TRANSIT ACCESS TO KEY DESTINATIONS IN THE CITY OF MILTON As the population of Milton continues to age, there will be an increasing need for mobility improvements . Improvements to transit can meet current mobility needs as well as provide service for the increasing demand as the population continues to age . During the Inclusionary Focus Group, the Crabapple area, Milton Library, and Cambridge High School were identified as key destinations that are not currently serviced by MARTA. While choice riders may need an incentive to select transit (e .g ., reduced travel time, MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 25City of Milton increased access to key locations or subsidized transit fares), captive riders need access to more destinations (e .g ., employment centers, schools, places of worship, recreational facilities, and medical care sites) . Mobility should be measured by improved transit service that enhances the quality of life for both populations . CONTINUE INTEGRATED LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OR TRANSIT- SUPPORTIVE LAND USE PLANNING IN KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS An expanded transit network has the potential to affect land use patterns and shape the built environment; therefore, transportation investment policies should be coupled with land use policies in order to identify, encourage, and support placemaking and thoughtful development opportunities . Transit service and stops can be integrated into the community through design, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and land use planning . Linking transit to community institutions and new development enhances accessibility and mobility for residents, workers and visitors . The City of Milton should continue to work with MARTA to identify future transit opportunities and explore the potential land use opportunities associated with new or enhanced ridership . The building types, public spaces, and pedestrian and bicycle requirements incorporated into the current Crabapple and Deerfield/GA-9 Form-Based Codes are examples of land use planning strategies which encourage transit- supportive development patterns . Possible future transit expansion in the GA 400 corridor to Windward Parkway would have a direct impact to the Deerfield activity center . As transit service is expanded there or to other existing activity centers like Crabapple, direct coordination of land use policies with transportation projects will be necessary . With the MARTA Red Line expansion and other future investments in transit, ongoing efforts should be continued in order to maintain and enhance transit service for Milton residents, workers and visitors. MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 26 October 2016 ACCESS MANAGEMENT Roadway mobility and safety are greatly impacted by access points from adjoining commercial and residential properties . Effective access management policies provide for an effective and consistent approach to site access and encourage traffic flow along key corridors . The City of Milton should continue to implement the policies identified in the 2009 CTP Access Management Guide, including: Conversion of a two-way left-turn lane into a landscaped median with dedicated left-turn lane at key locations Limited site driveways or minimum driveway spacing lengths based on roadway functional classification Cross-access requirements for new development or redevelopment projects Restricted access driveways (i .e ., right-in/right-out driveways) Traffic signal spacing guidelines As the City continues to experience new development and redevelopment along key corridors, implementation of the previously identified access management strategies is recommended . In addition, access management should be considered as part of implementation of the roadway widening and other corridor improvement projects identified in the project recommendations of this plan . The City of Milton should continue to implement the policies identified in the 2009 CTP Access Management Guide MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 27City of Milton Chapter 3: PRIORITIZATION PROCESS Introduction Project Categories and Evaluation MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 28 October 2016 INTRODUCTION Nearly 300 projects were considered as a part of the Milton CONNECTION Comprehensive Transportation Plan . Multiple sources of information served as input into creating the list . First, a review of previous studies was conducted including consideration of which projects have not yet been implemented from the 2009 CTP . Additionally, the team reviewed other small area studies that have been completed in the last six years such as the Crabapple study and the Deerfield/Highway 9 Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) plan. The Needs Assessment phase of the current plan resulted in a series of roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian projects that could address existing and future transportation needs throughout the City . Finally, input received through public meetings, community events, the online MetroQuest survey, and City Council meetings helped to inform the development of the list of projects for possible evaluation . PROJECT CATEGORIES AND EVALUATION All projects were coded into Geographic Information Systems (GIS) allowing them to be evaluated by both attributes and physical location . Each of the projects were given modal classifications that were used in the evaluation process . Modal Classifications Modal classifications include roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, or a combination of multiple modes . Because MARTA, and in some cases GRTA, does the majority of transit planning for Fulton County, no transit infrastructure and routing projects were evaluated as a part of this specific prioritization process. Transit recommendations are included in more detail in the policy chapter of this report . Evaluation Categories Projects were evaluated using two rounds of criteria . Each round of evaluation was meant to narrow the list of projects from nearly 300 down to the final recommended list . Projects were subdivided into four categories for evaluation . Some projects were evaluated across multiple transportation mode categories (Figures 3 .1-3 .3) . Roadway (Corridor) 31 Projects Bicycle 87 Projects Pedestrian 115 Projects Roadway (Intersection) 42 Projects AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S V IL L E RD BETHANYRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V I D E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S T W ILK IE R D COWART RDREDD RD FREEMANVILLERDM A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI N G HA M RD SUMMIT RD S TA T E R T E 4 0 0HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D Alpharetta Milton Roswell Intersection Projects Corridor Projects MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 29City of Milton AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S V IL L E RD BETHANYRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V I D E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S T W ILK IE R D COWART RDREDD RD FREEMANVILLERDM A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI N G HA M RD SUMMIT RD S TA T E R T E 4 0 0HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D Alpharetta Milton Roswell Intersection Projects Corridor Projects Figure 3.1 Evaluated Roadway Projects MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 30 October 2016 Each of the four modal groupings included separate criteria used in the first round of evaluation. Projects that included more than one mode were evaluated under all applicable modes . For example, multimodal corridor projects consisting of roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian components were evaluated using Roadway (Corridor), Bicycle, and Pedestrian criteria and were compared against projects in all three of the modal groupings . A summary of each of the rounds of evaluation criteria is provided below, and more detailed scoring information is provided in the Appendix . The overall process of the project evaluation is shown in the diagram to the right . EVALUATION CRITERIA Each of the four modal groupings was evaluated initially based on six to seven unique criteria . This round of evaluation and each set of criteria pair closely with the values of the community that were detailed in the Vision and Goals early on in the plan . The overarching goals of safety, efficiency, and continuing the rural character of Milton are reflected in the criteria. Projects that met multiple criteria were awarded more points . The following are the criteria considered in the Project Evaluation: Roadway (Corridor) Projected level-of-service (F) based on the ARC PLAN 2040 Travel Demand Model Functional Classification of minor arterial or higher A majority of the project is located within a half-mile of activity centers and key destinations Number of intersections along the corridor with high crashes Involves operational or bicycle facility improvements Project is predominantly located within one-mile of the City border Roadway (Intersections): Projected approach level-of-service (F) based on the ARC PLAN 2040 Travel Demand Model Functional Classification of minor arterial or higher High crash location Within a half-mile of activity centers and key destinations A traffic fatality occurred at the intersection Involves operational or bicycle facility improvements Project is predominantly located within one-mile of the City border 300+ Possible Projects City Input Public Meeting Final Recommendations Project Filter Evaluation Criteria Detailed Analyses MetroQuest Survey AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S V IL L E RD BETHANYRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V I D E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S T W ILK IE R D COWART RDREDD RD FREEMANVILLERDM A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI N G HA M RD SUMMIT RD S TA T E R T E 4 0 0HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D Alpharetta Milton Roswell Bicycle Projects MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 31City of Milton AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S V IL L E RD BETHANYRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V I D E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S T W ILK IE R D COWART RDREDD RD FREEMANVILLERDM A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI N G HA M RD SUMMIT RD S TA T E R T E 4 0 0HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D Alpharetta Milton Roswell Bicycle Projects Figure 3.2 Evaluated Bicycle Projects MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 32 October 2016 Bicycle Functional Classification of major collector or lower Within a half-mile of activity centers and key destinations Suitable facility for bicycles based on speeds and functional classification Roadway grade A traffic fatality occurred along the corridor Constructability Pedestrian Within a 1/2-mile of activity centers and key destinations Gap length to other sidewalks (sidewalks only) Within transit needs area (from Needs Assessment) Population served within 1/4-mile of the project Connectivity to other sidewalks (sidewalks only) Constructability The combination of evaluation criteria totals a possible 100 points for each modal group . Following the completion of the evaluation, projects were ordered from the highest scoring to the lowest scoring (within the mode categories), and the highest performing projects were advanced for consideration by City officials and the general public. The remaining projects moved to the bottom of the list and were given less priority . Bicycle and Pedestrian projects were narrowed down based on planned improvements as part of the North Fulton TSPLOST and City policy for sidewalk projects in the following phase of evaluation . The roadway intersection projects were more balanced across the City, while roadway corridor projects were focused around the perimeter of the City to help facilitate commuter travel . This selection methodology was used to narrow the list of projects before entering the Project Filter phase of the evaluation of projects . PROJECT FILTER Through the first round of evaluation, the list of projects was narrowed from 300 to just over 100 projects . These projects were brought to City officials and to the general public through the second MetroQuest survey, community outreach at Bell Memorial Park and the Milton Jubilee, and the second and final public meeting—the Recommendations Meeting . Feedback from this public outreach provided one major component of project selection . Additionally, the cost of each project relative to its Evaluation score and to the City of Milton played a role in the priority of the project and the final ranking of a project into one of the top three project tiers for the City’s priority list . The three tiers are discussed in detail later in the report . A detailed analysis of roadway corridor and roadway intersection projects was completed to better understand the impact a project may have on the City, as well as to aid development of possible concepts for the projects . For roadway corridor projects, the ARC Travel Demand Model was used to model potential new connection and roadway widening projects . For roadway intersection projects the following software programs were used: Synchro for basic signalized and unsignalized intersections, SIDRA for roundabout- controlled intersections, and Vissim for more specific multi-intersection issues . The results of these different analyses were used, in addition to the other filter items, to determine the prioritization of a project and its related funding tier . Using the results of this analysis, future design concepts were developed for four of the intersection projects as well . The full results for these analyses are included in the Appendix of this report . AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S V IL L E RD BETHANYRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V I D E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S T W ILK IE R D COWART RDREDD RD FREEMANVILLERDM A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI N G HA M RD SUMMIT RD S TA T E R T E 4 0 0HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D Alpharetta Milton Roswell Pedestrian Projects MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 33City of Milton AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S V IL L E RD BETHANYRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V I D E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S T W ILK IE R D COWART RDREDD RD FREEMANVILLERDM A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI N G HA M RD SUMMIT RD S TA T E R T E 4 0 0HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D Alpharetta Milton Roswell Pedestrian Projects Figure 3.3 Evaluated Pedestrian Projects 34 October 2016 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 35City of Milton MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Chapter 4: FUNDING Introduction Transportation Funding and Level Structure MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 36 October 2016 INTRODUCTION Given the many transportation needs within the City, a gap exists between projected funding and the cost to plan, design, and construct the full universe of projects included in the Milton CTP . Therefore, only a portion of the projects identified in this plan can be implemented with the projected funding while the remainder of projects will need to be considered and reevaluated in future plans . TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND LEVEL STRUCTURE There are two sets of funding scenarios for priority projects at the conclusion of the City of Milton 2016 Comprehensive Transportation Plan . The funding scenarios include revenues from both the City and GDOT . The first funding scenario is based on a current opportunity for Fulton County (excluding City of Atlanta) to pursue a Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (TSPLOST) to fund transportation projects . SPLOSTs are popular among local Georgia governments as a vehicle for raising funds dedicated to infrastructure and facilities construction and improvements . The Georgia Legislature passed House Bill 170 in March 2015 that enabled Fulton County to pursue this special purpose funding opportunity . The proposed 0 .75 cent sales tax is on the voter’s ballot in the November 2016 election in Fulton County, the revenues from which will be used solely for transportation capital projects . If the TSPLOST passes, the City of Milton will have additional money to invest in transportation projects across the five year life of the tax . Additionally, some general fund dollars that are currently allocated to transportation will be able to be allocated toward other City services . The second set of funding levels is based on a scenario in which the proposed TSPLOST does not pass . If the proposed TSPLOST does not get approved by the voting public, it is likely that the amount of transportation funding in the City will stay near the current amount budgeted . Because future transportation funding in Milton could vary greatly depending on the outcome of the November 2016 vote, two different funding scenarios were developed for prioritizing and constraining projects in this plan . The levels are based heavily on available transportation funding through the conclusion of the plan horizon in the next 10 years . The funding scenarios outlines focus on revenues with the City of Milton . The TSPLOST Funding Scenario has some additional programs that make the funding scenario have a higher total cost than the No TSPLOST Funding Scenario . The City also partners with GDOT to implement projects along state routes . Those projects are reflected in a separate list for consideration by GDOT . Scenario 1: TSPLOST PROJECT LEVEL I: TSPLOST PROJECTS ($37 MILLION MAXIMUM) As mentioned, Fulton County is pursuing a TSPLOST to fund transportation projects . If the TSPLOST gets voter approval, revenues are projected to reach $37 million for Milton across the five-year life of the tax. Projects included in the 100% of revenues list would take priority over other projects . If revenues exceed $37 million in the five years, the additional funding would be allocated to the next funding level . PROJECT LEVEL II: ADDITIONAL MILTON PROGRAMS ($35 MILLION MAXIMUM) The funding for Level II projects includes the projected general funds from the City of Milton budget allocated to transportation, currently funded projects, and an additional 15% from the proposed TSPLOST if accrued . The general funds are estimated to include $2 million per year allocated to paving and $800,000 per year allocated to gravel road maintenance, storm water management, sidewalks, and bridge maintenance . The total amount of these funds across the ten-year span of this plan is $20 million for paving and $8 million for other maintenance. The final funding assumption accounts for an additional 15% in TSPLOST revenues if the sales tax outperforms current estimates . MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 37City of Milton TSPLOST NO TSPLOST LEVEL 1 $37 million LEVEL 2 $35 million LEVEL 3 $42 million LEVEL 4 $70 million TIER 1LEVEL 1$17 million LEVEL 2$18 million LEVEL 3$10 million LEVEL 4 $114 million City of Milton Transportation Funding Scenarios MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 38 October 2016 PROJECT LEVEL III: ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCE ($42 MILLION MAXIMUM) Level III assumes a new revenue source, and in combination with Level I and Level II, results in a total of $114 million in Milton local funding over 10 years . The total $42 million would be allocated to new capital projects, as the maintenance costs over 10 years is accounted for in Level II . The funding for Level III projects is assumed to occur after the TSPLOST expires in five years. This allocation would be contingent upon a renewal of the TSPLOST or another funding source . PROJECT LEVEL IV: REMAINING PRIORITY PROJECTS ($70 MILLION MAXIMUM) Level IV is made up of projects that are considered priority, but will not likely be funded with current funding availability . The projects in this level are considered to be aspirations . This level has no identified funding source at this time; however, these projects may still advance under certain conditions including the following: Projects in Level I, II, or III do not advance at proposed funding amounts More money is made available through a new funding source City priorities shift Scenario 2: No TSPLOST Funding Scenario 2 outlines a financial constraining plan if the TSPLOST does not pass in November 2016 . It is important to note that some priority projects may shift more than one level on the project list without TSPLOST . These level shifts are due to the availability of funding and the goal of maximizing the potential of available funding . Some higher cost projects may suit the City well with the availability of funding from the TSPLOST; however, there may be lower cost projects that will be of greater benefit to the City if the TSPLOST does not pass . PROJECT LEVEL I: CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDING ($17 MILLION) As described in the previous section, the amount of the City general fund that is allocated to transportation could decrease if the TSPLOST passes, due to the availability of extra funds . If the TSPLOST does not pass, the amount of money allocated to transportation is expected to stay consistent with years past . Level I assumes current available funding for new transportation projects and existing maintenance for five years, amounting to $17 million. PROJECT LEVEL II: AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR SECOND FIVE YEARS OF PLAN ($18 MILLION) Level II is funded by the second five years of the expected transportation allocation from the general fund. With a slight increase in availability of funding from the first five years, the amount is consistent with the past City budgets’ allocation to transportation . Level II funds new transportation projects and existing maintenance, amounting to $18 million . PROJECT LEVEL III: ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCE ($10 MILLION) Level III includes projects that could be completed with an additional source of funding . These projects fall outside of the current general fund transportation allocation levels . Examples of additional funding options include additional property tax revenues, a SPLOST (or TSPLOST), a bond referendum, or access to additional sources of state and federal funding . If the other funding source was chosen to be a SPLOST or bond, it is likely that the revenues would exceed the amount that is required to complete the projects on the Level III list . PROJECT LEVEL IV: REMAINING PRIORITY PROJECTS ($114 MILLION) Level IV includes projects that will not likely be funded with projected funding availability . The projects in this level are considered to be aspirations . This level has no identified funding source at this time; however, these projects may still advance under certain conditions including the following: Projects in Level I, II, or III do not advance at proposed funding amounts More money is made available through a new funding source City priorities shift MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 39City of Milton Funding Levels for Georgia Department of Transportation Projects GDOT PROJECT LEVEL I: FUNDED PROJECTS ($28 MILLION) The GDOT Level I is made up of priority projects located along a State Route that are already funded for design and construction . These projects will be completed by GDOT within the City of Milton . These projects will involve City participation, but most or all of the funding will be state and federal . At this time, no funding is assumed to be required on the part of the City . GDOT PROJECT LEVEL II: PROPOSED PROJECTS ($35 MILLION) The GDOT Level II is made up of priority projects located along a State Route that do not currently have allocated funding . These projects will need to go through the design and environmental phase of the project . These project are long-term and will be completed by GDOT within the City of Milton . Like the projects in GDOT Level I, these projects will involve City participation, but most or all of the funding will be state and federal . At this time, no funding is assumed to be required on the part of the City . MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 41City of Milton Chapter 5: RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Projects for Milton Concepts MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 42 October 2016 Priority Projects for City of Milton Following the completion of the project evaluation process, each project was prioritized . Projects underwent a rigorous filter process through public involvement and decisions from the City staff . Top ranked intersection, pedestrian, corridor (both Milton and GDOT), and quick-fix intersection projects were presented to the public for feedback . These priority ranking exercises were completed at the community events (Bell Memorial Park and Milton Hometown Jubilee), the public meeting, and the online MetroQuest survey . The public’s feedback provided input into the project prioritization process . WHAT ARE YOUR TOP PRIORITY INTERSECTION PROJECTS FOR MILTON’S COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN? VOTE HERE Bethany Road at Providence Road Intersection improvements may include additional right-of-way for the construction of turn lanes, widened shoulders, enhanced traf c control, a roundabout, or addition of a traf c signal. Est. Cost: $1-2M VOTE HERE Hopewell Road at Hamby Road Intersection improvements may include additional right-of-way for the construction of turn lanes, a roundabout, or addition of a traf c signal. Est. Cost: $1.5-3M VOTE HERE Hopewell Road at Thompson Road Intersection improvements may include realignment of the offset intersections and additional right-of-way for the construction of turn lanes, widened shoulders, enhanced traf c control, a roundabout, or addition of a traf c signal. Est. Cost: $1.5-3M VOTE HERE Freemanville Road at Redd Road Intersection improvements may include additional right-of-way for the construction of turn lanes, widened shoulders, enhanced traf c control, a roundabout, or addition of a traf c signal. Est. Cost: $500K-1M VOTE HERE Hopewell Road at Bethany Bend/Way Intersection improvements may include additional right-of-way for the construction of turn lanes, roundabouts, or addition of traf c signals. Est. Cost: $1.5-3M VOTE HERE FreemanvilleRoad at Birmingham Road Intersection improvements may include additional right-of-way for the construction of turn lanes, a roundabout, or addition of a traf c signal. Est. Cost: $1-2M VOTE HERE Cogburn Roadat Bethany Bend Intersection improvements may include additional right-of-way for turn lanes, signal timing/phasing modi cations, or other operational improvements. Est. Cost: $1-2M VOTE HERE Hopewell Road at Francis/ Cogburn Road Operational improvements may include the addition of lanes to the existing roundabout or enhanced traf c control. Est. Cost: $1-2M Bell Park Area LoopTrail along Hopewell Road, Thompson Road, and Francis Road, connecting to Bell Memorial Park.Est. Cost: $4-6M Deer eld Area LoopTrail connecting Bethany Bend, Morris Road, Webb Road, and Cogburn Road through the Deer eld area.Est. Cost: $2.5-3.5M Crabapple Area Loop Trail along New Providence Road, Freemanville Road, May eld Road, and Green Road, connecting to Crabapple area.Est. Cost: $8.5-10M Providence Road/BethanyTrail along Bethany Bend, Bethany Way Bethany Road, and Providence Road, connecting to Providence Park.Est. Cost: $6.5-8.5M Cogburn Road ConnectionsTrail along Cogburn Road connecting the proposed Bell Park and Deer eld Area Loops.Est. Cost: $1.5-2.5M Morris Road WideningWidening from 2 to 4 lanes with multiuse path, from McGinnis Ferry Road to improved intersection at Webb Road.Est. Cost: $4.5-6.5M Charlotte Drive ExtensionImprove intersection at May eld Road/ Charlotte Drive and extend Charlotte Drive with multiuse path to SR 372.Est. Cost: $6-8M Hopewell Road/Cogburn Road Construction of turn lanes and widened shoulder to enhance traf c ow and safety.Est. Cost: $2-3M Freemanville Road Operations Construction of turn lanes and widened shoulders to enhance traf c ow and safety.Est. Cost: $1.5-2.5M Birmingham CrossroadsConstruction of turn lanes and widened shoulder along Birmingham Road and Hickory Flat Road.Est. Cost: $1.5-2.5M SR 140 (Alternative A)Intersection improvements at Green Road, Cagle Road, and Ranchette Road to enhance traf c ow and safety.Est. Cost: $2-4M SR 140 (Alternative B)Widening from 2 to 4 lanes, including multiuse accommodations, from Rucker Road to Arnold Mill Road.Est. Cost: $98M SR 372 (Alternative A) Intersection improvements at Green Road, Batesville Road, Dorris Road, and Birmingham Road to enhance traf c ow and safety.Est. Cost: $6-8M SR 372 (Alternative B)Construction of turn lanes and widened shoulders to enhance traf c ow and safety.Est. Cost: $2.5-3.5M Cogburn Road at Webb Road Signal timing and phasing modi cations, enhanced traf c control, and safety improvements.Est. Cost: $<200K Taylor Road at Batesville RoadImproved shoulders, enhanced traf c control, and safety improvements.Est. Cost: $<200K Hagood Road/Bethany WayEnhanced traf c control and safety improvements.Est. Cost: $<200K Mid Broadwell Road at Charlotte Drive Enhanced traf c control and safety improvements.Est. Cost: $<200K Thompson Road at Redd Road Pavement leveling, enhanced traf c control, and safety improvements.Est. Cost: $<200K PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS CORRIDOR PROJECTS GDOT CORRIDORS QUICK FIX INTERSECTIONSVOTE HERE VOTE HERE VOTE HERE VOTE HERE HOW DO YOU RATE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS FOR MILTON’S COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN? MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 43City of Milton Symbol Project tyPe Project ID Intersection I Roadway Corridor R Multimodal Corridor RPB Bicycle/Pedestrian PB, P, B Bridge PRG The priority projects (organized by project IDs)are noted by the following codes in the maps: The bridge project shown on the map is the only specific bridge called out in the project list. The remaining bridge repair and replacement projects are reflected in the City’s programmed projects list. The City programs for general maintenance, paving, bridges, and pedestrian improvements are included in the project levels . These projects are labeled as programmed (PRG) . All roadway corridor projects should be considered for pedestrian and bicycle improvements where feasible . While these projects are focused on improving vehicular travel, other modes could also benefit from the projects . MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 44 October 2016 Project ID Project Name Project DeScrIPtIoN oPINIoN of Probable caPItal coSt I-3 Mayfield Road/Charlotte Drive Intersection Improvements Roundabout or semi-actuated traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis (MIL-005) .$3,600,000 I-6 Bethany Road/Providence Road Intersection Improvements Construct left-turn lanes on Providence or roundabout (MIL-002) .$2,425,000 I-8 Hopewell Road/Hamby Road Intersection Improvements Roundabout or traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis . Assumes advanced warning for sight distance correction (MIL-008) . $3,420,000 I-10 Hopewell Road/Thompson Road N Intersection Improvements Roundabout or semi-actuated traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis (MIL-006) .$1,900,000 I-11 Hopewell Road/Thompson Road S Intersection Improvements Roundabout or semi-actuated traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis (MIL-006) .$1,900,000 I-13 Hopewell Road/Bethany Bend/ Bethany Way/Bethany Oaks Pointe Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements may include turn lanes, traffic signals or roundabouts (MIL-001) .$3,080,000 I-15 Arnold Mill Road/Green Road Intersection Improvements Install new traffic signal and coordination to other signals on the SR 140 corridor (MIL-009) .$1,010,000 I-19 Freemanville Road/Birmingham Road Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements may include turn lanes, traffic signal or roundabout (MIL-004) .$1,990,000 I-21 Freemanville Road/Redd Road Intersection Improvements Roundabout or traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis (MIL-010) .$1,020,000 R-7 McGinnis Ferry Road/Morris Road Widen McGinnis Ferry Road/Morris Road from two lanes to four lanes with a landscaped median from Webb Road to Bethany Bend (part of the proposed McGinnis Ferry Road interchange project) (MIL-031) . $5,440,000 R-8 Windward Parkway Widen Windward Parkway to provide a westbound auxiliary lane between GA 400 and Cumming Highway (MIL-038) .$500,000 RPB-1 NE Crabapple Connector Road Install a new roadway connection on NE Crabapple Connector Road from Mayfield Road to Birmingham Highway. Include bicycle lanes or multiuse path in design of new roadway (MIL- 030) . $3,600,000 PB-1 TSPLOST Trail Project The exact project limits of the TSPLOST trail project will be determined based on actual design requirements and costs (MIL-034, MIL-037, MIL-042) . $3,373,000 PB-4 TSPLOST Trail Project The exact project limits of the TSPLOST trail project will be determined based on actual design requirements and costs (MIL-034, MIL-037, MIL-042) . $2,100,000 PRG-1 Birmingham Road Bridge Bridge replacement with future trail accommodations (MIL-012) .$1,600,000 *Project descriptions include the TSPLOST Project ID Numbers Project Level I As discussed in the Funding section of this report, Level I consists of priority projects that are planned to be funded by an approved TSPLOST for Fulton County . Level I has 15 projects and has approximately $37 million funded for Milton. Within this level, there are intersection, pedestrian/bicycle, roadway corridor, multimodal corridor, and bridge projects (Figure 4 .1) . AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 M O RRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S VIL L E R D BETHANYRDWEBB RD GREEN RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD R D MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD KINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMINGHAM RD SUMMIT RD S TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D R-7 R-8 RPB-1 PB-4 PB-1 I-19 I-10 I-11 I-15 I-21 I-8 I-3 I-13 I-6 PRG-1 IfTSTier Intersection Bridge IfTSTier Roadway Corridor IfTSTier, Second_ID Multimodal Corridor IfTSTier Pedestrian/Bicycle IfTSTier 1 City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Level 1 Project Type Intersection Bridge Roadway Corridor Multimodal Corridor Pedestrian/Bicycle MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 45City of Milton AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 M O RRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S VIL L E R D BETHANYRDWEBB RD GREEN RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD R D MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD KINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMINGHAM RD SUMMIT RD S TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D R-7 R-8 RPB-1 PB-4 PB-1 I-19 I-10 I-11 I-15 I-21 I-8 I-3 I-13 I-6 PRG-1 IfTSTier Intersection Bridge IfTSTier Roadway Corridor IfTSTier, Second_ID Multimodal Corridor IfTSTier Pedestrian/Bicycle IfTSTier 1 City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Level 1 Project Type Intersection Bridge Roadway Corridor Multimodal Corridor Pedestrian/Bicycle Figure 4.1 With TSPLOST: Level 1 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 46 October 2016 Project ID Project Name Project DeScrIPtIoN oPINIoN of Probable caPItal coSt I-2 Cogburn Road/Bethany Bend Intersection Improvements New westbound right-turn lane to be constructed by developer . Potential signal upgrades and/or extension of existing turn lanes to address school traffic. Assumes $50,000 for signal mods (MIL- 040) . $150,000 I-5A Hopewell Road/ Francis Road/ Cogburn Road Intersection Improvements Construct signal with detectors to meter eastbound approach when northbound approach queue reaches detector (MIL- 040) . $50,000 I-17A Windward Parkway/Webb Road Intersection Improvements Construct channelized northbound right turn and modify intersection controls (MIL-040) .$200,000 I-17B Windward Parkway/Webb Road Intersection Improvements Construct dedicated left turn lanes with protected permissive signal control for eastbound Cogburn Road and westbound Webb Road (MIL-040). $440,000 I-20 Freemanville Road/Providence Road Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements will include a roundabout and is currently under design .$866,000 I-22 Mid Broadwell Road/Charlotte Drive Intersection Improvements Construct geometric realignments to redistribute traffic to the NE Crabapple Connector via Charlotte Drive and to improve sight distance (MIL-040) . $100,000 I-24A Hopewell Road/Redd Road Quick Fix Intersection Improvements Separate left and right turns on Redd Rd .$220,000 B-1 Bicycle Priority Network Install striping and signing along Bicycle Priority Network .$710,000 PB-12 Big Creek Greenway Connection Construct a multiuse trail connection to Big Creek Greenway .$900,000 PRG-2 Roadway Paving and Reconstruction Roadway paving and reconstruction (MIL-039) .$3,000,000 PRG-3 Bridge Repair and Replacement Bridge repair and replacement (MIL-041) .$792,000 PRG-4 Roadway Paving and Reconstruction Roadway paving and reconstruction $20,000,000 PRG-5 Bridge Repair and Replacement Bridge repair and replacement $3,000,000 PRG-6 Pedestrian Improvements Pedestrian improvements (MIL-042) .$1,000,000 Project Level II Level II consists of the available general fund dollars allocated to transportation across 10 years, 15% of the TSPLOST funding (based on possible higher revenues from the tax), and currently funded projects . Level II has 15 projects and has a $35 million funding value. Within this level, there are intersection, bicycle, pedestrian/bicycle, TSPLOST funded maintenance projects, and Milton-funded maintenance projects . (Figure 4 .2) . AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E NDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDB A T E S VIL L E R D WEBB RD GREEN RD HICKORYFLATRD COGBURNRDF R A N C IS R D NEWPROVID ENCE R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERDBIRMINGHAMRD KINGRDW O OD RD COX R D BETHANYRDPHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDS TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D B-1 PB-1 RPB-1 PB-4 I-20 I-17 I-22 I-5A I-2 I-24A IfTSTier Intersection IfTSTier Pedestrian/Bicycle IfTSTier Bicycle Priority Network City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Level 2 Project Type Intersection Pedestrian/Bicycle MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 47City of Milton AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E NDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDB A T E S VIL L E R D WEBB RD GREEN RD HICKORYFLATRD COGBURNRDF R A N C IS R D NEWPROVID ENCE R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERDBIRMINGHAMRD KINGRDW O OD RD COX R D BETHANYRDPHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDS TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D B-1 PB-1 RPB-1 PB-4 I-20 I-17 I-22 I-5A I-2 I-24A IfTSTier Intersection IfTSTier Pedestrian/Bicycle IfTSTier Bicycle Priority Network City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Level 2 Project Type Intersection Pedestrian/Bicycle Figure 4.2 With TSPLOST: Level II MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 48 October 2016 Project ID Project Name Project DeScrIPtIoN oPINIoN of Probable caPItal coSt I-5B Hopewell Road/ Francis Road/ Cogburn Road Intersection Improvements Construct channelized northbound right turn . $375,000 I-14 Taylor Road/Batesville Road Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements may include turn lanes and additional signage .$254,000 I-18 Hagood Road/Bethany Way Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements may include turn lanes, traffic signal, roundabout, or modified intersection controls.$254,000 I-23 Thompson Road/Redd Road Intersection Improvements Construct eastbound left-turn lane on Redd Road . Advanced warning signage for Thompson Road intersection recommended on eastbound and westbound Redd Road . Intersection improvements may include pavement leveling and geometric improvements . $274,000 I-24B Hopewell Road/Redd Road Intersection Improvements Roundabout or traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis .$931,000 RPB-3 Webb Road Extension Construct a new roadway and sidewalk connection on Webb Road Extension beginning at Morris Road . Include bicycle lanes and/or multiuse path in the design of the new roadway . A possible connection to the Big Creek Greenway may be available . $13,970,000 PB-2 Crabapple Loop Trail Install a new trail on Crabapple Loop Trail from Arnold Mill Road to Birmingham Highway .$5,660,000 PB-6 Bell Memorial Loop Trail Install a new trail on Bell Memorial Loop Trail from Hopewell Road/Cogburn Road to Francis Road/Thompson Road .$2,751,000 PRG-9 Roadway Paving and Reconstruction Roadway paving and reconstruction $5,000,000 PRG-10 Bridge Repair and Replacement Bridge repair and replacement $6,500,000 PRG-11 Intersection and Corridor Improvements Intersection and corridor improvements $3,350,000 Project Level III Level III is contingent upon an alternate funding opportunity, such as a continuation of the proposed TSPLOST . The revenue from this alternate funding source could fund these projects . Level III has 11 projects at a $42 million funding value. Within this level, there are intersection, bicycle/pedestrian, multimodal corridor, and general future maintenance projects (Figure 4 .3) AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E NDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S VIL L E R D BETHANYRDM O RRISRDWEBB RD GREEN RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C IS R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD M A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI NGH A M RD S TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D PB-2 RPB-3 PB-6 I-18 I-14 I-23 I-5B I-24B IfTSTier Intersection IfTSTier Roadway Corridor IfTSTier, Second_ID Multimodal Corridor IfTSTier Pedestrian/Bicycle IfTSTier 3 City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Level 3 Project Type Intersection Roadway Corridor Multimodal Corridor Pedestrian/Bicycle MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 49City of Milton AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E NDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S VIL L E R D BETHANYRDM O RRISRDWEBB RD GREEN RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C IS R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD M A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI NGH A M RD S TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D PB-2 RPB-3 PB-6 I-18 I-14 I-23 I-5B I-24B IfTSTier Intersection IfTSTier Roadway Corridor IfTSTier, Second_ID Multimodal Corridor IfTSTier Pedestrian/Bicycle IfTSTier 3 City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Level 3 Project Type Intersection Roadway Corridor Multimodal Corridor Pedestrian/Bicycle Figure 4.3 With TSPLOST: Level III MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 50 October 2016 Project ID Project Name Project DeScrIPtIoN oPINIoN of Probable caPItal coSt R-2 Hopewell Road Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e.g., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Hopewell Road, from Francis Road to Hamby Road . $2,120,000 R-4 Hopewell Road/Hamby Road Widen Hopewell Road and Hamby Road from two to four lanes from Forsyth County line at Hopewell Road to Forsyth County at Hamby Road . $13,450,000 R-9 Hopewell Road Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e.g., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Hopewell Road from the City of Alpharetta to Redd Road . $2,900,000 R-11 Birmingham Road/Hickory Flat Road Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e.g., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Birmingham Road/Hickory Flat Road from Cherokee County to Hopewell Road . $3,440,000 R-12 Freemanville Road Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e.g., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Freemanville Road from Providence Road to Birmingham Road . $3,340,000 RPB-2 Cumming Hwy-Deerfield Connector Install a new roadway connection and sidewalks on Cumming Highway-Deerfield Connector from SR 9 to Deerfield Parkway. Include bicycle lanes in the design of the new roadway . $5,350,000 P-1 Various Sidewalk Gap Projects Install new sidewalk to fill in gaps within a half-mile of schools and active parks .$10,638,000 PB-3 Bethany Bend Install a new trail on Bethany Bend from Hopewell Road to Cogburn Road .$4,009,000 PB-5 Crapapple Connector Install a new off-road trail on Crabapple Connector from New Providence Road to Crabapple Road .$4,735,000 PB-7 Providence Road Install a new trail on Providence Road from Mayfield Road to Freemanville Road .$5,010,000 PB-8 Lake Providence Trail Install a new off-road trail on Lake Providence Trail from Bethany Bend to Providence Road .$1,853,000 PB-9 Bethany Rd/Redd Road Install a new trail on Bethany Road from Providence Road to Hopewell Road .$1,768,000 PB-10 Hopewell-Francis Trail Install a new off-road trail on Hopewell-Francis Trail from Francis Road to Birmingham Road .$8,771,000 PB-11 Bethany Way Install trail on Bethany Way from Hagood Road to Hopewell Road .