HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket - PC - 05-22-2007 City of Milton
Deerfield Professional Centre 13000 Deerfield Parkway Building 100, Suite 107 E Milton, GA 30004
**Meeting Codes: CZIM-Community Zoning Information Meeting; DRB-Design Review Board;
CDRM-Community/Developer Resolution Meeting; PC-Planning Commission; MCC-Mayor and City Council
W:\Board of Commissions\Planning Commission\Planning Commission 5.22.07\PCAGENDA MAY.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 7:00 pm
Agenda Item Description Meeting
Dates**
Staff
Recommendation
PC
Recommendation
I. Invocation
II. Pledge of
Allegiance
III. Call to Order
IV. Amendment of
By-Laws
V. Approval of
Minutes
Minutes from the April
24, 2007 Planning
Commission Meeting
Approval
VI. TEXT
AMENDMENTS
A. RZ07-004
Articles
19.4.1.,19.4.2
Adult Book Stores,
Adult Entertainment
Establishments
MCC -6/21/07
Approval
VII. REZONINGS
New
A. RZ07-003
12608 Crabapple Road
to rezone from AG-1 to
MIX to develop 12,000
square feet of
Commercial and 31
units of Residential
by Trinity Land
Group,LLC
CZIM-4/25/07
DRB-6/5/07
MCC-6/21/07
Denial
VIII. Other Business
A. Proposed State Route 9
Overlay Text
Amendments to go to
the Design Review
Board for review
B. Request for Milton City
Council include
codification of
Crabapple and
Birmingham Crossroads
on City Work Plan
5/16/2007 Revision 1
By-Laws of the City of Milton Planning Commission
Article I
Establishment
Section 1: The Planning Commission is created per Chapter 2, Administration, Article 3, City
Advisory Boards, Commissions and Authorities, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances, and its
membership has been appointed by the Mayor and City Council based on the composition and term
requirements as required therein.
Section 2: As allowed by Chapter 2, Administration, Article 3, City Advisory Boards, Commissions
and Authorities, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances, the Commission hereby adopts the rules,
procedures, and guidelines for the transaction of its business as referenced herein.
Article II
Purpose
Section 1: The Planning Commission is an advisory board which reports its findings and
recommendations to the Mayor and City Council. The Commission is charged with upholding the policies
of the Comprehensive Plan and other Plans related to land use policies when reviewing rezonings, use
permits, concurrent variances, and changes to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. The Commission
shall continuously evaluate and recommend changes to both subdivisions regulations, zoning ordinances,
and official zoning maps, as appropriate. In addition, the Commission shall work to maintain the
significance of the Comprehensive Plan by encouraging that policies and recommended work programs
are followed.
Section 2: The Planning Commission bases its decisions on compliance with the established policy
of the Comprehensive Plan and other related Plans and through an investigation and recommendation with
respect to the seven (7) factors listed below:
A. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use
and development of adjacent and nearby property;
B. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of
adjacent or nearby property;
C. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable
economic use as currently zoned;
5/16/2007 Revision 2
D. Whether the zoning proposal will result in a use which will or could cause and
excessive burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or
schools;
E. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the
land use plan;
F. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and
development of the property which give supporting grounds for either approval or
disapproval of the zoning proposal; and
G. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered
environmentally adverse to the natural resources, environment and citizens of
Milton.
Article III
Election of Officers
Section 1: This Commission shall elect, yearly, a Chair from among its members.
Section 2: The Commission deems that a chair shall be elected, by a majority of the Commission’s
membership, and shall serve a term as per the Resolution of one (1) year. The Chair shall preside over
the Commission and have the right to vote.
Section 3: In addition, the Commission deems it necessary to elect a Vice Chair, by a majority of the
Commission’s membership, who shall serve a term as per the Resolution of one (1) year. In the absence
or disability of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair.
Article IV
Member Duties
Section 1: Per Chapter 2, Administration, Article 3, City Advisory Boards, Commissions, and
Authorities, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances, Commission members must attend two-thirds
(2/3) of the meetings in a calendar year. Failure to do so warrants removal from the Commission.
Section 2: Each Member shall share with all other Members and City staff any written material
(including e-mails) received by that Member that is related to a matter before the Planning Commission.
Section 3: No Member shall discuss any matters pending before the Planning Commission outside
of public hearings or public meetings related to such matters.
Section 4: Each Member shall recuse him/herself in the event of any conflict of interest with regard
to a matter pending before the Planning Commission.
Article V
Meetings
5/16/2007 Revision 3
Section 1: Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the fourth (4th) Thursday of each
month at 7:00 p.m. at the City of Milton City Hall, located at 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Building 100,
Council Chambers, Milton, Georgia 30004.
Section 2: Special Meetings of the Commission may be called by the Chair, provided public notices
are posted as required by law and all members are notified.
Section 3: A quorum shall be present for a meeting of the Commission to begin. A majority of the
members of the Commission (four (4) members) shall constitute a quorum.
Section 4: All meetings shall be open to the public. The staff is directed to draft an agenda for
meetings based on the order of business as follows. The agenda shall be followed unless the Chair
makes a motion to hear items on the agenda out of their assigned order.
1. Pledge of allegiance/invocation
2. Consideration of minutes/actions of previous meetings.
3. Considerations of Rezoning and Use Permit Applications
4. Consideration of Text Amendments to the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance.
5. Consideration of changes to the City of Milton Comprehensive Plan and other
plans.
Section 5: The Chair shall call the meeting to order and read the following statement prior to
consideration of the agenda:
This is a regular meeting of the City of Milton Planning Commission. I am ________________(Chair
person or Vice Chairperson . This is a seven-member Commission appointed by the City of Milton
Mayor and City Council, created for the purpose of holding public hearings and making
recommendations on rezoning, use permits, concurrent variance applications, Comprehensive Land Use
Plan and Plan Map and other related Plans, and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
INTRODUCE BOARD MEMBERS
The petitions will be heard in the sequence listed on the posted agenda. I would like to acquaint you with
some of the rules and procedures conducting this meeting.
The applicant, and all those speaking in support of an application, will be allowed a total of ten (10)
minutes to present the petition. The applicant may choose to save some of the time for rebuttal following
the presentation by the opposition.
The opposition will be allowed a total of ten (10) minutes to present its position. If time remains, the
opposition will be allowed to rebut.
Since the burden of proof is upon the applicant, the applicant will be allowed to make closing remarks,
provided time remains with the allotted time.
The staff of the Community Development Department will be keeping track of time and will inform you
periodically of the remaining time for your presentation.
5/16/2007 Revision 4
Each Speaker must fill out a speaker card before speaking and leave it with a staff member of the
Community Development Department.