$1,274,000 Project Level IV Level IV projects are aspiration projects in that they do not have a specific funding source allocated to them, nor is there an alternate funding source specified. These projects are still considered priority projects to improve the transportation system, but without additional funding these projects are long-term in nature . Level IV has 14 projects at an approximately $68.7 million funding value. Within this level, there are pedestrian, pedestrian/ bicycle, roadway corridor, and multimodal corridor projects (Figure 4 .4) . AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E NDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S VIL L E R D BETHANYRDM O RRISRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C IS R D N E W P R O V I D E N C E RD BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TTHOMPSONRDCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD M A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDMOUNTAIN RD LACKEYRDBIRMI NGH A M RD S TA T E R T E 4 00R A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDH AMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOK RDR-4 R-9 R-2 R-12 R-11 PB-5 PB-7 RPB-2 P-1 PB-9 PB-3 PB-11 PB-8 PB-10 IfTSTier Roadway Corridor IfTSTier, Second_ID Multimodal Corridor IfTSTier Pedestrian/Bicycle IfTSTier 4 City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Level 4 Project Type Roadway Corridor Multimodal Corridor Pedestrian/Bicycle MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 51City of Milton AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E NDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S VIL L E R D BETHANYRDM O RRISRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C IS R D N E W P R O V I D E N C E RD BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TTHOMPSONRDCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD M A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDMOUNTAIN RD LACKEYRDBIRMI NGH A M RD S TA T E R T E 4 00R A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDH AMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOK RDR-4 R-9 R-2 R-12 R-11 PB-5 PB-7 RPB-2 P-1 PB-9 PB-3 PB-11 PB-8 PB-10 IfTSTier Roadway Corridor IfTSTier, Second_ID Multimodal Corridor IfTSTier Pedestrian/Bicycle IfTSTier 4 City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Level 4 Project Type Roadway Corridor Multimodal Corridor Pedestrian/Bicycle Figure 4.4 With TSPLOST: Level IV MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 52 October 2016 GDOT Project Level I As discussed in the Funding section of this report, GDOT Level I projects are already under development and funded by the Georgia Department of Transportation . These projects are located along state routes . However, Morris Road at Webb Road (I-12) is considered an off-system safety GDOT project. The costs of the projects will not impact the City of Milton general fund or other available transportation funding sources . GDOT Level I has 2 projects at an $28 million funding value. Within this level, there is both an intersection and a roadway corridor project . The first project in this level is Morris Road at Webb Road Intersection Improvements (I-12), where a roundabout or traffic signal have been identified as potential improvements. This project could be impacted by other projects, such as the Webb Road Extension (RPB-3) over SR 400 and the widening of McGinnis Ferry Road and Morris Road from two to four lanes (R-7) . The second project is the widening of SR 9 (Cumming Highway) from the City of Alpharetta to Forsyth County . This project was also recommended in the 2009 CTP and will have a substantial impact on traffic flow in the North Fulton County area. Being a parallel facility to SR 400, the project could relieve some congestion from that facility (Figure 4 .5) . Project ID Project Name Project DeScrIPtIoN oPINIoN of Probable caPItal coSt I-12 Morris Road/Webb Road Intersection Improvements Roundabout or traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis (PI #0015198) .$1,327,000 R-5 Cumming Highway (SR 9)Widen SR 9 (North Main Street/Cumming Highway) from Mayfield Road to Forsyth County (2009 CTP). (PI #0007838)$32,000,000 AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S VIL L E R D BETHANYRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD M A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI NGH A M RD S TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D R-5 I-12 IfTSTier Intersection IfTSTier Roadway Corridor City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary GDOT Level 1 Project Type Intersection Roadway Corridor MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 53City of Milton AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S VIL L E R D BETHANYRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD M A Y F IELDRDKINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI NGH A M RD S TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D R-5 I-12 IfTSTier Intersection IfTSTier Roadway Corridor City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary GDOT Level 1 Project Type Intersection Roadway Corridor Figure 4.5 GDOT Level I MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 54 October 2016 GDOT Project Level II As discussed in the Funding section of this report, GDOT Level II projects are proposed projects that would be funded predominantly by the Georgia Department of Transportation . These projects are located along state routes . GDOT Level II has 11 projects at an approximately $35 .6 million funding value . GDOT District 7 is currently studying I-4, I-16, and I-25 for intersection improvements. Within this level, there are intersection and roadway corridor projects (Figure 4 .6) . Project ID Project Name Project DeScrIPtIoN oPINIoN of Probable caPItal coSt I-1 Arnold Mill Road/Cagle Road Intersection Improvements Construct eastbound left- and right-turn lanes .$457,000 I-4 Birmingham Highway/Batesville Road Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements may include turn lanes, traffic signal, or roundabout .$903,000 I-7 Arnold Mill Road/Ranchette Road Intersection Improvements Construct southbound left-turn lane for Arnold Mill Road . Advanced warning signage for cross-street recommended . Separate left and right turns on Ranchette Road . $455,000 I-9 Birmingham Highway/Dorris Road Intersection Improvements Construct northbound left-turn lane and southbound right-turn lane .$574,000 I-15 Arnold Mill Road/Green Road Intersection Improvements Install new traffic signal and coordination with other signals on the SR 140 corridor (MIL-009) .$1,010,000 I-16 Crabapple Road/Green Road Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements may include turn lanes, traffic signal, or roundabout . This project may be considered a quick response project for turn lanes and a traffic signal by GDOT. $254,000 I-25 Birmingham Highway/Birmingham Road Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements that may include turn lanes, traffic signal or roundabout .$1,500,000 R-1 Birmingham Highway Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e.g., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Birmingham Highway from Crabapple Road to New Providence Road . $3,090,000 R-3 Birmingham Highway Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e.g., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Birmingham Highway from New Providence Road to Birmingham Road . $3,600,000 R-6 Arnold Mill Road Widen SR 140 from two to four lanes from Arnold Mill Road to Rucker Road (PI #0013890) .$98,000,000 R-10 Crabapple Road Operational and/or safety improvements . Remove right- turn deceleration lanes . Construct landscaped median with pedestrian refuge . $230,000 * Please note that Project I-15 is in Level I of the Project List and will be funded by the City of Milton if the TSPLOST gains voter approval . AB372 AB9AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S V IL L E RD BETHANYRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D BROADWELL RDDEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD KINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI NGH A M RD S TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D R-10 R-1 R-6 R-3 I-4 I-1 I-15 I-7 I-9 I-16 I-25 NoTSTier Intersection IfTSTier Roadway Corridor City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary GDOT Level 2 Project Type Intersection Roadway Corridor MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 55City of Milton AB372 AB9AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S V IL L E RD BETHANYRDWEBB RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C I S R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D BROADWELL RDDEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD KINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI NGH A M RD S TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D R-10 R-1 R-6 R-3 I-4 I-1 I-15 I-7 I-9 I-16 I-25 NoTSTier Intersection IfTSTier Roadway Corridor City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary GDOT Level 2 Project Type Intersection Roadway Corridor Figure 4.6 GDOT Level II MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 56 October 2016 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Intersection improvements may require additional right- of-way and include turn lanes, widened shoulders, roundabouts, signals, safety, and multimodal improvements, to enhance safety and operations . ROADWAY WIDENING Widening the laneage of key existing roadways may enhance traffic flow. ROADWAY LANES/ SHOULDERS Adding turn lanes and widened shoulders may enhance the traffic flow and safety along key existing roadway corridors . PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS New pedestrian connections consisting of sidewalks and trails may provide better connectivity to key destinations and activity centers, and provide more walkable environments . ROADWAY SAFETY Intersections and corridors identified as having a higher risk of crashes may benefit from enhancements such as widened shoulders, installation of guardrail/ signage, and the addition of turn lanes . NEW ROADWAY CONNECTIONS Adding new roadway connections within activity centers and near key destinations may enhance traffic flow, vehicular connectivity, as well as pedestrian and bicycle connectivity . City of Milton Budget Exercise Summary of Projects by Type At the beginning of the CONNECTION plan, the community was asked to rank transportation priorities in order of importance . This was done through an online survey, community events, and a public meeting . Of the eight possibilities, the community ranked the top five priorities in the following order: Vehicular Travel Sidewalks/Bikes/Trails Connectivity Transportation Safety Maintenance/Roadway Repair These priorities were considered during the Recommendations phase of the project . During the second round of public input, the community was asked to allocate their hypothetical budget to different project types that corresponded to the priority areas listed above . The chart shows the rankings of the community, with the heaviest focus on intersection improvements . MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 57City of Milton When considering the TSPLOST funding scenario, and specifically the top two Levels (Level I – TSPLOST Projects and Level II – Additional Milton Programs), the combined $72 million are subdivided as follows: Intersection improvements = 32% Roadway widening = 9% Roadway lanes/shoulders (including resurfacing) = 34% Pedestrian connections = 12% Roadway safety = 8% New roadway connections = 5% This balance of projects compares quite well with the results of the budgeting exercise completed by the public . The largest differences exist between the roadway widenings and the roadway lanes/shoulders . The roadway lanes/ shoulders group also includes roadway repair and repaving, which accounts for some of its size . Roadway widenings from the 2009 CTP were included in the 2016 update where possible; however, no additional roadway widenings were added to the list during this plan . The currently proposed widening projects are focused on the outskirts of the City to funnel traffic along the outsides, while the major roadway projects within the interior of the City are focused on intersection improvements and key operational upgrades . If the TSPLOST does not pass and the No TSPLOST funding scenario is considered, the balance of projects changes substantially . The opportunity for the City to conduct roadway widenings and new connections is greatly diminished, and basic roadway maintenance requires nearly 60% of the budget . MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 58 October 2016 CONCEPTS Following the scoring, prioritization, and filtering of projects, four intersections were chosen to be investigated further (Figure 4 .7) . All four intersections underwent a technical analysis that utilized Synchro, SIDRA, or Vissim software to test different alternatives and compare them with the current conditions . Once a preferred alternative was selected for each intersection, concepts were developed . The four subject intersections include the following: Mayfield Road at Charlotte Drive and Charlotte Drive Extension (I-3/RPB-1) 1 Hopewell Road At Cogburn Road/ Francis Road (I-5A) 2 Hopewell Road at Hamby Road (I-8) 3 Hopewell Road at Thompson Road (I-10/I-11) 4 The full results of the intersections analyses are located in the Appendix of this report . AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S VIL L E R D BETHANYRDWEBB RD GREEN RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C IS R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD KINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI NGH A M RD S TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D RPB-1 I-10 I-11 I-5A I-8 I-3 Concept Intersection IfTSTier, Second_ID Multimodal Corridor City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Concept Projects Intersection Multimodal Corridor MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 59City of Milton AB372 AB9 AB140 AB400 B ETHANY B E ND MORRISRDHOPEWELLRDP R O VID E NCERDCOGBURNRDB A T E S VIL L E R D BETHANYRDWEBB RD GREEN RD HICKORYFLATRD F R A N C IS R D NEW P R O V ID E N C E R D BIRMINGHAM HW YCUM M I N G H W YTAYLORRD ARNOLD M I LLRDHE N D E RSO N R D DEER F IE L D PKWYDIN S M O R E RD N . M A I N S TCOWART RDREDD RD MCGINNIS FERRYRDFREEMANVILLERD KINGRDW O OD RD COX R D PHILLIPS C I R BRITTLERDTHOMPSONRDMOUNTAINRD LACKEYRDBIRMI NGH A M RD S TA T E R T E 4 00HAGOODRDR A N C H ETTE RD NE WBULLPENRDHAMBY RD E.BLUFFR D N IX R D D ORRISRD WESTBROOKR D RPB-1 I-10 I-11 I-5A I-8 I-3 Concept Intersection IfTSTier, Second_ID Multimodal Corridor City Boundary Study Network Study Road Study Road Local Road Boundary Road Boundary Road Parks OpenData_SDEPUB_SDE_Parks Cities City Boundary Concept Projects Intersection Multimodal Corridor Figure 4.7 Concept Projects MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 60 October 2016 MAYFIELD ROAD AT CHARLOTTE DRIVE AND CHARLOTTE DRIVE EXTENSION The Charlotte Drive extension from Mayfield Road to Birmingham Highway (RPB-1) is a new roadway connection proposed to enhance the vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle flow through the Crabapple area by creating a new route and relieving the Mayfield Road at Birmingham Highway intersection. The project is also expected to aid the continued redevelopment of the Crabapple Area based on the previously completed Crabapple LCI and the ongoing Crabapple Master Plan . The opportunity exists to include on-street parking along the new connection to benefit the proposed mixed-use development, which may have street level retail . The proposed intersection enhancements for Mayfield Road at Charlotte Drive are contingent upon the Charlotte Drive extension and the associated additional traffic volume resulting from it. The intersection was studied in both Synchro and SIDRA for traffic signal and geometric enhancements, as well as a roundabout . The analysis showed that a one-lane roundabout will perform efficiently in moving traffic to and through the Crabapple area and is consistent with the Crabapple Master Plan . Charlotte Drive Extension �ay�el� � o a �Char lo tte D r iveBirmingham HighwayFigure 4.8 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 61City of Milton HOPEWELL ROAD AT COGBURN ROAD/ FRANCIS ROAD The Hopewell Road at Cogburn Road/Francis Road intersection currently operates as a roundabout . During the evening peak hour, there is congestion in the northbound direction due to heavy volumes in both the eastbound and northbound directions . At times, the queuing from this northbound congestion impacts the Cogburn Road at Bethany Bend intersection to the south. Because of the conflicting movements in the eastbound and northbound direction, operational improvements over geometric improvements were the first to investigate. The intersection, along with the Cogburn Road at Bethany Bend intersection, was analyzed in Vissim to study existing conditions and what other improvements may enhance the existing roundabout . The first proposed improvement to the roundabout is the addition of a traffic signal to meter the eastbound volumes to allow for more gaps for the northbound volume to flow through the roundabout (Project ID: I-5A) . This improvement requires a detector along the northbound approach lane and the eastbound approach lane. The traffic signal would be located at the eastbound entrance to the roundabout . The second proposed improvement to the roundabout is the addition of a northbound right-turn slip lane from Cogburn Road to eastbound Francis Road (Project ID: I-5B) . Currently, 16 .5% of the northbound approach volume is turning right from Cogburn Road to eastbound Francis Road . This improvement would allow for the free-flow movement to Francis Road and would relieve some of the queue that occurs from the northbound congestion . This improvement would further relieve the congestion and minimize the impact of a possible queue on the Cogburn Road at Bethany Bend intersection . Additionally, many comments were received during public involvement that stated landscape improvements should take place inside and around the roundabout . Landscaping could be a short-term project or happen concurrently with Project I-5A . Figure 4.9 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 62 October 2016 HOPEWELL ROAD AT HAMBY ROAD The Hopewell Road at Hamby Road intersection was studied in both Synchro and SIDRA for a traffic signal and geometric enhancements or a roundabout . The intersection is currently an unsignalized intersection . The SIDRA analysis showed that the southbound movement along Hopewell Road requires an additional lane in the roundabout . The concept therefore includes a two-lane segment along the west side of the roundabout and a one-lane segment for the rest of the roundabout . The proposed roundabout could be impacted in the future by the proposed widening of Hopewell Road and Hamby Road from two to four lanes from the Forsyth County line at Hopewell Road to Forsyth County line at Hamby Road (Project ID: R-4) . This project is proposed to continue the flow of traffic from the north away from the interior sections of Milton and instead keep heavy volumes of traffic along the perimeter of the City. At this intersection, traffic would flow to and from the north leg of Hopewell Road to and from Hamby Road toward Forsyth County . Figure 5.0 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 63City of Milton HOPEWELL ROAD AT THOMPSON ROAD The Hopewell Road at Thompson Road intersections are currently not aligned and are both stop-controlled . There are sight distance and speed issues that impact vehicles turning onto Hopewell Road from both legs of Thompson Road . The intersections were studied in both Synchro and SIDRA for geometric enhancements, coordinated traffic signals, and a roundabout with realignment of both legs of Thompson Road . Because of the current intersection geometries and the adjacent properties that could be affected by the project, an ellipse-about concept was designed for the intersections . This concept required the removal of a driveway to Hopewell Road as well as a relocation of a driveway to Thompson Road for the property on the southwest corner of the intersection . The concept is a one-lane ellipse-about with an eastbound to southbound right-turn slip lane. While the footprint of the concept is large, it minimizes the right-of-way impact on the surrounding properties . While the roundabout concept is shown as an option, coordinated traffic signals could be constructed without realignment of both legs of Thompson Road and would provide an adequate level-of-service as another option . A comparison of the costs, impacts, operations and public input of the alternatives would be weighed in a future concept study . Figure 5.1 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 64 October 2016 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 65City of Milton Chapter 6: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS Five-Year Action Plan Next Steps for Milton MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 66 October 2016 FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN The Five-Year Action Plan outlines the appropriate steps for the City of Milton staff and elected leadership to implement the recommendations of this Plan and identifies key partners for success. It is not expected that every item listed will be completed over the next several years; however, processes should be initiated to best take advantage of the momentum gained with the development of the CONNECTION Plan . The Five-Year Action Plan and the project advancement plan should be re-evaluated based on the results of the TSLPOST referendum . The table shows project numbers and funding levels for relevant projects . For policy action items, no number or level is shown . In addition to the action item and description, a champion is listed (most often Milton) as well as partners who may assist Milton in the completion of the item . If the TSPLOST passes, it will be important for Milton to be prepared for project implementation . Projects in the Tier I and Tier II TSPLOST lists should be advanced for design if not yet initiated, and those already with design and relevant public processes completed should be advanced for right-of-way acquisition . Milton may want to coordinate with other North Fulton Cities on project implementation and oversight if the TSPLOST is successful . NEXT STEPS FOR MILTON Many great transportation opportunities exist for the City of Milton . The North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan is currently underway, and the recommendations identified in the CONNECTION Plan will be elevated for consideration in the larger countywide study . This is particularly important for cross-jurisdictional projects that will require partnership with neighboring Cities as well as larger transit improvements that involve the Cities and MARTA . More information will be known about transportation funding following the TSPLOST vote in Fulton County on November 8, 2016 . Milton has already begun to develop a plan for project implementation if the TSPLOST vote is successful and will develop a more robust delivery program . This delivery program will take into account a schedule, revenue streams, and project oversight and program management . The CONNECTION Plan positions Milton well to take advantage of these future transportation opportunities at the County and regional level . Additionally, it identifies strategies for local policy implementation that help to promote a high quality of life and reinforce the strong sense of community and place that makes Milton so unique . Recommendations identified in the CONNECTION Plan will be elevated for consideration in the larger North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan currently underway. MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 67City of Milton mIltoN coNNectIoN traNSPortatIoN PlaN - fIve year actIoN PlaN Project #Level Action Item (5-year)Description Champion Partners General Recommendations --Milton CONNECTION CTP Milton City Council and Mayor to adopt Milton CONNECTION Plan . Milton - --North Fulton CTP Work with the other North Fulton Cities and the Atlanta Regional Commission to consider the Milton CONNECTION Plan's recommended projects in the County plan . Milton North Fulton Cities, ARC --TSPLOST Provide ample information for residents to educate themselves on the TSPLOST program, the project list, and the revenue impacts to Milton . Milton Fulton County --Project Implementation Monitoring Program Milton should develop a Project Implementation Monitoring Program to track its projects, progress, and funding . Milton - Asset Management Recommendations PRG-2, PRG-4, PRG-9 Various Roadway paving and reconstruction Continue to allocate funding for roadway resurfacing, shoulder widening, and reconstruction in each year's budget . Milton - PRG-1, PRG-3, PRG-5, PRG-10 Various Gravel roads maintenance, bridge repair and replacement, stormwater management, etc . Continue to allocate funding for maintenance of gravel roads, bridges, and stormwater facilities in each year's budget . Milton - --Asset monitoring Develop an online database to track asset management items including roadway resurfacing, gravel road maintenance, bridge repair and replacement, signal upgrades, etc . Milton - Active Transportation Recommendations P-1, PRG- 6, PRG-8 II Sidewalk Priority Areas Identify key sidewalk gaps for implementation including those providing critical access to schools, parks, transit stops, and other community assets . Milton - --Standards for sidewalk and buffer widths for all areas outside of priority areas In July 2016 the City developed language to be included in land development code to ensure developers have clear guidance for sidewalk construction in front of their respective properties . Milton - B-1 -Milton Bicycle Priority Network Work with local cycling community and Milton residents to develop a wayfinding system and develop routes that are signed by route name and level of recommended rider . Milton Cyclists and North Fulton residents B-1 -Bicycle Priority Network Implementation Identify Bicycle Priority Network segments that require resurfacing and add an additional 18 inches of roadway shoulder . Add signing and striping to relevant roadway corridors . Milton Adjacent Cities/ Counties PB-1, PB-4, PB-12 -Milton Trail Network Update and validate typical sections for the overall trail network and design standards that will guide the implementation of the entire system . Then initiate design on the top trail segments included in Levels I and II . Milton - --Bicycle Public Education Campaign Develop an education campaign focused on proper accommodation of cyclists on public roadways and trails . Milton Cyclists and North Fulton residents MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 68 October 2016 mIltoN coNNectIoN traNSPortatIoN PlaN - fIve year actIoN PlaN Transit Recommendations --MARTA existing bus service and transit amenities Work with MARTA to identify opportunities for revising current bus service or creating a new route to service the Crabapple area within Milton and to improve key amenities along existing and future routes . Milton MARTA --North Fulton CTP and long- term transit Work with MARTA to understand the current CONNECT 400 study and to explore opportunities to improve transit service throughout all of North Fulton during the completion of the NFCTP . Milton North Fulton Cities, MARTA --Land Use and Transportation Coordination Build upon existing zoning and overlay districts to concentrate transit supportive land uses and densities in areas like Deerfield and Crabapple, helping to support transit and maintain a more rural development pattern throughout other areas of Milton . Milton North Fulton Cities Access Management Recommendations --Access Management Policy Develop policy that guides future development access locations, medians, and signal spacing requirements following the lead of the 2009 Access Management Plan . Milton - Intersection and Corridor Recommendations Various I, II Level I and II projects - design For Level I and II projects that have not yet been designed, initiate design particularly for Level I projects . Milton (or GDOT when relevant) GDOT when relevant Various I, II Level I and II projects - right- of-way acquisition following design For Level I and II projects already designed but for which right-of-way has not yet been acquired, initiate right-of-way acquisition . Milton (or GDOT when relevant) GDOT when relevant Various I Level I projects - construction Initiate construction for Level I projects as funding becomes available . Milton (or GDOT when relevant) GDOT when relevant NOTE: Not all projects will begin within the 5 years, but this provides a menu of options from which the City can select . Some recommendations depend on the passage of TSPLOST . Project advancement should be re-evaluated if TSPLOST does not pass . MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX Public Involvement Summaries Public Involvement Results Project Evaluation Results TSPLOST Funding Scenario Project List Intersection/Corridor Analysis and Modeling City Budget Data McGinnis Ferry Road Proposed Interchange Analysis No Text MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Involvement Summaries Page 1 of 6 City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Public Involvement Summary Effective community engagement provides ample opportunity for citizens to be involved in a plan development process. As an essential component of the Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan update, community stakeholders were engaged through a combination of hands-on and interactive opportunities as well as more traditional outreach tools. This method appealed to a broad public while also ensuring the inclusion of input from a wide array of stakeholders. Key Stakeholders This community-focused engagement process strategically utilized City staff and regional partners on the more intimate aspects of plan development, allowing for more time and energy to focus on engaging with the general public. Elected officials, City staff, citizens, special interest groups and business owners are among the many integral entities to take part in the CTP update. While a number of stakeholders were engaged throughout the planning process, this effort was led by three key groups: · Milton Residents & Stakeholders – members of the general public including residents, business and property owners, institutions, agencies, special interest groups and others. · Project Management Team – included City staff, the Consultant Team, the Georgia Department of Transportation and the Atlanta Regional Commission. · Milton City Council Page 2 of 6 Informing Community Members A variety of tools and techniques were used to inform the public about the CTP update, including coordination with the City of Milton Communications staff and the use of online resources and social media outlets. Outreach relied heavily upon the City’s well-established channels of communication to alert the public about the plan and opportunities to become involved. Flyers, a fact sheet and other information pertinent to understanding the process were shared with the public through the City’s existing outreach database. A City webpage dedicated to the CTP update was established early in the project timeline and served as the hub for information and documents throughout the process. Announcements, a project schedule, meeting documents were made available on the website to inform the public. The City’s active social media presence was also leveraged in an effort to reach a broad base of Milton’s residents. Page 3 of 6 Engagement Opportunities Stakeholders were engaged through a variety of means including focus group sessions; Community Kiosk Events; two community-wide surveys; and two public workshops. In all, a total of nine (9) face-to-face opportunities were available, which drew approximately 260 participants. Online engagement, discussed in sections to follow, drew over 2,150 participants. Date Time Engagement Opportunity Location August 28, 2015 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. Community Kiosk Event #1: Milton High School vs. Alpharetta High School Football Game Milton High School October 30, 2015 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. Community Kiosk Event #2: Cambridge High School vs Forsyth Central High School Football Game Cambridge High School November 18, 2015 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Public Workshop #1 Milton Public Library January 13, 2016 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Inclusionary Focus Group Meeting City of Milton February 4, 2016 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. Cycling Focus Group Meeting Olde Blind Dog Pub February 27, 2016 7:00 – 9:30 a.m. Pedestrian Focus Group Meeting Freedom Park May 7, 2016 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. Community Kiosk Event #3: Bell Memorial Park Outreach Bell Memorial Park May 7, 2016 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. Community Kiosk Event #4: Milton Hometown Jubilee Broadwell Pavilion May 10, 2016 5:00 – 7:00 p.m. Public Workshop #2 City of Milton Page 4 of 6 Community Kiosk Events Community Kiosk Events offered an alternative method for the public to learn about and provide input to the project without committing to or attending a formal public meeting or workshop. The Project Team set up kiosks at four (4) community events: · Event #1: Milton vs Alpharetta High School Football Game. The team attended the Milton vs. Alpharetta football game to begin introducing the project to the public and to collect input on the community vision for Milton. Stakeholders also learned how to remain connected to the project. · Event #2: Cambridge vs Forsyth Central High School Football Game. The team attended the Cambridge vs Forsyth Central football game to advertise the upcoming public meeting. Stakeholders were also invited to give their input on the Needs Assessment via the electronic MetroQuest survey. Information regarding how to remain connected to the project was also available. · Event #3: Outreach at Bell Memorial Park. This opportunity occurred during the Recommendations phase and coincided with Public Workshop #2. Park-goers participated in a prioritization exercise and also received information on how they could participate in the upcoming public workshop. Information regarding the second MetroQuest survey was also distributed. · Event #4: Outreach at the Milton Hometown Jubilee. The team leveraged festival attendance in the final push of the MetroQuest survey during the Recommendations phase. A prioritization exercise was available as well as information on the upcoming public workshop. A summary of each Community Kiosk Event is included in the appendix. Page 5 of 6 Focus Group Meetings Focus group meetings were held during the Existing Conditions, Current and Future Needs, and Recommendations phases. Their purpose was to gather insight from three distinct populations within Milton: · Cycling Focus Group: this session included recreational and organized enthusiasts and leveraged the very active Olde Blind Dog Cycling Club’s weekly ride and meet up as an opportunity to learn more about specific needs as related to cycling throughout Milton. · Pedestrian Focus Group: this session was coordinated to occur with the Mayor’s Run “Jog for a Cause”. This community 5K event drew a variety of interests including casual walkers, runners and others and resulted in input received from a broad cross-section of pedestrians. · Inclusionary Focus Group: this session was coordinated to occur before a regularly scheduled Milton Disability Awareness Committee meeting and encouraged participation from that group as well as Better Together to discuss mobility needs of those with disabilities and special needs. A summary of each Focus Group Meeting is included in the appendix. Meetings with the General Public Public meetings offered a more traditional venue for educating, informing and hearing from the public. Two rounds of public meetings were held over the course of the project: · Meeting #1: this session was held at the Milton Public Library at the conclusion of the Inventory of Existing Conditions phase and at the launch of the Assessment of Current and Future Needs. Participants heard a brief presentation followed by tabletop exercises designed to gather input on roadway, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian needs. The MetroQuest survey was also available via iPads during this meeting. · Meeting #2: this session was an open-house style workshop hosted at City Hall during the Recommendations phase. The open house format allowed stakeholders to drop in at any time to hear a looping, narrated presentation that provided an overview of the project and next steps, as well as, view project displays and participate in a few interactive activities. Full summaries of each public engagement opportunity can be found in the appendix. Page 6 of 6 Online Engagement Online interaction included a combination of website, social media, and survey usage including: · The project webpage which served as the central location for online project information including plan documents and meeting exhibits. · A MetroQuest survey, providing members of the community alternative ways to engage from the comfort of their home or office, timed to launch at two (2) points during the project timeline: the Vision and Goals/Needs Assessment and Recommendations phases. A full summary of the community surveys and input received is available in the appendix. · Two (2) online narrated presentations/informational videos designed to update the public on the progress of the CTP with links or direct connections to MetroQuest or a comment form/tool. City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Public Workshop #2 (Community Showcase) Tuesday, May 10, 2016 4:30 – 6:30 PM Milton City Hall The Community Showcase was designed as a drop-in meeting with interactive activities—based on the activities in the online MetroQuest survey—to gather public input on their priority intersection projects, other project ratings, budget priorities for project types, and the elements of the current transportation system that they would like to continue to build upon in the future. The activities were targeted to take roughly 20-30 minutes for participants to complete. Below includes a description of the interactive activities as well as the results from each activity at the Community Showcase. ·VIDEO: A narrated video helped get participants primed for the upcoming stations by covering the CTP process and schedule, CTP project elements completed, public outreach and feedback to date, and the development of recommended projects—on which they would be providing input during the interactive activities. o No results to report ·PROJECT PRIORITIZATION: Similar to the project prioritization activities in the online MetroQuest survey, participants prioritized and rated projects. Intersection projects were prioritized using dots that were numbered 1-5, with 1 indicating their highest priority and 5 their lowest priority (of the eight options). The eight intersections to be prioritized were Hopewell Road at Bethany Bend/Way, Freemanville Road at Birmingham Road, Cogburn Road at Bethany Road, Hopewell Road at Francis/Cogburn Road, Bethany Road at Providence Road, Hopewell Road at Hamby Road, Hopewell Road at Thompson Road, and Freemanville Road at Redd Road. Weighted values calculated for each intersection determined the ranking of intersection priorities shown below. Rank Intersection Weighted Value 1 Hopewell at Francis/Cogburn Road 49 2 Hopewell Road at Thompson Road 44 3 Hopewell Road at Bethany Bend/Way 34 4 Freemanville Road at Reed Road 24 5 Bethany Road at Providence Road 22 6 Hopewell Road at Hambry Road 21 City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Public Workshop #2 – Meeting Summary Page | 2 7 Freemanville Road at Birmingham Road 10 8 Cogburn at Bethany Road 5 o The intersection of Hopewell Road at Francis/Cogburn Road ranked #1 suggesting that it is the top priority for participants. o The Hopewell Road at Thompson Road intersection ranked #2. o The intersection at Hopewell Road at Bethany Bend/Way ranked as the third most important intersection o Freemanville Road at Reed Road ranked #4 among all intersections presented. o The Bethany Road at Providence Road intersection ranked #5. o There was less support for intersection improvements at Hopewell Road at Hambry Road, Freemanville Road at Birmingham Road, and Cogburn Road at Bethany Bend. Additional projects—categorized as either Pedestrian Projects, Corridor Projects, GDOT Corridors, and Quick Fix Intersections—were rated using a scale of 1 to 5 stars. One star indicated that the project was least favored and 5 stars was most favored. The results below include details on the projects that made up each category. o Pedestrian Projects Rank Projects Average 1 Bell Park Area Loop 2.40 2 Crabapple Area Loop 1.60 2 Providence Road/Bethany 1.60 3 Cogburn Road Connections 1.40 4 Deerfield Area Loop 1.20 § The Bell Park Area Loop project received the highest number of gold stars (8) compared to all other projects in this category, followed by the Crabapple Area Loop project (5) and both the Providence Road/Bethany and Cogburn Road Connections (both receiving 4 gold stars). The Deerfield Area Loop project received 2 gold stars § Two projects – the Bell Park Area Loop and Crabapple Area Loop – received one (1) silver star. § The Deerfield Area Loop project received one (1) green star. § The Bell Park Area Loop,Providence Road/Bethany and Cogburn Road Connections projects each received one (1) blue star. City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Public Workshop #2 – Meeting Summary Page | 3 § The Deerfield Area Loop and Providence Road/Bethany projects both received three (3) red stars while the remaining projects each received two (2) red stars. City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Public Workshop #2 – Meeting Summary Page | 4 o Corridor Projects Rank Projects Average 1 Birmingham Crossroads 2.40 2 Morris Road Widening 2.00 3 Hopewell Road/Cogburn Road 1.80 4 Freemanville Road Operations 1.60 5 Charlotte Drive Extension 0.60 §Birmingham Crossroads was the most highly supported corridor project receiving five (5) gold stars. The Hopewell Road/Cogburn Road and Freemanville Road Operations corridor projects each received four (4) gold stars while the Morris Road Widening corridor project received three (3). The Charlotte Drive Extension corridor project received two (2) gold stars. § The Morris Road Widening project received two (2) silver stars. All other projects received one (1). §Birmingham Crossroads received three (3) green stars;Morris Road,Hopewell Road/Cogburn Road, and Freemanville Road Operations each received two (2) green stars; and Charlotte Drive Extension received no green stars. § The Morris Road Widening project received three (3) blue stars; Birmingham Crossroads received two (2) blue stars; both the Hopewell Road/Cogburn Road and Freemanville Road Operations corridor projects received one (1) blue star; and Charlotte Drive Extension received no blue stars. § Two corridor projects –Hopewell Road/Cogburn Road and Birmingham Crossroads – received one (1) red star. o GDOT Projects Rank Projects Average 1 SR 372 (Alternative A)2.00 2 SR 140 (Alternative A)1.80 2 SR 140 (Alternative B)1.80 3 SR 372 (Alternative B)1.40 §SR 140 (Alternative A)was the most highly supported GDOT project receiving six (6) gold stars; both SR 140 (Alternative B) and SR 372 (Alternative A) received four (4) gold stars; and SR 372 (Alternative B) received three (3) gold stars. §SR 140 (Alternative B)received the most silver star votes (4); both SR 372 (Alternative A)and SR 372 (Alternative B)received three (3) silver stars and SR 140 (Alternative A)received two (2). City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Public Workshop #2 – Meeting Summary Page | 5 § GDOT project SR 372 (Alternative A) received two (2) green votes followed by SR 140 (Alternative A)with one (1). §SR 140 (Alternative B) and 372 (Alternatives A & B)all received one (1) blue star. None of the GDOT Corridor projects received red stars. o Quick Fix Intersections Rank Projects Average 1 Thompson Road at Redd Road 1.80 2 Cogburn Road at Webb Road 1.60 3 Mid Broadwell Road at Charlotte Road 1.20 4 Hagood Road at Bethany Way 1.00 5 Taylor Road at Batesville Road 0.40 §Thompson Road at Redd Road received the most support with six (6) gold stars, followed by Cogburn Road at Webb Road (4 gold stars) and Mid Broadwell Road at Charlotte Drive (3 gold stars). §Hagood Road at Bethany Way received two (2) silver stars, followed by both Cogburn Road at Webb Road and Mid Broadwell Road at Charlotte Drive with one (1) silver star. §Thompson Road at Redd Road received two (2) green stars while all other Quick Fix Intersection projects received one (1). §Cogburn Road at Webb Road received two (2) green stars, while all other Quick Fix Intersection projects received one (1). § None of the Quick Fix Intersection projects received red stars. ·BUDGETING: Similar to the budgeting slide in the online MetroQuest survey, participants allocated funds into project-type “buckets”: New Roadway Connections, Roadway Lanes/Shoulders, Roadway Widening, Intersection Improvements, Pedestrian Connections, and Roadway Safety. Each participant was given Milton money—ten $10 bills—to place into buckets that matched the project types they felt were most important for the city. Results from the budgeting activity show that Intersection Improvements is the most important project type among participants, followed by Roadway Safety and Roadway Widening. The full list of options and number of bills received is shown below: o Intersection Improvements – 29 o Roadway Safety – 28 o Roadway Widening – 26 o New Roadway Connections – 23 o Pedestrian Connections – 21 o Roadway Lanes/Shoulders – 13 