All speakers will identify themselves by name, address and organization, if applicable, before beginning
their presentation.
Each application has been properly filed with the Department of Community Development. Signs have
been posted on each site, the matter has been advertised and the notices have been mailed to property
owners affected by this zoning as required by the Milton Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City of Milton Mayor and City
Council for final disposition. The Mayor and City Council hearing will be held approximately 3 ½ weeks
from this hearing, on the third (3rd) Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council chambers.
The Community Development Department has reviewed each application in conjunction with various
agencies and departments, both internal and external to the City. Staff’s recommendations, findings, and
conclusions are here before us in written form which has been made available to all petitioners and to
the public.
Demonstration of any sort within the chamber is prohibited, so please refrain from any applause,
dialogue with the person speaking or outburst. Please turn off all cell phones, or place them on silent.
All remarks will be addressed by the Planning Commission. Please show the same respect to the person
speaking that you will expect to receive yourself.
In addition, the applicant shall not submit material to the Planning Commission during the meeting,
unless requested to do so by the Commission. All material that you wish to be reviewed by the
Commission in consideration of your application should be submitted to the staff of the Community
Development Department, to be included in the normal distribution of packages to the Commission.
Finally, to the applicant, if your petition is deferred in accordance with the Milton Zoning Ordinance,
you are required to update or obtain a new sign for reposting. Failure to update or re-post will result in
further delay. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.
CALL FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. Time will be limited to 2 minutes per person, not to
exceed 14 minutes.
(Call for the first agenda item.)
Section 6: All applications to the Commission shall be accompanied by the applicant or agent
representing the applicant. Should the applicant or agent for a particular application not be present at the
time the subject application is heard, the application shall be moved to the end of the agenda. Should the
applicant or agent not be available at the time of reconsideration at the meeting, the Commission shall
vote to defer the application to the next available Commission meeting within which time the applicant
shall have met all applicable deadlines for the resubmitted material.
Section 7: Consideration of applications by the Commission shall be as follows:
1. Call for the first agenda item.
2. The Chair identifies the application.
5/16/2007 Revision 5
3. The staff presents the application. to the Commission.
4. The Chair calls for the applicant to present the application. (The applicant will have a
time limit of 10 minutes.)
5. The Chair calls for public comment regarding opposition to the application. (There will
be a time limit of 10 minutes for public comments.)
6. The Chair calls for the applicant to present a rebuttal or closing statements, if allotted
time remains.
7. The Chair calls for the opposition to a petition to present a rebuttal, if allotted time
remains.
8. If the opposition has chosen to rebut the applicant rebuttal or closing statement, the Chair
shall call the applicant to present final closing statements, if allotted time remains.
9. The Chair calls the public meeting closed.
10. The Commission addresses questions to the applicant, staff, and the public regarding the
application.
11. The Chair calls for a motion on the application.
12. The Chair calls for a second on the motion.
13. The Chair calls for a discussion on the motion.
14. The Chair calls for a vote on the motion.
Section 8: Decisions of the Commission shall be by a majority vote of the members present. The
Commission may move to recommend approval of an application, approval conditional denial, or
deferral. A vote on a motion resulting in a tie of the members present shall constitute a failed motion.
The commission must take an action on an application if it is on a scheduled agenda.
Section 9: The applicant and all those speaking in support of an application will be allowed a total
of ten (10) minutes to present the petition. The applicant may choose to save some of the time for
rebuttal following the presentation by the opposition. The opposition will be allowed a total of ten (10)
minutes to present its position. However, time may be extended by majority vote. If time remains, the
opposition will be allowed to rebut.
Section 10: The Planning Commission will not accept material submitted to the Commission during
the meeting, unless requested to do so by the Commission. The Commission shall only consider that
material which has been submitted to the Community Development Department and is included in the
normal distribution of packages to the Commission. This shall include the consideration of revised site
plans that have not yet been accepted ore reviewed by the Staff of the Community Development
Department.
Article VI
Modification of Bylaws
Section 1: Except for those requirements regulated by the City of Milton Code of Ordinances, any
of these Procedures may be modified by a majority vote of the Planning Commission at any regular
meeting, provided the amendment was submitted in writing at a previous meeting and that said
notification contains a full statement of the proposed amendment. Any proposed amendment:
1. Must include existing and proposed texts.
2. Must include a statement of the purpose and intended effect of the proposed change.
MINUTES
City of Milton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
April 24, 2007, 7:00 PM
Commission Members Present: Curtis Mills, Bob Moheb, Paul Moore, Cary Schlenke, George Ragsdale,
Fred Edwards, Paul Hackman
Meeting Leader/City Staff: Robyn MacDonald, Planner
Mike Tuller, Deputy Director Community Development
INVOCATION
Chair Paul Moore stated that in lieu of invocation, observation of moment of silence for Virginia Tech tragedy.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chair Paul Moore stated that the agenda was a little different tonight, as there are no applications to hear, but he was
delighted that everyone was present to discuss the business they do have at hand. There are some administrative things to
tend to prior inviting the community to speak and then called the meeting to order.
He stated they are a seven member commission appointed by the City of Milton Mayor and City Council created for the
purpose of holding public hearings and make recommendations on rezonings, use permits, current variance applications,
comprehensive land use plan and plan maps and other related plans and amendments to the zoning ordinance.
Chair Paul Moore then introduced Commission Members.
Chair Paul Moore advised the public speaks that each person that spoke had to complete a public comment card before
speaking and leave it with a staff member of the Community Development Department. He stated that all speakers should
identify themselves by name, address and organization, if applicable before beginning their presentation. He further
stated that a demonstration of any sort within the chambers were prohibited, so to refrain from any applause, dialog with
the person speaker first and to turn off all cell phones or place them on silent. All remarks will be addressed by the
Planning Commission and please show the same respect to the person speaking as you would respect to receive yourself.
Chair Paul Moore said that the first matter he would like to call to business is to amend the Bylaws of the Planning
Commission. The Commission concluded based on their recent work session that they are actually in need of a bit more
work prior to the adoption of the Bylaws or new changes to the Bylaws so at this time wanted to entertain a motion to
move the Bylaws to the next work session and then adopted at the next public meeting.
Seconded by Commission Member Cary Schlenke.
Vote was called - unanimous, motion carried.
Page 1 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 2 of 21
Chair Paul Moore called the next order of business which was the adoption of the minutes from the March 19, 2007
Special Called Planning Commission Meeting.
Motion to approve made by Paul Hackman and seconded by Fred Edwards.
Vote was called - unanimous, motion carried and minutes were approved.
Chair Paul Moore called the next order of business which was the adoption of the minutes from the March 22, 2007
Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Motion to approve made by Bob Moheb and seconded by Cary Schlenke.
Vote was called - unanimous, motion carried and minutes were approved.
Chair Paul Moore stated that one of the Commission Members, Fred Edwards, wanted to read something into the record.
Commission Member Fred Edwards said he wanted the Staff to brief them on the attorney who has been representing the
City of Milton regarding billboards. He said that from the last City Council meeting, it seemed to him that they were
receiving counsel on ordinances they the Commission passed or defeated that are in front of you. He said that if this was
true, he felt that the Planning Commission should be entitled to that counsel before this Commission has to pass a defeated
ordinance.
Chair Paul Moore asked if he was talking about the City Attorney or the lady -- Laurel Henderson?
Staff Michael Tuller said that Laurel Henderson has been helping the city out with guidance based on the City of
Fayetteville's city ordinance laws that were upheld by the state and has been giving us guidance as to what type of
ordinance would protect the City of Milton from the encouragement of billboards in the future. She did recommend many
things and he believed there was some literature around that may have referenced her name in the documentation.
Chair Paul Moore asked if the assessment of the sign ordinance took place after the voting of the Planning Commission.
Staff Robyn MacDonald said yes it did.
Chair Paul Moore said he believed that the position Commission Member Fred Edwards was taking tonight and he would
too, is that they invested about 5 and a half hours as a Planning Commission in the course of their meeting prior to that
interpretation of the ordinance by the outside attorney and this was a significant investment of time away from their
families as part of their commitment to the city and the things represented in the course of that work that evening were
things they felt represented the voice of the community and they were acting in accordance with what those voices of our
neighbors and business associates and other community acquaintances would have asked them to represent them and they
thought that it was disrespectful of this Commission's work to have that kind of significant change done after their work
had been completed and then City Council took that as obviously valuable input from this attorney. He said he certainly
respected that, but it really diminished the value and the time invested on the part of this Commission, so he would just
ask the benefit of that kind of guidance to an ordinance prior to their interpretation of going forward as well.
Chair Paul Moore asked if there were any other comments.
Commission Member Bob Moheb said his concern was for legal reasons. It was his understanding previously that
whatever went before the Council would have to come before them, but after a conversation with Mark Scott asking him
again for legal reasons, did this need to come back to the Planning Commission after being changed by someone other
than the Council and he stated it did not from a legal standpoint. He felt the same way, in that they did put a lot of time
Page 2 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 3 of 21
into this and he would have appreciated it coming back before them, but from another standpoint, as a city, they really
needed to get something passed into law for legal reasons with the billboards and everything else, so this is why he really
did not mind because he knew they had to get something in.
Commission Member Curtis Mills said he was sorry to pled ignorance here, but he was not aware of what they were
referring to. He asked if the Commission's recommendations were modified. He said he was not aware of this.
Chair Paul Moore advised that probably about 90% of the Commission's recommendations were changed at the last City
Council meeting. He stated that this Commission had taken some big and bold steps forward to place some tighter
restrictions on the sign ordinance and a majority of those were overturned by the City Council taking it back to larger
signs than what they said was appropriate.
Commission Member Curtis Mills asked if this was before it went to City Council.
Chair Paul Moore said no, that City Council had taken recommendation from an outside attorney resource during the
course of their Thursday night City Council meeting - that is when the action was taken. He said that they are entitled to
that -- we are a Commission of recommendation to City Council and they are entitled to do that.
Commission Member Curtis Mills said so they accepted 10% of our recommendation?
Chair Paul Moore said approximately.
Chair Paul Moore asked if there were any other questions.
Commission Member George Ragsdale said he thought the distinction he made was important, in that the Commission is
subject to whatever they recommend being turned over by the City Council - even 100% if they want, but unfortunately,
he was not at the meeting on Thursday night and what concerns him more is that he specifically asked about this issue at
the meeting they had back on the 19th of March and was told that there was none. He stated that his bothered him more
than anything else. To everybody else's point, they are here trying to do a job and if they are deprived of information that
is relevant to the decisions they are being asked to recommend, we cannot do this job.
Commission Member Bob Moheb said just so everyone knows, it was his understanding that any changes that Laurel
Henderson did make to the sign ordinance were for the reason, in her opinion, defending the Commission in any cases that
might come forward -- she thought might be a little too strict and the only changes she did make were what she thought
may get the sign ordinance turned over in the future.
Chair Paul Moore said he believed in no way was it intended to disrespect the guidance and recommendations from the
Planning Commission, but there was a sense of urgency to make sure that a good plan was developed knowing that they
are being faced with potential lawsuits in the future to develop a good ordinance to protect us. He said that there were
changes with respect to the size of small signs -- informational signs in front yards -- they went from 4 square feet up to
12 square feet, but those are actually three 2 x 2 square foot signs that could go in which was a change, and the
recommendations for the large freestanding signs really came from Cherokee County and that was nothing that was really
decided upon in the early stages. He said they probably heard counsel Mark Scott mention that he recommended 15 ft. as
the height minimum for these freestanding stands at 120 square feet and they went down to 12 as the maximum height, so
there was quite a bit of back and forth, but he was not aware of legal counsel until right before the session also.
Commission Member Curtis Mills asked who was the attorney representing and is it being represented that since this
Commission largely approved what city staff recommended, which supposedly came from a consensus of the City
Council, that 90% of what staff recommended would have been legally overturned? He said that this made no sense.
Page 3 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 4 of 21
Commission Member Bob Moheb said that he did not think any of the things they voted on were changed by Laurel
Henderson, who, to his understanding, is the attorney who will be defending this in the billboard lawsuits. From what he
saw, she did not change anything they had ruled on, but he believes that Commissioner Edwards was trying to see was he
would have appreciated the sign ordinance coming back to them since they did invest 5 and a half hours in it and they
would have liked to have been notified of those changes.
Commission Member Curtis Mills asked if Laurel Henderson represented the city or adjunct to Mark Scott.
Chair Paul Moore said, yes, he believed she was volunteering her services to help the Commission with the situation.
Commissioner George Ragsdale said that he believed she is a GMA attorney and is representing the city.
Chair Paul Moore said for clarification, the primary recommendations she is making, although there is interpretation
throughout the ordinance they worked on -- her primary role was to interpret the risks that the Commission was or not
putting themselves at with regard to billboards in particular. There were other recommendations made throughout the
ordinance which a number of the City Council members referred to, but he does not know if was the sole guidance that
they took when making their decisions during the course of their discussions that evening, but he thinks it was in a couple
of instances a profound measure for what they did rule on ultimately, which was to soften the significance of the
suggestions that the Planning Commission had recommended.
Commission Member Curtis Mills said that the Commission said that this discussion was over and that they could not un-
ring that bell and he said he concurred with the other Commissions and stated in the future, they would like to see
whatever changes were made before they go to Council -- this is common sense.