City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Public Workshop #2 – Meeting Summary Page | 6 ·PASSPORT RESPONSE:As participants made their way through these exercises, they completed a “passport” they were given at the registration desk. For each activity completed, they earned a completion sticker. In addition, they were asked to provide the same participant input requested in the online MetroQuest survey: Age, Home Zip, Work Zip, and Employment Status. On the back of the passport, there was a prompt for them to respond to: “What do you love about transportation CONNECTIONs in Milton that you want the CTP to build upon?” This free-response component enabled participants to provide input on the great things the city’s transportation system already does that need to continue with and be enhanced by the CTP’s recommendations. Passport responses are captured in the following bullets: o Where are the 25 year recommendations? We need to start the process to get regional corridors on the TIP. It will take 10 – 20 years to accomplish. Need more quick fixes and traffic signals. Need to see high accident/correctable locations. Need more regional solutions with Cherokee and Forsyth Counties o Roundabouts o Keep adding and promoting sidewalks and trail connections, around destinations, parks, schools, neighborhoods, connecting people to places. Keep our character. Thank you! o I like the ability for local residents to give feedback on priorities. o It is great that stakeholder input is always welcome. o Trails throughout Crabapple that connect to the neighborhoods. A mini Beltline o I am in favor of roundabouts, left turn lanes, sidewalks/trails, wider shoulders, not lights. Can existing lights go to flashing during very low flow (night)? o That the City is getting resident input to help determine what improvements they would like. I also appreciate that the City is trying to include the desired lifestyle/recreation needs of residents, such as biking and horseback riding. o Focus on keeping cars moving during peak hours o I would like them to improve the roundabout at Hopewell/Frances! o Build more sidewalks for schools. o Roundabouts! o Roundabouts – great. o Roundabouts & CFIs o Greater notification of meetings and meetings with reps that allow us to express concerns and suggestions. Other input received: · Intersections to improve not on list: o Bethany Bend & Morris o Birmingham Hwy & Birmingham Rd City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Public Workshop #2 – Meeting Summary Page | 7 o Birmingham Hwy & Batesville Rd · Widen regional corridor: o Rucker Rd from SR 9 to Crabapple Rd o Windward Pkwy from SR 9 to end · Extend North Point Parkway to future MARTA park & ride lot north of Windward. It should have a separate entrance and exit ramps off 400 like North Springs Station · Need future right of way plan for roads to be widened thus restoring development within that future right-of-way. Add to zoning and development code. City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Community Kiosk Event #3: Bell Memorial Park May 7, 2016 | 1:00 – 3:00 PM Bell Memorial Park Project Management Team Sara Leaders, City of Milton Robert Binder, Kimley-Horn & Associates Jen Price, Sycamore Consulting, Inc. Summary The project team hosted an informational kiosk at Bell Memorial Park during several ongoing sporting events. Materials at the kiosk included an interactive exercise that invited participants to rank eight intersection projects. A quarter page handout was also available that provided information about the newly launched MetroQuest survey and upcoming public open house. A total of 12 individuals either asked questions or participated in the interactive exercise. Some of the comments and questions asked during the outreach event include: · Traffic at Hickory Flat backs up to Birmingham Cross Road during the morning peak o Is there an opportunity to do a round-about here? o The traffic at the Cherokee County line is due to their residents commuting to the Milton area. · Hopewell/Francis/Cogburn could use some aesthetic improvements to this round-about such as trees, greenery. Pedestrian improvements are also needed. · More sidewalks are needed throughout Milton. Subdivisions have sidewalks that stop and it is hard for runners and pedestrians to connect from one neighborhood to the next. · No connectivity within newly build subdivisions; it is all cul-de-sacs. There is no way to connect without leaving the neighborhood. · Some land use/development seems ‘choppy’ and piecemeal with some uses like agriculture and farming seeming out of place. · The development of new housing needs to slow down. It seems to be moving too fast. · North of Cambridge High School there are 27 new homes being built. This seems like too many for that area. · Freemanville Rd at Redd: very high traffic speeds; trafic calming is needed. · Finish the sidewalks from Freemanville Rd to the elementary school. Children should be able to walk the less than one mile route to school. · Providence at Freemanville Rd at the 4-way stop, traffic backs up to Bethany (from 4:30 – 5:30 p.m.) City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Community Kiosk Event #4: Milton Hometown Jubilee May 7, 2016 | 4:00 – 6:00 PM Broadwell Pavilion Project Management Team Sara Leaders, City of Milton Robert Binder, Kimley-Horn & Associates Jen Price, Sycamore Consulting, Inc. Summary The project team hosted an informational kiosk at the second annual Milton Hometown Jubilee at Broadwell Pavilion. Materials at the kiosk included two interactive exercises that invited participants to rank eight intersection projects as well as to prioritize projects in four distinct categories (Pedestrian Projects, Corridor Projects, GDOT Projects, and Quick Fix Intersections). A quarter page handout was also available that provided information about the newly launched MetroQuest survey and upcoming public open house. More than 60 individuals either asked questions or participated in the interactive exercise. Some of the comments and questions asked during the outreach event include: · The round-about at Mayfield does not operate properly. It is too small. Larger trucks cannot fit and should not be allowed on smaller, interior roads. · Sidewalks are needed on Mayfield Road near the schools. · Consider making builders/developers put in turn lanes as a part of new construction. · Hopewell at Birmingham Construction –Why is the construction taking so long? · At Birmingham and Batesville, traffic backs up to the round-about and sometimes farther. · Hopewell at Redd Road: there are a lot of left turns. Could a storage lane be added for left turns? · Crabapple at Green Road – Intersection improvements needed · Crabapple Chase: make it safer for cyclists e0i sj�)jf oej 7b"v 0 No Text MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Involvement Results MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN INterSectIoN ParkS PublIc meetINg metroQueSt overall raNkINg Hopewell Road at Bethany Bend/Way 126 34 1990 2150 1 Cogburn at Bethany Road 44 5 1550 1599 2 Freemanville Road at Birmingham Road 90 10 1237 1337 3 Hopewell at Francis/Cogburn Road 41 49 1223 1313 4 Hopewell Road at Thompson Road 47 44 1195 1286 5 Freemanville Road at Redd Road 57 24 863 944 6 Bethany Road at Providence Road 67 22 833 922 7 Hopewell Road at Hamby Road 85 21 647 753 8 TOTAL RESPONSES 557 209 9538 10304 Priority Rankings Parks/Public Meeting/MetroQuest PeDeStrIaN ProjectS ParkS PublIc meetINg metroQueSt overall raNkINg Crabapple Area Loop 70 16 2299 2385 1 Bell Park Area Loop 25 48 2015 2088 2 Providence Road/Bethany 35 31 1835 1901 3 Cogburn Road Connections 20 25 1744 1789 4 Deerfield Area Loop 15 24 1533 1572 5 TOTAL RESPONSES 165 144 9426 9735 corrIDor ProjectS ParkS PublIc meetINg metroQueSt overall raNkINg Hopewell Road/Cogburn Road 25 33 2450 2508 1 Freemanville Road Operations 25 32 2008 2065 2 Birmingham Crossroads 25 35 1935 1995 3 Charlotte Drive Extension 10 43 1642 1695 4 Morris Road Widening 5 14 1385 1404 5 TOTAL RESPONSES 90 157 9420 9667 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN category PublIc meetINg metroQueSt overall Intersection Improvements 29 21% 2,599 33% 2,628 33% Roadway Widening 26 19% 1,380 18% 1,406 18% Roadway Lanes/Shoulders 13 9% 1,200 15% 1,213 15% Pedestrian Connections 21 15% 1,008 13% 1,029 13% Roadway Safety 28 20% 934 12% 962 12% New Roadway Connections 23 16% 742 9% 765 10% Budgeting Exercise Public Meeting and MetroQuest gDot corrIDorS ParkS PublIc meetINg metroQueSt overall raNkINg SR 372 (Alternative B)10 29 1834 1873 1 SR 140 (Alternative B)0 40 1638 1678 2 SR 372 (Alternative A)0 41 1626 1667 3 SR 140 (Alternative A)5 38 1263 1306 4 TOTAL RESPONSES 15 148 6361 6524 QuIck fIx INterSectIoNS ParkS PublIc meetINg metroQueSt overall raNkINg Mid Broadwell Road at Charlotte Road 25 18 1673 1716 1 Thompson Road at Redd Road 20 31 1580 1631 2 Cogburn Road at Webb Road 0 5 1619 1624 3 Hagood Road/Bethany Way 0 24 1308 1332 4 Taylor Road at Batesville Road 10 38 1034 1082 5 TOTAL RESPONSES 55 116 7214 7385 No Text MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Evaluation Results MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project moDe Project tyPe from to State route Source StatuS DeScrIPtIoN b eval 1 b eval 2 b eval 3 b eval 4 b eval 5 b eval 6 total eval B Trail Cumming Highway Deerfield Parkway Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 25 10 0 10 90 B Add Bike Lanes, Widen Outside Lane Deerfield Parkway Morris Road Needs Assessment Add additional roadway width or restripe roadways where possible for wider outside lane widths or dedicated bicycle lanes 20 25 25 10 0 10 90 B Add Bike Lanes, Widen Outside Lane Bethany Road Providence Road Needs Assessment Add additional roadway width or restripe roadways where possible for wider outside lane widths or dedicated bicycle lanes 20 25 25 10 0 10 90 B Add Bike Lanes, New Location Morris Road Needs Assessment Include bicycle lanes in design of new roadway; possible connection to the Big Creek Greenway 20 25 25 10 0 10 90 B Trail Cowart Road Bethany Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 15 10 0 10 80 B Trail Mayfield Road Providence Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 25 0 0 10 80 B Trail Off Road New Providence Road Crabapple Road Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 25 0 0 10 80 B Trail Off Road New Providence Road Crabapple Connector Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 25 0 0 10 80 B Trail Off Road Francis Road Hopewell Road Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 25 0 0 10 80 B Trail Off Road Bethany Bend Providence Road GDOT Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 25 0 0 10 80 B Trail Off Road Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 25 0 0 10 80 B Trail Cogburn Road Cumming Highway Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 15 5 0 10 75 B Improve Shoulders Summit Road Redd Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Improve Shoulders Birmingham Highway Freemanville Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Improve Shoulders Phillips Circle Summit Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Arnold Mill Road Crabapple Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Arnold Mill Road Ranchette Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Ranchette Road Dorris Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Freemanville Road Cowart Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Mayfield Road Bethany Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Bethany Road Hopewell Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Bethany Bend Bethany Way Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Hopewell Road Cogburn Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Cogburn Road Cumming Highway Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Green Road New Providence Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Lake Providence Trail N Park Road Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Trail Hopewell Road Francis Road SPLOST Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 15 5 0 10 75 B Trail Hopewell Road Thompson Road SPLOST Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 10 10 0 10 75 B Improve Shoulders Freemanville Road Cogburn Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 25 10 5 0 10 70 B Trail Birmingham Highway Mid Broadwell Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 0 25 25 10 0 10 70 B Add Bike Lanes, Widen Outside Lane State Route 9 Webb Road Needs Assessment Add additional roadway width or restripe roadways where possible for wider outside lane widths or dedicated bicycle lanes 0 25 25 10 0 10 70 Cumming Highway Deerfield Parkway 0 25 25 10 0 10 70 B Add Bike Lanes, New Location Mayfield Road Birmingham Highway SPLOST Include bicycle lanes in design of new roadway; possible connection to the Big Creek Greenway 0 25 25 10 0 10 70 B Trail Dorris Road Birmingham Highway Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 10 5 0 10 70 B Trail McGinnis Ferry Road Cumming Highway Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail 20 25 10 5 0 10 70 B Trail Green Road Birmingham Highway SR372 Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 0 25 25 5 0 10 65 B Improve Shoulders Crabapple Road Dorris Road SR372 Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 25 25 5 0 10 65 B Trail Providence Road Brittle Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 25 10 0 0 10 65 Forsyth County Birmingham Highway 20 25 10 0 0 10 65 B Improve Shoulders Providence Road Phillips Circle Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 25 10 0 0 10 65 B Add Bike Lanes, Widen Outside Lane Providence Road Hopewell Road Needs Assessment Add additional roadway width or restripe roadways where possible for wider outside lane widths or dedicated bicycle lanes 20 0 25 10 0 10 65 B Add Bike Lanes, Widen Outside Lane Hopewell Road Cumming Highway Needs Assessment Add additional roadway width or restripe roadways where possible for wider outside lane widths or dedicated bicycle lanes 20 0 25 10 0 10 65 20 0 25 10 0 10 65 B Improve Shoulders Forsyth County Birmingham Highway Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 25 10 0 0 10 65 B Improve Shoulders Wood Road Taylor Road SR372 Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 25 15 10 0 10 60 B Improve Shoulders Taylor Road Nix Road SR372 Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 25 15 10 0 10 60 Bicycle Projects Scored MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project moDe Project tyPe from to State route Source StatuS DeScrIPtIoN b eval 1 b eval 2 b eval 3 b eval 4 b eval 5 b eval 6 total eval New Providence Road Crabapple Road SR140 0 25 25 0 0 10 60 B Improve Shoulders Nix Road Birmingham Road SR372 Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 25 15 10 0 10 60 B Trail Birmingham Highway Freemanville Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 0 25 5 0 10 60 B Trail Windward Parkway Webb Road SR9 GDOT Under Development Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to SR 9 on both sides of the road 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Trail Webb Road Deerfield Parkway SR9 GDOT Under Development Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to SR 9 on both sides of the road 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Trail Deerfield Parkway Bethany Bend SR9 GDOT Under Development Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to SR 9 on both sides of the road 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Trail Bethany Bend Forsyth County SR9 GDOT Under Development Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to SR 9 on both sides of the road 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 Cox Road New Providence Road SR140 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 Ranchette Road Cox Road SR140 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 Lackey Road Ranchette Road SR140 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Improve Shoulders Batesvile Road Wood Road SR372 Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 25 15 5 0 10 55 B Trail Mid Broadwell Road Freemanville Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Improve Shoulders Westbrook Road Hamby Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 Mayfield Road Providence Road 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Trail Webb Road Bethany Bend Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Trail Thompson Road Thompson Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Add Bike Lanes, Widen Outside Lane Freemanville Road Bethany Road Needs Assessment Add additional roadway width or restripe roadways where possible for wider outside lane widths or dedicated bicycle lanes 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Trail Mayfield Road Windward Parkway SR9 GDOT Under Development Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to SR 9 on both sides of the road 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Trail Deerfield Parkway Webb Road SPLOST Construct a multi-use trail 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Add Bike Lanes, Widen Outside Lane State Route 9 Edison Drive Needs Assessment Add additional roadway width or restripe roadways where possible for wider outside lane widths or dedicated bicycle lanes 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Add Bike Lanes, Widen Outside Lane State Route 9 Edison Drive Needs Assessment Add additional roadway width or restripe roadways where possible for wider outside lane widths or dedicated bicycle lanes 0 25 10 10 0 10 55 B Improve Shoulders Dorris Road New Providence Road SR372 Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 25 15 0 0 10 50 B Trail Brittle Road Bethany Way Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 0 10 10 0 10 50 B Improve Shoulders Cherokee County Taylor Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 0 10 10 0 10 50 B Trail Webb Road Bethany Bend Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail 0 25 15 0 0 10 50 B Improve Shoulders Redd Road Phillips Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 0 10 10 0 10 50 B Improve Shoulders Dinsmore Road Nix Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 0 10 10 0 10 50 B Improve Shoulders Phillips Circle Dinsmore Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 0 10 10 0 10 50 B Trail Bethany Bend Francis Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail 0 25 10 5 0 10 50 B Trail Mayfield Road Bethany Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway 20 0 10 10 0 10 50 B Trail Morris Road Webb Road SPLOST Construct a multi-use trail 0 25 10 5 0 10 50 B Improve Shoulders Birmingham Road Henderson Road MetroQuest Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 0 10 5 1 10 46 B Trail Francis Road Thompson Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail 0 25 10 0 0 10 45 B Add Bike Lanes Widen Outside Lane Bethany Bend GA 400 Needs Assessment Add additional roadway width or restripe roadways where possible for wider outside lane widths or dedicated bicycle lanes 0 25 10 0 0 10 45 B Improve Shoulders Birmingham Road Westbrook Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 25 10 0 0 10 45 B Improve Shoulders Thompson Road Birmingham Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 25 10 0 0 10 45 B Improve Shoulders Nix Road Birmingham Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 0 10 5 0 10 45 B Add Bike Lanes, Widen Outside Lane State Route 9 Webb Road Needs Assessment Add additional roadway width or restripe roadways where possible for wider outside lane widths or dedicated bicycle lanes 0 0 25 10 0 10 45 B Improve Shoulders Henderson Road Mountain Road MetroQuest Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 0 15 0 0 10 45 B Improve Shoulders Taylor Road Birmingham Highway Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 20 0 10 0 0 10 40 B Improve Shoulders New Providence Road Batesville Road SR372 Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 0 10 10 0 10 30 Hopewell Road Forsyth County 0 0 10 10 0 10 30 Mayfield Road Redd Road 0 0 15 5 0 10 30 GA 400 Deerfield Parkway 0 0 10 10 0 10 30 B Improve Shoulders Mountain Road Forsyth County Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 0 10 5 0 10 25 B Improve Shoulders Hamby Road Mountain Road Needs Assessment Add additional shoulder width; ideally 4 feet where possible 0 0 10 5 0 10 25 Hagood Road Hopewell Road 0 0 10 0 0 10 20 Bicycle Projects Scored, continued MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project moDe Project tyPe State route Source StatuS DeScrIPtIoN Name INt eval 1 INt eval 2 INt eval 3 INt eval 4 INt eval 5 INt eval 6 INt eval 7 total eval R Safety Congestion SR9 Needs Assessment SR 9/Bethany Bend 15 30 25 10 0 10 10 100 R Safety SR140 Needs Assessment Arnold Mill Road/Cagle Road 15 30 15 10 0 10 10 90 R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Cogburn Road/Bethany Bend 15 30 15 10 0 10 10 90 R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Mayfield Road/Charlotte Drive 15 30 15 10 0 10 10 90 R Safety Congestion SR372 Needs Assessment GDOT is evaluating Birmingham Highway/Birmingham Road 15 30 10 10 0 10 10 85 R Congestion SR372 Needs Assessment Birmingham Highway/Batesville Road 15 30 10 0 0 10 10 75 R Safety Congestion City Hopewell Road/ Francis Road/ Cogburn Road 15 30 10 10 0 10 0 75 R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Funding has been requested through ARC *Bethany Road/Providence Road 0 30 10 10 0 10 10 70 R Safety SR140 Needs Assessment Arnold Mill Road/Ranchette Road 15 30 15 0 0 0 10 70 R Safety SR9 Needs Assessment SR 9/Webb Road 15 0 25 10 0 10 10 70 R Safety SR9 Needs Assessment SR 9/Marrywood Drive 15 0 25 10 0 10 10 70 R Safety SR9 Needs Assessment SR 9/Windward Village 15 0 25 10 0 10 10 70 R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Hopewell Road/Hamby Road 15 30 10 0 0 10 0 65 R Safety SR372 Needs Assessment Birmingham Highway/Dorris Road 15 20 10 10 0 10 0 65 R Safety Needs Assessment Hopewell Road/Thompson Road 15 20 10 10 0 10 0 65 R Safety Needs Assessment Morris Road/Webb Road 15 0 15 10 0 10 10 60 R Safety Needs Assessment Concept has been developed Hopewell Road/Bethany Bend 0 30 10 10 0 10 0 60 R Safety Needs Assessment Taylor Road/Batesville Road 0 30 10 0 0 10 10 60 R Safety SR140 Needs Assessment Arnold Mill Road/Green Road 15 0 15 10 0 10 10 60 R Previous CTP SR9 2009CTP SR 9/Keyingham Way 15 0 15 10 0 10 10 60 R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Crabapple Road/Green Road 15 5 10 10 0 10 10 60 R Safety Needs Assessment Windward Parkway/Webb Road 15 0 15 10 0 10 10 60 R Congestion Needs Assessment Hagood Road/Bethany Way 0 30 10 0 0 10 10 60 R Planned Roundabout Needs Assessment Freemanville Road/Birmingham Road 0 30 10 0 0 10 0 50 R Planned Roundabout Needs Assessment Concept for Roundabout developed Freemanville Road/Providence Road 0 30 10 0 0 10 0 50 R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Freemanville Road/Redd Road 0 