Commission Member George Ragsdale said his last point is that he is not so concerned with it not coming back to them.
He said to him that is not the issue. The issue is that they made a very good faith effort in the beginning to make sure that
they understood what they were looking at. They were not looking at a clean ordinance, but an ordinance that had been
significantly modified, they were told that it had been reviewed by outside counsel, they were told that the changes that
they were looking at represented the consensus of the counsel -- neither of which as it turns out were true and he said he
cannot speak for anybody else, but he knows that his thinking about his comments on that ordinance were influenced by
all of these things and had that been a clean ordinance, he believes the outcome would have been completely different
from the seven of them.
Chair Paul Moore asked if there were any other closing remarks. There being none, closing comments were closed among
the Commission and they moved to the next agenda item which was Citizen Input for the Crabapple Crossroads
Overlay District and State Route 9 Overlay District.
Chair Paul Moore said that there were a couple of procedural things they would like to introduce to the community as to
how they were going to manage the information. He asked for a show of hands of the people that were interested in
speaking this evening.
Commission Member George Ragsdale said it might be better to ask how many people were there to speak on one versus
another.
Chair Paul Moore said that they were welcome to also speak on both topics. Asked who wished to speak regarding the
Highway 9 Overlay -- said great, there were an equal number. If anyone wishes to speak on any topic, please feel free to
move forward to the speaker and fill out a comment card.
Page 4 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 5 of 21
Chair Paul Moore said in their last discussion during their work session to limit the public comment per overlay to 2
minutes, so in light of the fact that there are just a hand full of people who are looking forward to speaking, he would like
to extend the discussion to maybe 3 minutes. At the end of the interrupted 3 minutes, there may be questions of you or of
staff, but they do appreciate any comment they may have this evening.
Chair Paul Moore said prior to any public comment, he would like for the members present from the Design Review
Board to come forward and make any comments they may have into the record and that they value any input the Design
Review Board will bring to the community. He stated that it is their vision and oversight of the overlays and the master
plans that help actually produce the end results which are the aesthetics they are looking for to create the city. So at that
point, he invited them to come forward and make comments into the minutes.
Design Review Board Member Buck Bell. He stated he was the Chair of the Design Review Board and he would like to
instill in the Commission and to whomever else would like to listen to what he was going to say, is that the overlays are a
very strong and powerful instruments. They are written very well and from a guidance standpoint they are always left up
to interpretation and he believes that the clearer they can make the interpretation without overly burdening that
interpretation, he believed the better produce they will get. He said as he read through the Crabapple Overlay or the
Highway 9 Overlay, he saw a lot of things they could put in there that would make you understand it better. He said when
they wrote the overlay and asked for specific core examples so when he said they are looking for a certain roof type or
some type of screening enclosures, there would be actual examples of it. A picture is worth a thousand words. Something
like this can be added to the overlays and that would help it, along with the housekeeping he thinks needs to occur to
make the interpretation a little bit more pertinent. He said at this point after the NW Fulton Overlay has been enacted
since 1999, Crabapple since 2003 and Highway 9 shortly thereafter, he would like to invite the Planning Commission to
basically get some type of public forum together to discuss the development that has occurred since then to see what their
interpretation of that purpose is. He said he said he is a person that focuses more on Crabapple than Highway 9 himself,
he tends to see that a lot of bad has happened there. It has nothing to do with the overlay and nothing to do with the plan
or a lot of things, but then again, there is one side of him that says it is always darkest before the dawn -- the plan needs to
be finished and then see what they have before criticizing it. It said he believed the overlay is a very powerful instrument
and well written, but it is time to do some housekeeping, sharpen it and make it easier for interpretation, not only for
developers but for staff and to do that he said they just need to think through some of the obvious weaknesses of it.
Chair Paul Moore said that for the benefit of the community, one of the things that they need to make sure is that they
recognize the difference between the work that was approved by Fulton County prior to the City of Milton being created
and by some of those eleventh hour decisions there are some things that were approved that he thinks today by measure of
the new City of Milton may be a bigger step or a little out of line with the keeping of where he believed they are trying to
go as a city and under their own governments. In said in trying to take responsibility for how they are going to go forward
it is important to add this input to the overlay from all of the community as best as they can achieve that. He said he
believed this is the first of what may be the first of invitations from a number of different bodies throughout the official
capacities of the new members of Milton whether it is by City Council, DRB, information committees are going to be
created for the benefit of gathering more input. He said that as a planning commission they are invited to be a part of the
comprehensive use plan -- there is a new committee being created for that and there is an opportunity for the citizens to be
a member of that as well. He said as he looks forward to a number of meetings to take place that will provide for
community input. He said another key point to the intended plan, at least it was a personal agenda of his, is recognizing
the value of what the Crabapple master plan has provided and the Birmingham master plan. Recognizing that these plans
are not binding by law. He said they are policy and there are things that can be interpreted and overruled because they are
policies. He said it is his objective to as best they can, move forward with the adoption of or to convert the master plans at
some point to ordinances and they have to rewritten accordingly with the right kind of language.
Commission Member George Ragsdale said that Buck Bell indicated that what is there now may not be what he
personally expected, and since he was involved in the design and development of the overlay, what is it that could be
Page 5 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 6 of 21
improved if they were to start over -- what could be improved to make what is there more closely resemble what he
expected it to be. What is missing or wrong?
Speaker Buck Bell (DRB) said that the overlay contains all the elements that should have been followed. There is intent,
there is purpose, guidelines, visions, motives, and it all comes down unfortunately that vision is defined by the eye of the
implementer. He said they can write the strongest policy as possible, but when it comes down to those who are
responsible for ultimately interpreting it he would say woo those that can make the changes and then for those people to
not entitled themselves to understand the complete deal. He said he for as much time as he has spent in this area and with
the overlays and with Crabapple's plan and watching Birmingham nurse theirs and everything else, you get an inherent
sense of total understanding about it. He said while he wants to fault somebody for what has happened there and for the
same degree he cannot expect someone at Fulton County that was not briefed or given the time or education or did not ask
for help to be totally responsible for it. He said at the same time, there were enough people down there that knew exactly
what the vision was and had plenty of us hounding them about what the vision was and they just refused to listen, so in
talking to the Staff, Robyn, Tom and everybody here, he believes that the most important thing to understand maybe from
people like them and other people in the community that when they email or call or want to meet or there is a certain bug
under their rug that they want to talk about, that they are not here to hassle the community, but to help. They may see
things that may not be seen by anyone else. So yes it is there George, it is just again -- little details all add up to the big
picture.
Commission Member Bob Moheb asked Buck Bell that personally, he could not put his finger on it, but in his opinion, he
believed there is something completely wrong with what is going on in Crabapple and his opinion is that it is something to
do with the aesthetics of the buildings. He said if he thought there was one real thing that was going on with the aesthetics
of the buildings, what would you say that was?
Speaker Buck Bell (DRB) said he did not believe he could pick just one for him, but he said he would agree with him in
that Crabapple's plan was written to have diversity of product. That was a diversity of land size, a diversity of building
and architectural styles of scale, position and placement. He said if your look at the existing older structures in Crabapple,
you will notice that there is no rhyme or reason to their formation or their size. He said there was one congruent factor
through it all and that is that they were all placed naturally on the land, they all feel human in scale and they all have their
own design and aesthetic appearance that was defined not by an overlay but by the time and the evolution of time. He
said he believed what is being seen in Crabapple is difficult and he is not going to talk about the raising of the land and
how clean cut it is, which is simple something that sets a certain precedent, but the one thing that he thinks one of the
problems is the developers are not sympathetic nor controlled to have proportion between buildings where you can have a
smaller building next to a larger building. They all ended up being all the same size, all jam-packed in the small lots. The
road formula for Crabapple he did not believe was followed. He stated he believed it was followed to perpetuate density
and it also gives you the sense of tightness. He said some of the buildings in his opinion exceed the -- they say they meet
the eve requirement of being no greater than 30 feet, but he said he believes the appearance is much greater than 30 feet.
He said they did studied proportion and human scale into the placement of architecture and all and what happened in
Crabapple is kind of a race on the market - everybody wanted to get the biggest in the most in the least soonest. He
further stated that what is happening in Crabapple has a very direct relationship to the planning and that was to have the
intensity closer to the intersection and then to become larger and then smaller so that when it met the existing
developments that it did not ramble on and stall, but instead, it never transitioned in size.
Commission Member Curtis Mills said that Buck Bell closed his statement with strengths and weaknesses, but asked him
if he was saying that enforcement is a big of an issue as maybe what is not in or not in the plan that is not right?
Speaker Buck Bell (DRB) said he could probably key it in to his conversation beforehand about making recommendations
and then recommendations not being followed or heard or whatever and this interrupted it. He said he knows that when
they sat down with the developer and at that point they were the Crabapple Coalition, they were handed the developers the
moment that staff was done with their initial plan and it was up to them to gather the community which they always had a
Page 6 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 7 of 21
very difficult time doing, they looked at the plans -- there were four of them that primarily wrote the plan and honored the
plan and got the plan passed and implemented it, and they would work with the developers and make sure that everything
in the overlay was met. He said he had the strength to do that because he used to interpret it from being on the Design
Review Board back then so he knew it. He said they would work it all up with the developers and they would stand
before you guys, the commissioners then, hold up the plan and say, this is what we want, these are pictures of what we are
going to build, we have the complete community's agreement on this, they passed it, and then they had nothing else to do
with it. It would go before staff, plan review and permitting and some people down in Fulton County that were
administratively able to overrule judgment and things happened like detention ponds that were hidden in the back came
forward to the streets -- that land that was tilted away from sewer all of a sudden was allowed to tilt to sewer, which
allowed density to show up that was never supposed to be there, so there was a lot of things that happened -- he was going
to say behind closed doors -- because he was not there, that allowed things to happened. Then once they got their LDP and
they got their permits, more and more things changed. He said so again, a lot of things changed and strengths and
weaknesses comes down to everybody working together and believing that the people that wrote this ordinance and
understand it best, may need to help people understand what is going on and then stand firm as far as enforcement, but it
is not enforcement from violation, it is violation from interpretation of the plan.
Commission Member Curtis Mills said that is what he thought he was saying. So he asked Mr. Bell if he was going to
summarize the top 3 strengths and top 3 weaknesses, what he might say.
Speaker Buck Bell (DRB) said he did not want to answer that because there are many strengths and weaknesses in all and
if he were to sit down for 30 minutes at a computer, he could email him and send them the top items.
Board Member Curtis Mills said they are trying to gather intelligence and get kind of an understanding of community
issues. He said that Mr. Bell has a large history pool of knowledge and he stated he would be interested in seeing what he
had to say.
Speaker Buck Bell (DRB) stated the Crabapple Coalition group did not exist anymore, but felt there were probably some
old members of that group that would love to come forward and be in a workshop and offer that time to the PC and
Council. He said the people that were involved in the DRB would like to be there as well. Maybe to arrive at some real
things to help get the dream done.
Commission Member Fred Edwards stated he was fairly new to this process and the history here, but he wanted to hear
some about the road configuration that Mr. Bell talked about near Crabapple Corner. He said he drives through it and
hears about the traffic in this area. He wondered what the dream there that he understood was and what did or did not
happen.
Speaker Buck Bell (DRB) said he would be happy to shed some information on that. He stated that Crabapple's inner-
connective roadway system in his opinion is something that time will take to do -- and something that time has taken to
destroy and there are other issues that have nothing to do with Crabapple, but impact Crabapple. He said that Crabapple is
just the point of intensity. He stated that everyone comes to him and says what is your going to do about the traffic in
Crabapple, and he says it is cross-county traffic that is killing us. He said he goes in and out of Crabapple sometimes 15-
20 times a day and it never takes him longer than 5 minutes to get from any point outside of Crabapple, through Crabapple
into Crabapple. He said that the problem in Crabapple is keeping the people from getting to Crabapple and plugging the
intersection. The solutions do not exist in Crabapple past the point of the inner-connective roadways that were concepted
to get us, the citizens, alternate routes through Crabapple. He said that where those inner-connective roads failed in his
opinion is that once again, there were three types of road systems designated in the plan and these were all sub-arterial
routes that had different sizes based on where they went, so if you had roads that went into an internal subdivision and did
not have an outlet, they might not be as large as those that had outlets, and everyone of these developments was supposed
to have had main routes that navigated these subdivisions -- none were supposed to go through parking lots. They were
all supposed to be different lifts, different characters with sidewalks or swales and then what the pathing was is that all of
Page 7 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 8 of 21
the roads kind of became one size and they went with the developers and they are so narrow that if in an alley-access
product that they built for themselves, they cannot go through these alleys -- he can barely understand how they pull cars
into these garages. He said if he parks on the street to visit someone who lives there, he reduces the roadway to a one lane
road. There was supposed to have been on-street parallel parking and there is not -- so what wound up happening is that
the product that got approved did not take into consideration the accessibility and feasibility of people using these roads.