30 10 0 0 10 0 50 R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Cox Road/King Road 0 30 10 0 0 0 10 50 R Safety Public Comment Mid Broadwell Road/Charlotte Drive 0 0 15 10 0 0 10 35 R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Concept has been developed Hopewell Road/Bethany Way 0 0 10 10 0 10 0 30 R Previous CTP 2009CTP Concept has been developed Hopewell Road/Bethany Oaks Pointe 0 0 10 10 0 10 0 30 R Safety Public Comment Thompson Road/Redd Road 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 20 R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Underway Concept has been developed Hopewell Road/Redd Road R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Underway Morris Road/Bethany Bend R Safety Congestion Needs Assessment Underway Mayfield Road/Mid Broadwell Road R Planned Roundabout Needs Assessment Underway Hopewell Road/Birmingham Road R Safety Needs Assessment Underway Deerfield Parkway/Webb Road R Safety Needs Assessment Underway Bethany Bend/Strickland Road R Planned Roundabout SR372 City Underway Crabapple Road/Crabapple Connector R Planned Roundabout SR372 City Underway Birmingham Highway/Crabapple Connector Intersection Projects Scored MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project moDe Project tyPe Name from to State route Source StatuS DeScrIPtIoN SW area P eval 1 P eval 2 P eval 3 P eval 4 P eval 5 P eval6 total eval P Sidewalk SR 9 Bethany Bend South of Woodlake Drive SR9 Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 10 15 20 10 90 P Sidewalk McGinnis Ferry Road Bethany Bend West of Deerfield Point Drive Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 10 15 20 10 90 P Sidewalk McGinnis Ferry Road North of Flamingo Road Bethany Bend Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 10 15 20 10 90 P Sidewalk Mayfield Road East of Mid Broadwell Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 10 15 20 10 90 P Sidewalk Cogburn Road North of The Hermitage Drive South of Cambridge High School Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 10 15 20 10 85 P Sidewalk Bethany Bend McGinnis Ferry Road South of Spring View Drive Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 10 15 20 10 85 P Trail Webb Road Cumming Highway Deerfield Parkway Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 10 10 15 20 10 85 P Trail Bethany Bend Cogburn Road Cumming Highway Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 10 10 15 20 10 85 P Trail Arnold Mill Road Green Road New Providence Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 10 10 15 20 10 85 P Sidewalk Cogburn North of Bethany Bend South of Devonshire Farms Way Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 10 10 20 10 80 P Sidewalk Mid Broadwell Road Mayfield Road Charlotte Drive Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 10 10 20 10 80 P Trail Cumming Highway Windward Parkway Webb Road SR9 GDOT Under Development Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to SR 9 on both sides of the road Yes 20 5 10 15 20 10 80 P Trail Cumming Highway Webb Road Deerfield Parkway SR9 GDOT Under Development Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to SR 9 on both sides of the road Yes 20 5 10 15 20 10 80 P Trail Cumming Highway Deerfield Parkway Bethany Bend SR9 GDOT Under Development Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to SR 9 on both sides of the road Yes 20 5 10 15 20 10 80 P Trail Morris Road Webb Road Bethany Bend Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 10 15 20 10 80 P Trail Bethany Bend McGinnis Ferry Road Cumming Highway Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 10 15 20 10 80 P Trail Deerfield Parkway Morris Road Webb Road SPLOST Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 10 15 20 10 80 P Trail Morris Road Deerfield Parkway Webb Road SPLOST Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 10 15 20 10 80 P Sidewalk Bethany Bend Hopewell Road Pine Cove Ln Needs Assessment Yes 20 5 10 10 20 10 75 P Trail Cumming Highway Bethany Bend Forsyth County SR9 GDOT Under Development Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to SR 9 on both sides of the road Yes 20 5 10 10 20 10 75 P Trail Webb Road Cogburn Road Cumming Highway Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 10 10 20 10 75 P Trail Cogburn Road Webb Road Bethany Bend Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 10 10 20 10 75 P Trail Cumming Highway Mayfield Road Windward Parkway SR9 GDOT Under Development Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to SR 9 on both sides of the road Yes 20 5 10 10 20 10 75 P Trail Green Road Arnold Mill Road Crabapple Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 5 10 10 20 10 75 P Trail Bethany Bend Hopewell Road Cogburn Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 10 10 20 10 75 P Sidewalk Mayfield Road Charlotte Drive Kingdom Hall Driveway Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 10 15 0 10 70 P Sidewalk Arnold Mill Road North of New Providence Road Cox Road SR140 Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 10 0 20 10 70 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road North of Newtown Drive South of Brookshade Parkway Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 10 15 0 10 65 P Sidewalk New Providence Road Arnold Mill Road Arabian Ave Needs Assessment Yes 20 5 10 0 20 10 65 P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway North of Owens Farm Road Lexington Plantation Way SR372 Needs Assessment Yes 20 5 10 0 20 10 65 P Trail Crabapple Road Green Road Birmingham Highway SR372 Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 5 10 0 20 10 65 P Trail Mayfield Road Mid Broadwell Road Freemanville Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 5 10 0 20 10 65 P Trail Cogburn Road Bethany Bend Francis Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 10 0 20 10 65 P Trail New Providence Road Arnold Mill Road Ranchette Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 5 10 0 20 10 65 P Trail Off Road Crapapple Connector New Providence Road Crabapple Road Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 10 0 20 10 65 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road South of Hopewell Plantation Drive North of Sandy Creek Farm Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 10 10 0 10 60 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road North of N Fields Pass South of Trophy Club of Atlanta Driveway Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road North of Champions Hill Drive South of N Fields Pass Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road Cogburn Road South of Champions Hill Drive Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Sidewalk Mayfield Road East of Kingdom Hall Freemanville Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 10 10 0 10 60 P Sidewalk Freemanville Road North of Milton High School Driveway South of Crabapple Hill Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 10 10 0 10 60 P Sidewalk New Providence Road Chadwick Road Mill Springs Academy Driveway Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 Pedestrian Projects Scored MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project moDe Project tyPe Name from to State route Source StatuS DeScrIPtIoN SW area P eval 1 P eval 2 P eval 3 P eval 4 P eval 5 P eval6 total eval P Sidewalk New Providence Road Mill Springs Academy Driveway West of Gates Mill Way Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Sidewalk New Providence Road Mill Springs Academy Driveway Exit Mill Springs Academy Driveway Entrance Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway Little River Animal Hospital Birmingham United Methodist Church Driveway SR372 Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road North of Fossil Trace Birmingham Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Trail Hopewell Road Thompson Road Thompson Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Trail Hopewell Road Bethany Bend Bethany Way Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Sidewalk Francis Road East of Roxbury Way East of Champions View Parkway Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Sidewalk New Providence Road East of Gates Mill Way Sidewalk Area Boundary Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Sidewalk Freemanville Road North of Crabapple Hill Hipworth Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 15 0 10 60 P Sidewalk Cogburn Road North of Devonshire Farms Way North of Wyndham Farms Drive Needs Assessment Yes 20 5 10 10 0 10 55 P Trail Freemanville Road Mayfield Road Providence Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 5 10 0 10 10 55 P Trail Off Road Lake Providence Trail Bethany Bend Providence Road GDOT Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 10 10 0 10 55 P Sidewalk New Providence Road Sidewalk Area Boundary North of Providence Plantation Drive Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 10 0 10 55 P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway Sidewalk Area Boundary Scottsdale Farms Driveway SR372 Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 10 0 10 55 P Sidewalk Thompson Road North of Dinsmore Road Hopewell Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road North of Champions Close Thompson Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road North of Sandy Creek Farm Road Bethany Bend Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Sidewalk Cox Road King Road Ebenezer Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway Publix Driveway Bream Drive SR372 Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 0 10 10 50 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road North of Kings County Ct Fossil Trace Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Sidewalk Francis Road Cogburn Road West of Timber Point Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Sidewalk Bethany Way East of Cooper Sandy Cove Hopewell Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Trail Bethany Road Providence Road Brittle Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Trail New Providence Road Ranchette Road Dorris Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Trail Providence Road Cowart Road Bethany Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Trail Bethany Bend School Trail Lake Providence Trail N Park Road Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Sidewalk New Providence Road Ranchette Road North of Providence Plantation Drive Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 10 0 10 50 P Sidewalk Hickory Flat Road East of Hickory Mill Ln West of SR372 Needs Assessment Yes 20 5 0 0 10 10 45 P Sidewalk Hickory Flat Road Segwick Drive Darby Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 0 0 10 45 P Sidewalk Providence Road/ Hagood Road/Bethany Way East of Cowart Road West of Cooper Sandy Cove Needs Assessment Yes 20 5 0 0 10 10 45 P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway South of Waxmyrtle Road Waxmyrtle Road SR372 Needs Assessment Yes 20 15 0 0 0 10 45 P Trail New Providence Road Dorris Road Birmingham Highway Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 5 0 0 10 10 45 P Trail Providence Road Mayfield Road Bethany Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 5 10 0 0 10 45 P Trail Thompson Road Hopewell Road Francis Road SPLOST Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 0 0 10 10 45 P Trail Francis Road Hopewell Road Thompson Road SPLOST Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 0 0 10 10 45 P Sidewalk Thompson Road North of Coach House Ln Dinsmore Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 0 0 10 40 P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway Glenover Drive North of Taylor Road SR372 Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 0 0 10 40 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road Birmingham Road West of Hopewell Downs Drive Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 0 0 10 40 P Sidewalk Hopewell Road Thompson Road South of Kings County Ct Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 0 0 10 40 P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway North of Arcaro Drive North of Wood Road SR372 Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 0 0 10 40 P Sidewalk Birmingham Road East of SR372 Sidewalk Area Boundary Needs Assessment Yes 20 10 0 0 0 10 40 P Sidewalk Cogburn Road North of Cogburn Ln Hopewell Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 5 0 0 0 10 35 Pedestrian Projects Scored, continued MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project moDe Project tyPe Name from to State route Source StatuS DeScrIPtIoN SW area P eval 1 P eval 2 P eval 3 P eval 4 P eval 5 P eval6 total eval P Sidewalk Birmingham Road Manor Trace Hopewell Road Needs Assessment Yes 20 5 0 0 0 10 35 P Sidewalk Thompson Road Hopewell Road West of Watboro Hill Drive Needs Assessment Yes 20 5 0 0 0 10 35 P Trail Hopewell Road Francis Road Thompson Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 0 0 0 10 35 P Trail Providence Road Freemanville Road Cowart Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 5 0 0 0 10 35 P Trail Bethany Way Bethany Road Hopewell Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 20 5 0 0 0 10 35 P Trail Off Road Dorris-Crabapple Connector New Providence Road Crabapple Connector Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 0 0 0 10 35 P Trail Off Road Hopewell-Francis Trail Francis Road Hopewell Road Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 0 0 0 10 35 B Trail Off Road Construct a multi-use trail Yes 20 5 0 0 0 10 35 P Trail Providence Road Birmingham Highway Freemanville Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 0 5 0 0 10 10 25 P Trail Providence Road Mayfield Road Bethany Road Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway Yes 0 5 0 10 0 10 25 P Sidewalk Redd Road West of Thompson Road East of Reddstone Close Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Thompson Road Nettlebrook Way North of Nettlebrook Way Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Thompson Road North of Nettlebrook Way South of N Christophers Run Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Thompson Road North of N Christophers Run South of Scotlandwell Pl Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Thompson Road South of E Bluff Road E Bluff Road Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Thompson Road E Bluff Road Tabbystone Pass Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Thompson Road North of Tabbystone Pass Dover Road Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway Tramore Pl South of Providence Road SR372 Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Providence Road Hawthorne Ln Freemanville Road Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Freemanville Road North of Creek Road Providence Road Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk New Providence Road Capital City Club Crabapple West of Atlanta National Drive Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk New Providence Road East of Atlanta National Drive West of SR372 Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Birmingham Road East of Milton Point Turtle Creek Ln Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Birmingham Road Day Road Manor Trace Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Thompson Road Champions Club Drive East of Watboro Hill Drive Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Thompson Road Francis Road Little Stone Way Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Francis Road East of Creek Club Drive West of Thompson Road Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway Triple Crown Drive Richmond Glen Drive SR372 Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway North of Richmond Glen Drive South of Arcaro Drive SR372 Needs Assessment No P Sidewalk Birmingham Highway Waxmyrtle Road Quayside Drive SR372 Needs Assessment No P Trail Bethany Road Brittle Road Bethany Way Needs Assessment Construct a multi-use trail adjacent to the roadway No Pedestrian Projects Scored, continued Vehicular Projects Scored Project moDe Project tyPe Name from to State route Source StatuS DeScrIPtIoN cor eval 1 cor eval 2 cor eval 3 cor eval 4 cor eval 5 cor eval 6 total eval R Widening Cumming Highway Deerfield Parkway Bethany Bend SR9 2009CTP RTP Active SR 9 (North Main St / Cumming Highway) Widening 25 15 15 25 10 10 100 R Widening Cumming Highway Bethany Bend Forsyth County SR9 2009CTP RTP Active SR 9 (North Main St / Cumming Highway) Widening 25 15 15 25 10 10 100 R Operations Safety Birmingham Highway Crabapple Road Dorris Road SR372 Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 15 25 10 10 100 R Operations Safety Cogburn Road Webb Road Bethany Bend Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 15 25 10 10 100 R Widening Cumming Highway Mayfield Road Windward Parkway SR9 2009CTP RTP Active SR 9 (North Main St / Cumming Highway) Widening 25 15 15 25 10 10 100 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Francis Road Thompson Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 15 25 10 0 90 R Operations Safety Birmingham Highway Wood Road Taylor Road SR372 Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 5 25 10 10 90 R Widening Arnold Mill Road New Providence Road Crabapple Road SR140 GDOT; Needs Assessment Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 25 15 15 25 0 10 90 R Widening Arnold Mill Road Cox Road New Providence Road SR140 GDOT; Needs Assessment Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 25 15 15 25 0 10 90 R Operations Safety Birmingham Highway Nix Road Birmingham Road SR372 Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 15 25 10 0 90 R Operations Safety Mayfield Road Mid Broadwell Road Freemanville Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 15 15 10 10 90 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Thompson Road Birmingham Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 15 25 10 0 90 R Operations Safety Cogburn Road Bethany Bend Francis Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 15 25 10 0 90 R Operations Safety Mayfield Road Freemanville Road Bethany Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 15 15 10 10 90 R Operations Safety Birmingham Highway Batesvile Road Wood Road SR372 Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 0 25 10 10 85 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Mountain Road Forsyth County Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 0 25 10 10 85 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Hamby Road Mountain Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 0 25 10 10 85 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Birmingham Road Westbrook Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 5 25 10 0 80 R Widening Cumming Highway Windward Parkway Webb Road SR9 2009CTP RTP Active SR 9 (North Main St / Cumming Highway) Widening 0 15 15 25 10 10 75 R Widening Cumming Highway Webb Road Deerfield Parkway SR9 2009CTP RTP Active SR 9 (North Main St / Cumming Highway) Widening 0 15 15 25 10 10 75 R Operations Safety Birmingham Highway Taylor Road Nix Road SR372 Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 0 25 10 0 75 R Operations Safety Birmingham Highway Dorris Road New Providence Road SR372 Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 0 25 10 0 75 R Widening Arnold Mill Road Ranchette Road Cox Road SR140 GDOT; Needs Assessment Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 25 15 0 25 0 10 75 R Widening Arnold Mill Road Lackey Road Ranchette Road SR140 GDOT; Needs Assessment Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 25 15 0 25 0 10 75 R Operations Safety Birmingham Highway New Providence Road Batesville Road SR372 Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 0 25 10 0 75 R Widening McGinnis Ferry Road Bethany Bend GA 400 Needs Assessment Widen from two-lanes to 4-lanes with a landscaped median (part of the proposed McGinnis Ferry Road interchange project)25 15 15 0 10 10 75 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Westbrook Road Hamby Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 15 0 25 10 0 75 R Operations Safety Hickory Flat Road Forsyth County Birmingham Highway Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 15 15 10 10 75 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project moDe Project tyPe Name from to State route Source StatuS DeScrIPtIoN cor eval 1 cor eval 2 cor eval 3 cor eval 4 cor eval 5 cor eval 6 total eval R Widening Morris Road Webb Road Bethany Bend Needs Assessment SPLOST Widen Morris Road from two lanes to four lanes with a landscaped median 25 15 15 0 10 10 75 R Operations Safety Windward Parkway State Route 9 Webb Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 15 15 25 10 10 75 R Operations Safety Windward Parkway State Route 9 Webb Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 15 15 25 10 10 75 R Operations Safety Mayfield Road Providence Road Hopewell Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 15 15 10 10 75 R Widening Windward Parkway GA 400 Deerfield Parkway RTP Westbound Auxiliary Lane 25 15 15 0 10 10 75 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Mayfield Road Bethany Bend MetroQuest Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 15 15 10 10 75 R Operations Safety Crabapple Road Arnold Mill Road Birmingham Highway SR372 Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as speed limit modifications or improved signal timing (where needed) Remove right-turn deceleration lanes 0 15 15 15 10 10 65 R Operations Safety Birmingham Road Birmingham Highway Freemanville Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 15 15 10 0 65 R Operations Safety Webb Road Cogburn Road Cumming Highway Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 0 15 25 10 10 60 R Operations Safety Webb Road Cumming Highway Deerfield Parkway Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 0 15 25 10 10 60 R Operations Safety Webb Road Deerfield Parkway Morris Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 0 15 25 10 10 60 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Thompson Road Thompson Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 25 10 0 60 R Operations Safety Birmingham Road Freemanville Road Cogburn Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 15 10 0 50 R Operations Safety Freemanville Road Summit Road Redd Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 15 10 0 50 R Operations Safety Freemanville Road Redd Road Phillips Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 15 10 0 50 R Operations Safety Freemanville Road Dinsmore Road Nix Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 15 10 0 50 R Operations Safety Freemanville Road Nix Road Birmingham Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 15 10 0 50 R Operations Safety Freemanville Road Phillips Cir Summit Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 15 10 0 50 R Operations Safety Freemanville Road Phillips Cir Dinsmore Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 15 10 0 50 R Operations Safety Freemanville Road Providence Road Phillips Cir Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 15 10 0 50 R Operations Safety Mayfield Road Hopewell Road Cumming Highway Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 0 15 15 10 10 50 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Bethany Bend Bethany Way MetroQuest Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 15 10 0 50 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Bethany Way Redd Road MetroQuest Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 15 10 0 50 R Widening Windward Parkway Deerfield Parkway State Route 9 Needs Assessment Widen 0 15 15 0 10 10 50 R Widening Windward Parkway Deerfield Parkway State Route 9 Needs Assessment Widen 0 15 15 0 10 10 50 R Operations Safety Bethany Road Providence Road Brittle Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 0 10 10 45 R Operations Safety Bethany Road Brittle Road Bethany Way Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 0 10 10 45 Vehicular Projects Scored, continued MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vehicular Projects Scored, continued Project moDe Project tyPe Name from to State route Source StatuS DeScrIPtIoN cor eval 1 cor eval 2 cor eval 3 cor eval 4 cor eval 5 cor eval 6 total eval R Operations Safety Batesville Road Cherokee County Taylor Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 0 10 10 45 R Operations Safety Batesville Road Taylor Road Birmingham Highway Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 25 0 0 0 10 10 45 R Operations Safety Hopewell Road Redd Road Cogburn Road MetroQuest Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 15 0 15 10 0 40 R Operations Safety Mayfield Road Bethany Road Providence Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 0 0 15 10 10 35 R New Connection Webb Road Extension Morris Road Needs Assessment New two-lane roadway connection (with bicycle and pedestrian accommodations)0 0 15 0 10 10 35 R New Connection Cumming Highway- Deerfield Connector Cumming Highway Deerfield Parkway Needs Assessment New two-lane roadway connection (with bicycle and pedestrian accommodations)0 0 15 0 10 10 35 R New Connection NE Crabapple Connector Road Mayfield Road Birmingham Highway 2009CTP SPLOST New two-lane roadway connection between Mayfield Road and Birmingham Highway in the NE portion of Crabapple 0 0 15 0 10 10 35 R New Connection Crabapple Connector Crabapple Road Birmingham Highway SR372 Crabapple LCI New two-lane roadway connection (with bicycle and pedestrian accommodations)0 0 15 0 10 10 35 R Operations Safety Hamby Road Hopewell Road Forsyth County Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 0 0 0 10 10 20 R Operations Safety Bethany Road Mayfield Road Providence Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 0 0 0 10 10 20 R Operations Safety Hagood Road Mayfield Road Redd Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 0 0 0 10 10 20 R Operations Safety Mayfield Road Birmingham Highway Mid Broadwell Road Needs Assessment Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 R Operations Safety Redd Hagood Road Hopewell Road Needs Assessment Active Operational and/or safety improvements such as additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, or improved signal timing (where needed) 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 R Operations Safety Hopewell Active 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TSPLOST Funding Scenario Project List TSPLOST Funding Scenario Project List fIrSt-ID moDe tyPe of ImProvemeNt Name Project DeScrIPtIoN r eval I_eval b_eval P_eval PublIc meetINg PI raNk Pe coSt r/W coSt coNStructIoN coSt total caPItal coSt o&m coSt (20 yearS) total coSt to mIltoN total coSt to gDot tSPloSt tIer I-1 R Intersection Arnold Mill Road/Cagle Road Construct westbound left- and right-turn lanes .85 No $50,000 $77,000 $330,000 $457,000 $33,000 $0 $457,000 No GDOT 2 I-2 R Intersection Cogburn Road/Bethany Bend New westbound right-turn lane to be constructed by developer . Potential signal upgrades and/or extension of existing turn lanes to address school traffic. Assumes $50,000 for signal mods . 100 Yes 2 $50,000 $77,000 $380,000 $507,000 $38,000 $150,000 $0 No 2 I-3 R Intersection Mayfield Road/Charlotte Drive Roundabout or semi-actuated traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis .75 No $180,000 $1,000,000 $1,824,000 $3,600,000 $182,000 $3,600,000 $0 Yes 1 I-4 R Intersection Birmingham Highway/Batesville Road New signal installation and construct northbound left-, southbound right-, and eastbound left-turn lanes or roundabout . 65 No $71,500 $116,000 $715,000 $903,000 $72,000 $0 $903,000 No GDOT 2 I-5A R Intersection Hopewell Road/ Francis Road/ Cogburn Road Construct signal to meter eastbound approach .80 Yes 5 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $5,000 $50,000 $50,000 No 2 I-5B R Intersection Hopewell Road/ Francis Road/ Cogburn Road Construct channelized northbound right turn .80 Yes 5 $50,000 $77,000 $248,000 $375,000 $25,000 $375,000 $0 No 3 I-6 R Intersection Bethany Road/Providence Road Construct left-turn lanes on Providence or roundabout .70 Yes 6 $139,000 $139,000 $1,405,000 $2,425,145 $141,000 $2,425,145 $0 Yes 1 I-7 R Intersection Arnold Mill Road/Ranchette Road Construct southbound left-turn lane for Arnold Mill Road . Advanced warning signage for cross-street recommended . Separate left and right turns on Ranchette . 70 No $50,000 $39,000 $165,000 $254,000 $17,000 $0 $254,000 No GDOT 2 I-8 R Intersection Hopewell Road/Hamby Road Roundabout or traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis . Assumes advanced warning for sight distance correction . 80 Yes 8 $200,000 $500,000 $2,127,000 $3,420,000 $213,000 $3,420,000 $0 Yes 1 I-9 R Intersection Birmingham Highway/Dorris Road Construct northbound left-turn lane and southbound right- turn lane .65 No $50,000 $194,000 $330,000 $574,000 $33,000 $0 $574,000 No GDOT 2 I-10 R Intersection Hopewell Road/Thompson Road N Roundabout or semi-actuated traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis . Assumes realignment with other Thompson, single roundabout . 65 Yes 4 $100,000 $250,000 $1,217,500 $1,900,000 $122,000 $1,900,000 $0 Yes 1 I-11 R Intersection Hopewell Road/Thompson Road S Roundabout or semi-actuated traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis .65 Yes 4 $100,000 $250,000 $1,217,500 $1,900,000 $122,000 $1,900,000 $0 Yes 1 I-12 R Intersection Morris Road/Webb Road Roundabout or traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis .60 No $72,600 $528,000 $726,000 $1,327,000 $73,000 $0 $1,327,000 No GDOT 1 I-13 R Intersection Hopewell Road/Bethany Bend/Bethany Way/Bethany Oaks Pointe May include turn lanes, traffic signals or roundabouts.50 Yes 1 $150,000 $250,000 $2,130,000 $3,080,000 $213,000 $3,080,000 $0 Yes 1 I-14 R Intersection Taylor Road/Batesville Road Construct southbound left-turn lane .50 Yes 5 $50,000 $39,000 $165,000 $254,000 $17,000 $254,000 $0 No 3 I-15 R Intersection Arnold Mill Road/Green Road New traffic signal and interconnection to other signals on the SR 140 corridor .70 No $100,000 $727,000 $183,000 $1,010,000 $18,000 $1,010,000 $0 Yes 1 I-16 R Intersection Crabapple Road/Green Road May include turn lanes, traffic signal or roundabout.60 No $50,000 $39,000 $165,000 $254,000 $17,000 $0 $254,000 No GDOT 2 I-17 R Intersection Windward Road Parkway/Webb Road Construct westbound channelized right turn lane on Webb Road at Windward Road Parkway. Traffic signal upgrades also assumed . 60 Yes $50,000 $155,000 $275,000 $480,000 $28,000 $480,000 $0 No 2 I-18 R Intersection Hagood Road/Bethany Way Construct channelized northbound right turn and modify intersection controls .50 Yes 4 $50,000 $39,000 $165,000 $254,000 $17,000 $254,000 $0 No 3 I-19 R Intersection Freemanville Road/Birmingham Road May include turn lanes, traffic signal or roundabout.55 Yes 3 $150,000 $100,000 $1,385,000 $1,990,000 $139,000 $1,990,000 $0 Yes 1 I-20 R Intersection Freemanville Road/Providence Road May include turn lanes, traffic signal or roundabout.50 No $173,000 $204,000 $866,000 $1,408,000 $87,000 $890,000 $0 No 2 I-21 R Intersection Freemanville Road/Redd Road Roundabout or traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis .55 Yes 7 $100,000 $50,000 $707,000 $1,020,000 $71,000 $1,020,000 $0 Yes 1 I-22 R Intersection Mid Broadwell Road/Charlotte Drive Construct geometric realignments to redistribute traffic to the NE Crabapple Connector via Charlotte Drive and to improve sight distance . 20 Yes 1 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $5,000 $100,000 $0 No 2 I-23 R Intersection Thompson Road/Redd Road Construct geometric realignments and pavement leveling to improve approach grade and sight distance .10 Yes 2 $50,000 $39,000 $185,000 $274,000 $19,000 $274,000 $0 No 3 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN fIrSt-ID moDe tyPe of ImProvemeNt Name Project DeScrIPtIoN r eval I_eval b_eval P_eval PublIc meetINg PI raNk Pe coSt r/W coSt coNStructIoN coSt total caPItal coSt o&m coSt (20 yearS) total coSt to mIltoN total coSt to gDot tSPloSt tIer I-24A R Intersection Hopewell Road/Redd Road Quick Fix Separate left and right turns on Redd Road .45 No $30,000 $10,000 $180,000 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 No 2 I-24B R Intersection Hopewell Road/Redd Road Roundabout or traffic signal identified as potential improvements per intersection analysis .45 No $72,600 $132,000 $726,000 $931,000 $73,000 $931,000 $0 No 3 I-25 R Intersection Birmingham Highway/Birmingham Road May include turn lanes, traffic signal or roundabout.80 No $100,000 $200,000 $1,200,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 No GDOT 2 P-1 P Pedestrian Various Sidewalk Gap Projects Install new sidewalk to fill in gaps within a half-mile of schools and active parks .85 No $390,000 $6,405,000 $3,843,000 $10,638,000 $340,000 $10,638,000 $0 No 4 B-1 B Bicycle Bicycle Priority Network Install striping and signing along Bicycle Priority Network .$70,000 $0 $640,000 $710,000 $0 $710,000 $0 No 2 PB-1 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Deerfield Loop Trail Install a new trail on Deerfield Loop Trail from Webb Road to Deerfield Parkway.55 80 Yes 5 $350,000 $3,410,269 $3,410,269 $7,170,538 $730,000 $3,372,490 $0 Yes 1 PB-2 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Crabapple Loop Trail Install a new trail on Crabapple Loop Trail from Arnold Mill Road to Birmingham Highway .80 80 Yes 1 $270,000 $2,694,827 $2,694,827 $5,659,654 $570,000 $5,659,654 $0 No 3 PB-3 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Bethany Bend Install a new trail on Bethany Bend from Hopewell Road to Cogburn Road .75 75 Yes 3 $150,000 $2,411,882 $1,447,129 $4,009,011 $130,000 $4,009,011 $0 No 4 PB-4 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Cogburn Road Install a new trail on Cogburn Road from Bethany Bend to Francis Road .50 65 Yes 4 $110,000 $1,068,482 $1,068,482 $2,246,964 $230,000 $2,100,000 $0 Yes 1 PB-5 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Crabapple Connector Install a new off-road trail on Crabapple Connector from New Providence Road to Crabapple Road .80 65 No $230,000 $2,252,273 $2,252,273 $4,734,546 $480,000 $4,734,546 $0 No 4 PB-6 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Bell Memorial Loop Trail Install a new trail on Bell Memorial Loop Trail from Hopewell Road/Cogburn Road to Francis Road/Thompson Road .75 65 Yes 2 $140,000 $1,305,291 $1,305,291 $2,750,582 $280,000 $2,750,582 $0 No 3 PB-7 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Providence Road Install a new trail on Providence Road from Mayfield Road to Freemanville Road .75 60 Yes 3 $240,000 $2,384,928 $2,384,928 $5,009,856 $510,000 $5,009,856 $0 No 4 PB-8 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Lake Providence Trail Install a new off-road trail on Lake Providence Trail from Bethany Bend to Providence Road .80 55 No $90,000 $881,607 $881,607 $1,853,214 $190,000 $1,853,214 $0 No 4 PB-9 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Bethany Road/Redd Road Install a new trail on Bethany Road from Providence Road to Hopewell Road .50 50 Yes 3 $90,000 $838,963 $838,963 $1,767,926 $180,000 $1,767,926 $0 No 4 PB-10 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Hopewell-Francis Trail Install a new off-road trail on Hopewell-Francis Trail from Francis Road to Birmingham Road .80 45 No $420,000 $4,175,400 $4,175,400 $8,770,800 $890,000 $8,770,800 $0 No 4 PB-11 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Bethany Way Install trail on Bethany Way from Hagood Road to Hopewell Road .75 35 Yes 3 $70,000 $602,075 $602,075 $1,274,150 $130,000 $1,274,150 $0 No 4 PB-12 B, P Pedestrian/ Bicycle Big Creek Greenway Connection Multiuse connection to Big Creek Greenway $900,000 $900,000 $0 No 2 R-1 R Roadway Birmingham Highway Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e .g ., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Birmingham Highway from Crabapple Road to New Providence Road . 100 Yes 1, 3 $210,000 $210,000 $2,670,000 $3,090,000 $710,000 $0 $3,090,000 No GDOT 2 R-2 R Roadway Hopewell Road Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e .g ., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Hopewell Road, from Francis Road to Hamby Road . 90 Yes $150,000 $30,000 $1,940,000 $2,120,000 $850,000 $2,120,000 $0 No 4 R-3 R Roadway Birmingham Highway Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e .g ., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Birmingham Highway from New Providence Road to Birmingham Road . 90 Yes 2, 3 $250,000 $130,000 $3,220,000 $3,600,000 $1,180,000 $0 $3,600,000 No GDOT 2 R-4 R Roadway Hopewell Road/Hamby Road Widen Hopewell Road and Hamby Road from 2 to 4 lanes from Forsyth County line at Hopewell Road to Forsyth County line at Hamby Road . 85 Yes 1 $790,000 $2,460,000 $10,200,000 $13,450,000 $1,730,000 $13,450,000 $0 No 4 R-5 R Roadway Cumming Highway Widen SR 9 (North Main Street/Cumming Highway) from Mayfield Road to Forsyth County (2009 CTP).75 No $1310000 $8,400,000 $16,970,000 $26,680,000 $1,480,000 $0 26680000 No GDOT 1 R-6 R Roadway Arnold Mill Road Widen SR 140 from 2 to 4 lanes from Arnold Mill Road to Rucker Road .75 Yes 1 $930,000 $10,840,000 $11,980,000 $23,750,000 $1,910,000 $0 23750000 No GDOT 2 TSPLOST Funding Scenario Project List, continued MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN fIrSt-ID moDe tyPe of ImProvemeNt Name Project DeScrIPtIoN r eval I_eval b_eval P_eval PublIc meetINg PI raNk Pe coSt r/W coSt coNStructIoN coSt total caPItal coSt o&m coSt (20 yearS) total coSt to mIltoN total coSt to gDot tSPloSt tIer R-7 R Roadway McGinnis Ferry Road/Morris Road Widen McGinnis Ferry Road/Morris Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes with a landscaped median from Webb Road to Bethany Bend (part of the proposed McGinnis Ferry Road interchange project) . 75 Yes 5 $315,000 $1,065,000 $3,130,000 $5,440,000 $313,000 $5,440,000 $0 Yes 1 R-8 R Roadway Windward Road Parkway Widen Windward Parkway to provide a westbound auxiliary lane between GA 400 and Cumming Highway .75 No $500,000 $0 $15,000,000 $15,500,000 $1,500,000 $500,000 $0 Yes 1 R-9 R Roadway Hopewell Road Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e .g ., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Hopewell Road from Mayfield Road to Redd Road. 75 Yes $210,000 $80,000 $2,610,000 $2,900,000 $1,030,000 $2,900,000 $0 No 4 R-10 R Roadway Crabapple Road Operational and/or safety improvements . Remove right- turn deceleration lanes . Construct landscaped median with pedestrian refuge . 65 No $20,000 $0 $210,000 $230,000 $0 $0 $230,000 No GDOT 2 R-11 R Roadway Birmingham Road/Hickory Flat Road Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e .g ., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Birmingham Road/Hickory Flat Road from Cherokee County to Hopewell Road . 65 Yes 3 $250,000 $0 $3,190,000 $3,440,000 $1,310,000 $3,440,000 $0 No 4 R-12 R Roadway Freemanville Road Design and construct operational and/or safety improvements (e .g ., additional turn lanes, speed limit modifications, improved signal timing) along Freemanville Road from Providence Road to Birmingham Road . 50 Yes 2 $240,000 $0 $3,100,000 $3,340,000 $1,120,000 $3,340,000 $0 No 4 RPB-1 R, B, P Roadway and Pedestrian/ Bicycle NE Crabapple Connector Road Install a new roadway connection on NE Crabapple Connector Road from Mayfield Road to Birmingham Highway . Include bicycle lanes or multiuse path in design of new roadway . 35 90 70 No 4 $180,000 $1,000,000 $1,823,000 $3,600,000 $182,000 $3,600,000 $0 Yes 1 RPB-2 R, B, P Roadway and Pedestrian/ Bicycle Cumming Highway-Deerfield Connector Install a new roadway connection and sidewalks on Cumming Highway-Deerfield Connector from State Route 9 to Deerfield Parkway. Include bicycle lanes in the design of the new roadway . 35 90 70 No $250,000 $1,930,000 $3,170,000 $5,350,000 $240,000 $5,350,000 $0 No 4 RPB-3 R, B, P Roadway and Pedestrian/ Bicycle Webb Road Extension Construct a new roadway and sidewalk connection on Webb Road Extension beginning at Morris Road. Include bicycle lanes and/or multiuse path in the design of the new roadway . A possible connection to the Big Creek Greenway may be available . 35 90 65 No $830,000 $2,470,000 $10,670,000 $13,970,000 $490,000 $13,970,000 $0 No 3 PRG-1 R Roadway Birmingham Road Bridge Bridge replacement with future trail accommodations $75,000 $64,000 $1,180,560 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $0 Yes 1 PRG-2 R Roadway Roadway Paving and Reconstruction (T3)Roadway paving and reconstruction $3,000,000 $0 Yes 2 PRG-3 R Roadway Bridge Repair and Replacement (T3)Bridge repair and replacement $792,000 $0 Yes 2 PRG-4 R Roadway Roadway Paving and Reconstruction Roadway paving and reconstruction $20,000,000 $0 No 2 PRG-5 R Roadway Bridge Repair and Replacement Bridge repair and replacement $3,000,000 $0 No 2 PRG-6 P Pedestrian Pedestrian Improvements (T3)Pedestrian improvements $1,000,000 $0 Yes 2 PRG-7 R Intersection Intersection and Corridor Improvements Intersection and corridor improvements $60,000 $0 Yes 2 PRG-8 PB Pedestrian Pedestrian Improvements Pedestrian improvements $100,000 $0 No 2 PRG-9 R Roadway Roadway Paving and Reconstruction Roadway paving and reconstruction $5,000,000 $0 No 3 PRG-10 R Roadway Bridge Repair and Replacement Bridge repair and replacement $6,500,000 $0 No 3 PRG-11 R Intersection Intersection and Corridor Improvements Intersection and corridor improvements $3,350,000 $0 Yes 3 TSPLOST Funding Scenario Project List, continued MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Intersection/Corridor Analysis and Modeling MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Intersection Analysis Project ID exIStINg coNtrol INterSectIoN aNalySIS tool Project recommeNDatIoN Peak PerIoD 12 Unsignalized Morris Road at Bethany Bend Synchro EB left-turn lane along Morris Rd; WB right- turn along McGinnis Ferry Rd AM PM Existing Build Existing Build F (58 .2) E (35 .0) F (52 .4) C (20 .6) Kimley-Horn Concept B (18 .5)B (13 .9) 2040 Build with McGinnis Ferry Interchange C (24 .9)B (15 .4) SIDRA Roundabout B (11 .3)B (7 .7) 13 Unsignalized Hopewell Road at Hamby Road Synchro Signal E (38 .4) C (33 .4) F (84 .1) B (18 .2) Roundabout SIDRA A (7 .2)C (14 .7) 18 Unsignalized Freemanville Road at Redd Road Synchro Signal F (57 .8) C (21 .9) F (54 .7) B (11 .9) C (16 .3) SIDRA All-way stop control with SB left-turn and WB right-turn lanes C (23 .8)C (9 .2) Roundabout C (9 .1) 4 Signalized Mayfield Road at Charlotte Drive Synchro/ SIDRA Construction of Charlotte Drive extension and roundabout A (8 .3)B (9 .8)B (16 .7)A (9 .0) 30 Signalized Cogburn Road at Bethany Bend Vissim Westbound right-turn lane and signal timing changes (with PM signal metering at Hopewell/Cogburn/Francis) C (20 .1) C (22 .1) F (202 .3) F (157 .5) Westbound right-turn lane and signal timing changes (with PM signal metering at Hopewell/Cogburn/Francis and NB right-turn lane) C (20 .2)E (55 .7) 39 Roundabout Hopewell Road at Cogburn Road/ Francis Road Vissim PM Signal metering to EB movement C (24 .0) D (38 .6) F (56 .4) F (71 .2) PM Signal metering to EB movement and NB right-turn lane F (82 .6)C (21 .9) 31 Unsignalized Hopewell Road at Thompson Road N Synchro Signal A (6 .8)D (49 .5)C (22 .0)B (15 .7) Hopewell Road at Thompson Road S Signal and EB right-turn lane F (74 .2)D (44 .1)A (5 .3)B (14 .8) Hopewell Road at Thompson Road SIDRA Roundabout -D (10 .7)-C (15 .4) 5 Unsignalized Morris Road at Webb Road Synchro Signal E (38 .7)B (13 .0)E (41 .4)B (13 .8) SIDRA Roundabout B (9 .9)C (12 .3) Note: All SIDRA LOS is based on Degree of Saturation SIDRA Method Concept Intersections MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project moDel Existing + Committed Build Number of Vehicles Total Network VMT (miles) Number of Vehicles Total Network VMT (miles) Arnold Mill Road Widening (with Rucker Road operational improvements) Between Green Road and New Providence Road 24,329 201,477,696 38,868 201,379,421 Deerfield/Charlotte New Connections Deerfield New Connection 0 6,116 201,401,290 Crabapple Connection 0 11,024 NE Crabapple Connection 0 8,224 Webb Road New Connection Webb Road Connection from Morris Road to Windward Parkway 0 9,636 201,401,044 ARC Travel Demand Model Results No Text MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN City Budget Data MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANcaPItal Projectfy 2007fy 2008fy 2009fy 2010fy 2011fy 2012fy 2013fy 2014fy 2015Sum of 2011-2015Bridges- $2,250 $105,664 $64,531 $109,747 $569,142 $283,317 $3,034 $76,655 $1,041,895 Inspectors- - $5,302 $8,828 $20,978 - - $21,224 - $42,202 Intersection Improvements- - - - $99,235 $474,800 $161,595 $940,012 $269,726 $1,945,368 Maintenance/Renovation $9,052 $2,962 $797,094 $810,635 $2,814,047 $856,574 $2,083,166 $3,204,683 $1,249,163 $10,207,633 New Roadway Connections- - - - - - - - - Pedestrian Connections- - - - $1,500 $16,033 $68,779 $200,789 $114,643 $401,743 Planning- - - -- $15,000 - - $47,064 $62,064 Roadway Safety- $15,367 $22,691 - - $7,410 $38,182 - $56,479 $102,071 Transit- - - - - - - - - - Total $9,052 $20,579 $930,751 $883,994 $3,045,507 $1,938,959 $2,635,039 $4,369,742 $1,813,730 $13,802,976 City of Milton Transportation Expenditures Capital Project and Capital GrantscaPItal graNtfy 2007fy 2008fy 2009fy 2010fy 2011fy 2012fy 2013fy 2014fy 2015Sum of 2011-2015Bridges- - -- - - - - - - Inspectors- - -- - - - - - - Intersection Improvements- - - $149,112 $428,183 $275,746 $1,899,034 $540,408 $3,355,837 $6,499,208 Maintenance/Renovation- - - - - - $206,561 $275,873 $278,684 $761,118 New Roadway Connections- - - - - - - - - - Pedestrian Connections- - - - - - - $145,903 $168,093 $313,996 Planning- - $464,565 $47,533 - - - - - - Roadway Safety- - - - - - - - - - Transit- - - - $303,448 $132,197 $9,650 $95,788 $480 $541,563 Total- - $464,565 $196,645 $731,631 $407,943 $2,115,245 $1,057,972 $3,803,094 $8,115,885 MILTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN McGinnis Ferry Road Proposed Interchange Analysis kimley-horn.com 817 West Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 601, Atlanta, GA 30308 404-419-8700 September 1, 2015 Carter Lucas Sara Leaders City of Milton, Public Works Department 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 Milton, GA 30004 RE: McGinnis Ferry Road Interchange Modeling Summary Dear Carter/Sara: In anticipation of the upcoming open house for the McGinnis Ferry Rd. interchange, we have completed two tasks in an effort to provide staff with technical guidance. Our first task was to clean the ARC travel demand model for use in the CTP and to conduct some preliminary testing of the interchange in 2015 and 2040. Our second task was to review the IJR completed in 2013 for the McGinnis Ferry interchange. Please recall that this is not a thorough analysis of the interchange due to scope/budget limitations and the short timeframe necessitated by the date of the open house. The following comments are meant to assist staff with recommendations to City Council. Travel Demand Model Evaluation Below outlines a summary of our recent t esting of the proposed McGinnis Ferry Rd. interchange with the Atlanta Regional Commission’s (ARC) regional travel demand model. We assessed three scenarios: 2015 No-Build – This is the base ARC network cleaned and calibrated for the greater Milton area. No socioeconomic data changes were made other than to subdivide one Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) near McGinnis Ferry Road. 2015 Build – This is the same network as the No-Build but with the McGinnis Ferry Rd. interchange concept coded in. This concept included additional lanes above the existing conditions along McGinnis Ferry Rd. and Ronald Reagan Pkwy based upon GDOT’s latest design. Below are the road widening projects coded into the roadway network along with the new interchange. The purpose of this scenario was to determine the impacts of the new interchange on roads in Milton. Road Widening Condition (per direction) From To McGinnis Ferry Rd. 1 lane 2 lanes Bethany Bend Windward Concourse McGinnis Ferry Rd. 2 lane 3 lanes Windward Concourse Union Hill Rd./McGinnis Ferry Rd. Ronald Reagan Pkwy. 2 lane 3 lanes Union Hill Rd./McGinnis Ferry Rd. McFarland Pkwy. September 1, 2015, Page 2 kimley-horn.com 817 West Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 601, Atlanta, GA 30308 404-419-8700 2040 Build – This scenario was run on the 2015 Build roadway network with 2040 socioeconomic conditions. No additional roadway network modifications were made other than adding in the proposed interchange and associated widening mentioned above. The purpose of this scenario was to determine the growth in traffic volumes that can be expected in the vicinity of the new interchange due to changes in population and employment from 2015 to 2040. M ODEL RESULTS The travel demand model for the Atlanta metro area includes not only all of Milton, but also all of the surrounding areas that are relevant to impacts of the new interchange at McGinnis Ferry. As with any travel demand forecasting, we are sure that the results are not precisely correct; however, the modeling does provide a good, objective manner of assessing changes that may occur as a result of the new interchange and as a result of the growth of population, employment, and other socio- economic factors. 