He said he got cut through and wobble around in and out and it is pretty quick right now, but is not how it was intended to
be, so he believes the roadways will work once they are all built. He said the tough part is going to be on the other side of
Birmingham -- the more historic side of Crabapple exists. He believes if everyone is patient we will see some relief, but
the real problem lies in stopping the cross-county traffic in getting to Crabapple in his opinion. By cross-county traffic he
said he is referring to Crabapple Road, 372 - Cherokee, Forsyth and Cobb all coming to Alpharetta to work and going
home at a time when it is impacted with everyone going to work. If you go through this area at 11:00 a.m. in the
mornings, there is no traffic, so if all the traffic which is coming across the county borders to go to work elsewhere and in
night, they turn to come back.
Commission Member Bob Moheb asked if he believed if they wait a bit this problem will be resolved.
Buck Bell (DRB) said he did not think they need to wait. He said he did not want to tell them what to do, but he believed
what needed to be done is to study what other routes, whether its Arnold Mill, whether its Rucker Road, whether there is
some new road like Providence, that can be expanded. The intersections certainly need to be looked at to allow people to
come through these 4-way intersections a little quicker - every road out there. He said we all drive them. The intersection
of Providence and Birmingham. He said they back up all the way from Summitt Hill School all the way into that
intersection now and that is as bad as Crabapple. Maybe not quite as bad because it is still a 4-way, but it is still bad.
Chair Paul Moore asked Buck Bell about cross-county traffic. He said you are primarily talking about the rush-hour
traffic times. He believed the business owners in Crabapple would take exception to them creating a plan that regardless
of the hour of the day traffic was sent elsewhere. It should then be a plan that accommodates the heavy boundaries of
what would be considered rush hour, but also to accommodate the business traffic that would still be attractive to the
Crabapple business owners.
Buck Bell (DRB) said that Crabapple was concepted to be designed as a destination corners. People coming to Alpharetta
going to work or going home, but not stopping in Crabapple. Crabapple was designed to serve those who came into that
area during the day whether it was local business or local families or people who were at home and it was meant to be an
area that was to serve the people that lived there and primarily the evening and the weekends, so he would say that if they
took all the cross-county traffic out of Crabapple, he believed the business would probably pick up because more local
people would probably drive to Crabapple to attend and patronize those businesses. He said he has people telling him
they do not go into Crabapple during those periods because they do not want to deal with the traffic, so he believes the
business owners would be happy with the solution more so than feeling they have been denied exposure to advertising.
Chair Paul Moore told the audience that he realized he had been remiss in actually opening the floor to public comment in
general prior to address these two overlays. He asked if there was anyone who might have public comment other than to
address these two overlays who would like to speak at this time.
Public Speaker Lisa Cauley, 14680 Freemanville Road said she said she was new property owner and resident of the
City of Milton. She said her comment was on the new proposed high school on Freemanville Road. She said as a
Freemanville Road property owner and resident, she would like to state her complete opposition to Fulton County Board
of Education as far as the location for the new high school. She stated the location would be detrimental to all residents of
the City of Milton by decreasing property values and increasing traffic and over-burdening the roads, not to mention the
environmental impact it will have on our new city and the entire area. She feels that this is a very poor choice by the
Board of Education for the location of the new school based on demographics. It is almost exactly 2.5 miles down the
Page 8 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 9 of 21
road from the same exact road from the existing Milton High School and she firmly believes an alternative site needs to be
pursued to protect and preserve the city.
Chair Paul Moore asked for additional public comment.
Public Speaker Carol Lane, 14890 Eastbrook Road. She said that the general comment she is going to make has to
deal with the problems that they are also addressing, traffic, why building another school and because we are building
more stuff, the people that live there have to have a place to go to school, so her concern is that they do not write a letter
to Fulton County from the City of Milton saying that they support extending sewers to the property that they are
requesting. She said it will send a very negative precedent and that is not what we are trying to do in our city to have
more density. We want to make it at least one acre, one house per acre.
Board Member Bob Moheb said it was his understanding that the reason the citizens wanted to implement this septic only
area was due to the fact that they could not get Fulton County to support them in their vision and it just seemed like to him
personally and he said that a lot of you guys have been wanting the City of Milton a lot longer than he had -- and with
them being the City of Milton now, the problem now is really sewer. He stated if they zone their properties correctly
through the Comp Plan and through everything else they do, would the problem be really sewer? He said if they are the
ones that are putting everything into effect and they are the ones who look at everything before the Board goes to Council
and he wanted to get some other opinions on this.
Speaker Carol Lane said that the reason why the City of Milton looks the way it looks today is because of the
community involvement, the Birmingham Hopewell Alliance and people going downtown to Fulton County meetings and
representing opposition and that has been a work in progress for 10-12 years. She said at the Birmingham Crossroads,
probably 10 years ago, she took her children down to the Roswell Annex to oppose a Kroger on one corner and a Publix
on the other and she stated if we go to sewer it will not look like it does now, it will look like Johns Creek and that is if it
happens. She said that we see it in Crabapple and look at the density in Crabapple now and that is not the vision that she
has and a lot of her neighbors have, so when you talk about sewer, she would like for people who own property like the
man who said he represents Target and said he owned 55 acres on Taylor Road, she said let's start with those properties.
Put it in their backyards and then she believes they would understand. She said this is so unique and they have the
opportunity to do this and it would be fabulous and everybody would praise you. It is a hard process, but if we stick to it
you would be really amazed how proud you would be.
Commission Member Bob Moheb said he is a builder and a developer himself and he knows about this and does believe
that the City of Milton needs to be on one acre plus. He said he does not understand from his background that if they have
one acre lots with septic or one acre lots with sewer -- he does not see the difference personally, but again, and said you
guys have probably been doing this a lot longer than he has and so he would like to understand exactly where this is
coming from and if they are still keeping houses at a minimum of one acre -- he would like to under it a little further.
Speaker Buck Bell (DRB) said he would like to speak a little and with a bit of passion and he did not want to offend
anyone and it was not directed at them personally, but he stated he has been at this for 15 years and like Carol had seen,
they have gone down to numerous commissioner meetings and have argued through this thing, but the one instrument
that has stood firm through this entire time which was actually in place before he was even involved, was Commissioner
Fulton's resolution to not allow inner-basin transfer. It is that one single resolution which adds policy and adds a
precedent to any document that maintains our area and nothing short of that. He said he would fully disagree and object
to any belief that any action that this Board or that Council would take to designate on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and what a limit would be once sewer would serve this area and suddenly you could not enforce it in a court of land -- it
would be constantly jeopardized and certainly every intersection and every intersection and every throughway beginning
with Birmingham and Providence Road which was withheld for this exact type of use would be compromised seriously
beyond any ability for anybody to stop once it started burning. He said he sat in a meeting with Commissioner Fulton
years ago and Terry Herr and he wrote the very first initiative to this area that brought this whole recognition to
Page 9 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 10 of 21
Commissioner Fulton's mind. It was called the rural roadside initiative and it has certain things and certain appearance
and certain value so we had to protect and maintain who we were. He said Commissioner Fulton looked at me and said if
we do not do something to allow development to come in here this property will be worth nothing. So the property here is
not worth nothing, it is worth quite a bit and it just goes to show you that the most areas that have the little bit to offer the
most people become the most precious and the most valuable. He said what they have here is this. He said we can never
become a sewer area. Crabapple has always had the sewer it has had, it has just had to wait for development, but the rest
of Northwest Fulton could never have sewer and gravel roads can never be paved, because those are the two instruments
that we have that protect us greater and deeper than anything else and without that the overlays and everything else we do
are worthless. He said he supports everyone else in the room that would support that -- no sewer guys.