2015 No-Build Model Results No major changes were made to the base-condition model other than model calibration and general network cleanup. Results represent a 2015 No-Build base condition. 2015 Build Model Results Traffic volume increases along McGinnis Ferry Rd. For example, the bridge over GA 400 increased from approximately 9,900 trips per day (2015 No-Build) to 17,200 trips per day (2015 Build) No substantial increases along Bethany Bend and Morris Rd. McGinnis Ferry Rd. to the east of GA 400 had significant increases in volume. Most of the traffic using the new interchange will be using the roads east of GA 400 rather than on Milton’s side of GA 400. 2040 Build Model Results Substantial increases along McGinnis Ferry Rd. For example, the bridge over GA 400 increased from approximately 9,900 trips per day (2015 NB) to 26,200 trips per day (2040 Build). McGinnis Ferry Rd. west of the proposed interchange had an approximate 55% - 75% increase in volume McGinnis Ferry Rd. east of the proposed interchange had an approximate 75% increase in volume. Morris Rd. and Bethany Bend had an approximate 10 – 20% increase in volume (14,000- 15,000 total on Morris Rd. and 13,000 on Bethany Bend) No changes were made to Morris Rd. or Bethany Bend; they are consistent with the 2015 No-Build network. September 1, 2015, Page 3 kimley-horn.com 817 West Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 601, Atlanta, GA 30308 404-419-8700 It is expected that if either Morris Rd. or Bethany Bend were widened to four -lane facilities, more traffic would have been diverted to them. Comparison to the Interchange Justification Report As discussed in previous conversations, we expect that the McGinnis Ferry interchange will be constructed whether or not local jurisdictions support it due to how far the project has advanced. We reviewed the Interchange Justification Report (IJR) to better understand existing conditions, the Need and Purpose for the project, the alternatives that were tested, and traffic metrics that were analyzed. In the IJR, three primary needs were cited for the proposed interchange with the second having the most emphasis: 1. Relieve traffic congestion at the existing interchanges 2. Additional freeway access for economic development 3. Reduction in severity and frequency of collisions Six alternatives were considered with one being the No-Build, two including a new interchange, and three having improvements to the adjacent interchanges and nearby roadway network. Traffic analysis was conducted using both Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and CORSIM microsimulation. Analysis of segments and intersections stops at the intersection of McGinnis Ferry and Bethany Bend and does not include anything to the west of this intersection. Analysis years include 2020 and 2040, so a direct comparison with our high-level modeling could only be done with year 2040. Results from the IJR are shown in the table below in vehicles per day. Road 2020 No-Build 2020 Build 2040 Build McGinnis Ferry Rd. (west of SR 400) 18,200 24,300 26,500 Morris Rd. (north of Webb Rd.) 15,800 17,900 19,500 Bethany Bend 7,800 15,400 18,000 The volumes projected to be using Morris Rd. and Bethany Bend are higher in the 2040 results of the IJR than even in our high-level modeling exercise. According to Florida Level-of-Service tables used by GRTA for link level AADTs, a two lane undivided facility with fewer than two signals per mile can accommodate approximately 16,600 vehicles per day at LOS D. According to the IJR, the volumes on Morris Road are expected to exceed the threshold and those on Bethany Bend will almost meet that threshold by 2020. The link level analysis does not take into account any unusual delay associated with intersection operations. September 1, 2015, Page 4 kimley-horn.com 817 West Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 601, Atlanta, GA 30308 404-419-8700 Conclusions Projected volumes along Morris Rd. and Bethany Bend, particularly in the IJR, indicate a need for more roadway capacity in the year 2040 to the west of McGinnis Ferry Rd. at Bethany Bend/Morris Rd. Better access management and operational roadway improvements such as a landscaped median or dedicated turn lanes at major intersections along Morris Rd. and Bethany Bend would help relieve projected traffic in the short term. The existing GDOT concept for the intersection at Bethany Bend and Morris Rd/McGinnis Ferry Rd. includes additional capacity along all approaches (dedicated turning movements and/or lanes). Further operational study and improvements may be warranted. Additionally, the proximity of Strickland Rd. near this intersection may warrant further consideration of future improvements along Bethany Bend between Strickland Rd. and McGinnis Ferry Rd./Morris Rd (for example – a dedicated right turn lane from Bethany Bend northbound to Strickland Rd.). Widening along Morris Rd. (between Bethany Bend and Webb Rd.) and widening along Webb Rd. (between Morris Rd. and Deerfield Parkway), may alleviate projected 2040 traffic and possibly divert some trips off of Bethany Bend – providing improved access to SR 9 and reduced impact to residential areas along Bethany Bend. While not tested, a new local crossing over SR 400 will provide better connectivity and options, particularly for local Milton and Alpharetta residents who will no longer have a local crossing within the cities’ limits. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Cristina C. Pastore, P.E., AICP Project Manager HOME OP'THE BEST QUALITY OF LIfE IN GEORG MILTON E S TA B L I TH E 22006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: November 22, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager O AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend the Charter of the City of Milton for the Purpose Of Clarifying Section 1.12(b)(40)(A) and Section 6.11(b). MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if ne77 cessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: (.YAPPRO VED 0 NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: (.J 4ss () NO CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: PKES (J NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY: ,/APPROVED () NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: It -lo -974K REMARKS: ©.y Youln --- -- PHONE: 678.242.25001 FAX: 678.242.2499 nga.us InloBcityalmllfonga.us l w .dlyofmlMo,,,;�,r, Community „ y 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 �i„a 1 STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF MILTON, GEORGIA WHEREAS, Article IX, Section II, Paragraph II of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, entitled Home Rule for Municipalities, allows the General Assembly of the State of Georgia to provide by law for the self-government of municipalities, which the General Assembly has done with The Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965, O.C.G.A. § 36-35-1, et seq.; and WHEREAS, O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 provides that the governing authority of each municipal corporation shall have legislative power to adopt clearly reasonable ordinances, resolutions and regulations relating to its property, affairs, and local government for which no provision has been made by general law and which are not inconsistent with the Constitution or any charter provision applicable thereto; and WHEREAS, O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 provides that a municipal corporation may, as an incident of its home rule power, amend its charter, except where prohibited pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-35-6; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the Charter of the City of Milton so as to reconcile and clarify subparagraph (b)(40)(A) of Section 1.12 and paragraph (b) of Section 6.11 with respect to the maximum millage rate limitations applicable to ad valorem taxes on real property for operating budget and general obligation bond purposes; and WHEREAS, the modifications provided for in this Resolution and Ordinance may be lawfully completed by home rule; and WHEREAS, O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 provides that, in order to amend its charter, a municipal corporation must duly adopt ordinances at two regular consecutive meetings of the municipal governing authority, not less than seven (7) nor more than sixty (60) days apart; WHEREAS, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3, a notice, containing a synopsis of the proposed amendment and stating that a copy of the proposed amendment is on file in the office of the clerk or the recording officer of the municipal governing authority and in the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Fulton County for the purpose of examination and inspection by the public, shall be published in the official organ of the county of the legal situs of the municipal corporation or in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipal corporation once a week for three weeks within a period of 60 days immediately preceding its final adoption; and WHEREAS, those requirements applicable to amendments to the charter of a municipal corporation by a resolution or ordinance duly adopted by the municipality’s governing authority as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 have been met and satisfied, and, specifically, notice of the consideration of this Resolution and Ordinance has been advertised and this Resolution and Ordinance has been duly adopted by the governing authority at two regularly consecutive meetings in compliance with O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3; and 2 WHEREAS, a majority of the Council deems it to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Milton that the Act be further amended. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Milton hereby ordains and resolves that the Charter of the City of Milton shall be amended as follows: Section 1.12. Section 1.12 – Municipal powers is amended by inserting the following underlined and bolded text into subparagraph (b)(40)(A) of Section 1.12 as follows: (b) [Specific, particular powers.] The powers of this city shall be construed liberally in favor of the city. The specific mention or failure to mention particular powers shall not be construed as limiting in any way the powers of this city. Said powers shall include, but are not limited to, the following: (40) Taxes (ad valorem). To levy and provide for the assessment, valuation, revaluation, and collection of taxes on all property subject to taxation; provided, however, that: (A) For all years, the millage rate imposed for ad valorem taxes on real property for operating budget purposes (not general obligation bond purposes) shall not exceed 4.731 unless a higher limit is recommended by resolution of the city council and approved by a majority of the qualified voters of the city voting in a referendum; provided, however, that for the purposes of compliance with O.C.G.A. § 48-8-91, the millage rate may be adjusted upward for the sole purpose of complying with the millage rate rollback provisions set forth therein. For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term 'qualified voters' means those voters of the city who are qualified to vote in city elections and cast a vote for or against such measure in such referendum. The question to be presented to the voters in the referendum on increasing the millage rate shall be 'Do you approve increasing taxes on residential and nonresidential property for City of Milton property owners by raising from [current millage rate] to [proposed millage rate] the operating budget millage rate, which was capped in the original charter for the city?' If such millage rate increase is approved by the qualified voters of the City of Milton voting in the referendum, the new rate shall become the maximum limit until changed again by resolution of the city council and approval by a majority of the qualified voters of the City of Milton voting in a referendum; Section 6.11. Section 6.11 - Millage [rate] is amended by inserting the following underlined and bolded text into paragraph (b) of Section 6.11 as follows: (b) For all years, the millage rate imposed for ad valorem taxes on real property for operating budget purposes (not general obligation bond purposes) shall not exceed 4.731 unless a higher millage rate is recommended by resolution of the city council and subsequently approved by a majority of the qualified voters of the city voting in a referendum. For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'qualified voters' means those voters of the city who are qualified to vote in city elections and cast a vote for or a gainst 3 such measure in such referendum. This millage rate limit shall apply to the millage rate actually levied and shall not apply to the hypothetical millage rate computed under subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 48-8-91, relating to conditions on imposition of the joint county and municipal sales tax. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this Resolution and Ordinance or the application thereof shall be held invalid or unconstitutional, the other provisions of this Resolution and Ordinance shall not be affected, and thus, the provisions of this Resolution and Ordinance are declared severable. REPEALER Any other Ordinance, Resolution, or local law, or portion thereof, now in effect, that is in conflict with any of the provisions of this Resolution and Ordinance is hereby repealed. EFFECTIVE DATE This Resolution and Ordinance shall become effective when all required documents have been filed with the Secretary of State and in the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court of Fulton County as required by O.C.G.A. § 36-35-5. ADOPTION AT TWO CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS This Resolution and Ordinance was adopted at two (2) regular consecutive meetings of the Council of the City of Milton held on November 21, 2016 and December 5, 2016 as required by O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3. BE IT SO RESOLVED AND ORDAINED, the public’s health, safety, and welfare demanding it, this ___ day of ____________________, 2016, by the Council of the City of Milton, Georgia. Approved: _______________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie Gordon, City Clerk (Seal) HOME OF'THE BEST QUALITY OF LIFE M GEOR IA AL MILTON't4 ESTABLISHEDrz CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: City Council DATE: November 22, 2016 FROM: Steven Krokoff, City Manager 0\ AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Resolution Establishing A Charter Commission for the City of Milton, Georgia. MEETING DATE: Monday, December 5, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached memorandum APPROVAL BY CITY MANAGER: (.l APPROVED (J NOT APPROVED CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL REQUIRED: (.KYES () NO CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED: (4ES () NO APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY: (.JIAPPROVED (J NOT APPROVED PLACED ON AGENDA FOR: 11r4204 REMARKS: ©» You(n PHONE: 678.242.25001 FAX: 678.242.2499 'Green • wr C. un O1ry"�{ Info�clryofmilfonga.uslwww.aHyofmlMonga.us ., Ems'° 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107 1 Milton GA 30004 - """"`° °"°"'° s STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CHARTER COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF MILTON, GEORGIA THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILTON HEREBY RESOLVES while in regular session on the 5th day of December, 2016 as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.18 of the Charter for the City of Milton, Georgia, at the first regularly scheduled city council meeting in December, 2011, and every 5 years thereafter, the mayor and city council shall call for a Charter Commission to review the city's experience and recommend to the General Assembly any changes to the City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City of Milton was incorporated December 1, 2006; and WHEREAS, in accord with Section 7.18 of the Charter, a Milton Charter Commission was established in December 2011; and WHEREAS, it is in the interests of the citizens of the City of Milton to establish a second Charter Commission to undertake another review of the City Charter; and WHEREAS, it is further in the interests of the citizens of the City of Milton that the Charter Commission receive input from the elected officials of Milton as to those areas of the Charter in need of potential revision or adjustment; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and the City Council may each appoint one member to the Charter Commission; and WHEREAS, each member of the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate whose district lies wholly or partially within the corporate boundaries of the City of Milton may appoint one member to the Charter Commission; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and the City Council have determined that their appointees shall be as set forth below; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THIS COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILTON, GEORGIA, as follows: 1. That a second Charter Commission is hereby established to again review the city's experience and recommend to the General Assembly any changes to the City Charter. 2. That the Charter Commission assemble for organizational purposes as quickly as practicable following formation, but shall not assemble for purposes of discussing substantive charter-related issues until at least January 15, 2017. 3. That the City Council for the City of Milton shall, at the first regular Council meeting in January 2017, consider and approve a detailed list of those Milton Charter areas and issues for which it would request that the Charter Commission specifically review. This list shall be provided to the Charter Commission at its introductory meeting. 4. This draft list shall be assembled by city staff, in conjunction with the City Manager, and shall be placed on the December 12, 2016 City Council work session agenda for consideration in order that a final list may be approved by the City Council at its first regular meeting in January 2017. 5. All members of the Charter Commission must reside in the City of Milton. 6. The Mayor hereby appoints Bill O’Connor to serve on the City of Milton’s Charter Commission. 7. The City Council hereby appoints David Shannon to serve on the City of Milton’s Charter Commission. 8. Each member of the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate whose district lies wholly or partially within the corporate boundaries of the City of Milton shall appoint one member to the Charter Commission as follows: Senator John Albers (Senate District 56) hereby appoints Ron Wallace; Representative Jan Jones (House District 47) hereby appoints Peyton Jamison; Senator Brandon Beach (Senate District 21) hereby appoints Bob Meyers; and Representative Wes Cantrell (House District 22) hereby appoints Brenda Hamstead. 9. The Milton Council further hereby appoints the City Manager to serve in an ex officio capacity with respect to the Charter Commission and provide as much input as is needed by the Commission. 10. The Charter Commission must complete its review and make recommendations by June 5, 2017. 11. The City Attorney or an attorney from that office shall attend the meetings of the Charter Commission to provide substantive and procedural legal guidance, and to ensure all necessary minutes and other procedural protocols are observed. RESOLVED this 5th day of December, 2016. Approved: _______________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk (Seal)