Speaker Carol Lane said that is why writing this letter that is proposed to give to City Council on Thursday to give
approval for Fulton County to extend the sewer to these areas that say need it or were left out or whatever -- they do not
need it -- we do not need to do this. Fulton County had the opportunity to do it and that sets a very negative precedence
for the City of Milton. Again, she said we are unique because of the density here and their property values will drop if
they bring sewer in because she does not want to live for there are so many houses. She said that she understands the land
is valuable and she understands the homeowners that have a lot of land, but she said somehow as a city we need to work
out a way that people can hold on to their land. There are Georgia Land Trusts and things they can look into so we do not
have to succumb to this. She said if everyone can please fight it or try to hold back and come up with some ideas of how
to keep this valuable land so it will always be valuable and people will want to move here.
Speaker Terry Herr (DRB) said he resides at 110 Champions Club Court in Milton. He said he was past Chairman of the
Design Review Board for Fulton County, so as Buck has said, he and I started on this quest 10 or 11 years ago relative to
trying to shape or keep the shape of Northwest Fulton intact. He said that sewers play a very important role and a very
unimportant role in the overall look of what we have currently in Fulton County and especially the Northwest Fulton area.
He said that septic systems naturally shape the density of the area that they are placed in. There are the fields themselves
that are required, the reserve areas that are required for the septic systems that dictate the amount of building that you can
put on a piece of property -- acres -- they equate to the number of square feet of building area that you can put on it,
regardless of the zoning ordinance that would set up minimum lots and maximum lot square footages. It affects the
overall look and feel of the environment. He said you cannot put septic fields in the area were it does not perk, so to go to
sewers in the Northwest area will drastically change the look that they currently have because you can still have one acre
lots, but they are going to be much more densely packed and much more heavily developed, so it drastically affects the
vision that Northwest Fulton should set.
Commission Member Bob Moheb said he just wants to be clear and understand. So the reason we would say that a lot of
people are against sewers is because we are worried about what could happen in the future whether it be through this
commission or the council, because we are worried that no matter what the zoning is, in the future there is a possibility of
more dense areas, correct?
Speaker Buck Bell (DRB) said that he believes they have heard from the community that by prohibiting sewer
historically, that has been one of the sole safeguards that has created the look that we now have today - 15-20 years today
from being down the road from where they started so he believes this is the same protection they are looking forward to in
making sure that 15-20 years from now it has some semblance of what we know today.
Chair Paul Moore called for additional public comment.
Speaker Robert Gibson. He stated he resided on Copper Creek Circle in the Crooked Creek Subdivision. He thanked
the Commission for the opportunity to speak tonight. He said he is not used to this type of treatment. He stated he moved
here from Louisiana and he said you all know the politics there. Closed door meetings, backroom, meet at the bar, meet
in the back, so he said that he and his neighbors are very appreciative of this meeting tonight and the spirit of openness
that is being put forth. He said he would like to encourage that they continue in this manner and that all meetings seek
Page 10 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 11 of 21
public input -- not in a rush to judgment, just discuss things, and seek input from community groups. He said there is a lot
of talent out there and people who are willing and very able to help out. He said that you folks have a tough job and he
knows what they are going through. He said that on behalf of the residents of Crooked Creek, they would like to offer
help to the Commission and told them to please feel free to call on them and please contact them and they would be very
pleased to do whatever they can. He said he would like to know about an article that was in the paper today -- you may or
may not have seen it regarding one of the Sandy Springs Commissioners who was expressing some dismay at the signs
and balloons and everything else that is going on down there and expressing concern that they are going backwards. They
had hired this outsourcing company to run the city and apparently the number of people who are assigned to do different
things as far as enforcement is concerned, are being observed as going to the City of Milton to do similar things where the
City of Johns Creek did similar things. He said that the response from the outsourcer indicated that it is not the number of
people that we have doing it, but the quality of the work we do and that they were meeting the contract. He said he
wanted to know how you know you are meeting the contract. He said that his question is how do we as the City of Milton
measure success as far as enforcement of our ordinances is concerned? Is it the number of traffic tickets that are written?
Is it the number of gallons of water that se save? He said he would like to know just as a matter of course and he knows
they have the answer.
Chair Paul Moore asked if anyone would like to address Mr. Gibson's comments.
Commission Member George Ragsdale said that one of the differences between Sandy Springs, Johns Creek and Milton is
that Sandy Springs is a year ahead of us with respect to their contract and with the same outsourcer for all three. He said
that Sandy Springs when they started their contract as with Milton and Johns Creed, there are no performance measures in
the contract. One of the tasks for the City Council and the outsourcer during the first 12 months of the contract is to
develop those criteria that are going to make it a success and he said he is sure that City Council will welcome as much
community input as they can get to define what those measures should be. He said that during the first year of the
contract that is one of the tasks that they are supposed to be about so technically there are none per se right now.
Commission Member Bob Moheb said that just so you know, it was his understanding that Staff does have a hotline so if
someone thought that for example the sign ordinance or code or anything like that was being broken, they do have ability
as citizens to call into Staff and let them know about it. At the same from what he has seen personally with working with
the different people on Staff for the City of Milton. They seem a lot better than Sandy Springs. He said he has worked
with a few people in Sandy Springs also and he can see why people would say that, but at the same time he thinks that a
lot of the people that were working for Sandy Springs before through the companies that the city had hired have come
over to the City of Milton because they like what the City of Milton has to offer and his understanding was that Milton's
City Manager was one of those people who used to work for Sandy Springs and came to the City of Milton because he
liked what we have to offer a lot better than they did. He said he believed the main thing is that people like you and
everyone else that have spoken come to our meetings, come to the Council meetings and let us know what you think, so
he appreciates the input.
Chair Paul Moore asked Staff Robyn MacDonald if there was a contact number yet for the hotline.
Robyn MacDonald said she did not know if there was an allocated number, but she said she knew if they called in on the
main number, 678-242-2500 that there is a 24-hour operator and that all messages are forwarded to Angie and then she
forwards them to the appropriate department when they get in. They will ask people if it is an emergency like a road
issue, a safety issue, they want to know and then the appropriate people if it is an emergency will be contacted to deal with
those issues so it just depends on what type of issue it is as to when it will be addressed.
Chair Paul Moore said and emails can be sent to info@cityofmiltonga.us.
Chair Paul Moore asked if there was any other public comment. There being none, public comment was closed.
Page 11 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 12 of 21
Commission Member Cary Schlenke wanted to comment on the Milton News Letter that came out recently. There was an
article on the front and they were over on the desk, but the public input on the Comprehensive Plan there is going to be an
April 30th Town Hall Meeting where you can get more information about what is going to be coming forward on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Paul Moore said at this time he would like to open the floor.
Speaker Mr. Gibson asked if there is a mailing list.
Staff Robyn MacDonald said that if you would like an electronic version could be sent via email.
Chair Paul Moore said he receives the Milton News Letter on his email at home. He was on the city's website and by
going there you can actually request that subscription electronically. If you go to the site on the left-hand side you can
click to sign up on the email list. It is a new publication.
Chair Paul Moore called the next order of business on the official agenda which is the discussion of the Crabapple
Crossroads Overlay and called for public comment at that time. Asked that public restrict their comments to 3 minutes.
Speaker Carol Lane said she appreciates what Buck Bell has shared with us about the Crabapple plan and she said she
felt nobody ever envisioned that it would end up the way that it has. She said she worries about the future development
and how did it get from a plan to what it is now. If it is because you need to go to every zoning meeting and you have the
builder and you have the opposition and you just need to make sure that things are going smoothly -- this is something
important to look into. How did Crabapple get that way. You can blame Fulton County, but their residents in Crabapple,
what could they have done to stop it and she thought this would be very important to let us know that or come up with a
plan -- hold on, [laughter] I'm getting my picture taken.
Paul Moore asked if there were additional comments on Crabapple Overlay.
Commission Member Bob Moheb asked if it would be possible for anyone on the DRB to elaborate on this a little more.
He said maybe he is little uneducated, but what happens with the DRB exactly -- it is his understanding that their
recommendations are just that -- recommendations and the developer and builder does not have to follow their
recommendations. May Staff can elaborate on this too.
Speaker Terry Herr (DRB) said he would like to elaborate a little bit. He said the Design Review Board makes
recommendations to the Director of the Department of Development. He said in the past with Fulton County they would
make their recommendations and would say in 60% of the cases, those recommendations would be overturned or ignored
by the people that they were making the recommendations to and in the last 4 months of the Fulton County to Milton
transition, the DRB did not convene during that time. They were consistently told that there were no cases to review. He
said so as you can see, what we have resulted in is that developments have been approved that the DRB did not make any
recommendations to Staff on so therefore Staff was acting autonomous at that point and time. He said again, with DRB as
a set-up with the City of Milton, the DRB is an advisory committee to Tom Wilson. Tom has indicated very strongly that
he wants to follow through with the recommendations and at this point, they believe that the intent will take place, but
they are a body very similar to the Planning Commission. They can only make recommendations, but their intent is to try
to uphold the overlay as it is currently written and with subsequent amendments that he believes will help the overall
document. They consistently as it was being written we were working with Fulton County and their legal staff and the
staff with the development arm, and it got watered down considerably. There could have been more teeth in the overlay,
but for various reasons, one of them being allowing enough leeway and gerrymandering at the management level. He said
he thought several important points were left out of the overlay as a result of this. He said to his thinking, the DRB should
actually have some teeth to it; otherwise they sit as a panel and make recommendations and have 90% overturned, so he
believes it is important to have the enforcement aspect of the overlays as well. He said it is the case right now -- there is
Page 12 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 13 of 21
no real enforcement beyond once that permit is signed and the project is built -- was it built according to the plans that
were approved even. There is not that level of entitlement as a design review board to enforce that and actually before the
C.O. is issued say, yes this project meets the plans that were approved by the DRB or by the Planning Commission or by
anyone else, so he believes it is important to have some of those check points in there to make it a sound body to do
business by.
Commission Member Bob Moheb asked if that was something they would really want to do -- going back before C.O.'s
are issued and reviewing all the single family homes, multi-use developments?
Speaker Terry Herr (DRB) said he would have to think about that one. He said that single family homes would be a little
more challenging. He said he cannot speak for the rest of his group, but he felt it is important that there are some checks
and balances there.
Commission Member Bob Moheb said he thinks that is what Chairman Moore was saying earlier, that the Planning
Commission is trying to get something through that would put these master plans into more of an ordinance versus a
recommendation because the majority of us would like to see the same thing happen.
Speaker Terry Herr (DRB) said he would agree wholeheartedly with that -- if it becomes ordinance. It would help the
problem a lot, yes.
Chair Paul Moore then closed public comment on Crabapple and moved forward with the discussion of the Highway 9
overlay. He said he was going to ask for a point of order from the Board, as they are following up with comments made
by the public and clarification needs to be made. Then opened floor to public comment.
Speaker Heidi Sowder said she has lived in the State Highway 9 Overlay District for the past 8 years and was a member
of the Bethany Road Residence Association and has seen the 2003 revised overlay in action over the past 4 1/2 years. She
said that as a resident of the area, she feel the following changes or additions are aligned with the purpose of intent in that
they would promote desirable conditions for community and commerce and protect property against blithe and
depreciation as well. During her research, she found that the following recommendations have precedence in the adopted
overlays of the Northeast Fulton, Cristendale, Sandtown, South Fulton Parkway, Cedar Groove and Northwest Fulton
which are all currently included in the zoning ordinance in the City of Milton. Therefore, she said she would recommend
the following 4 changes or additions are made to Section 12-G for the building materials and architectural treatment:
First, she said she would see that No. 7 would have verbiage added that requires townhouse and duplex unit building plans
to exhibit differentiated exterior wall materials on the vertical wall spaces within each block of units. She said so
basically, the purpose there would be keeping it from every single unit, if it were a 6 unit block that it would not be all tan
brick, so a variation there. Secondly, prior to Item No. 14, have verbiage inserted that states, the exterior wall material of
all non-residential buildings, townhouse and duplex units consist of a minimum of 60% vertical wall plain of the
following: brick, *? plank or natural or pre-cast stone. Thirdly, she would request that Item No. 14 be amended with
verbiage limiting the accent building materials to a maximum of 40% per vertical wall space and lastly, she would ask that
a verbiage be added which limits the building height to two stories or no more than 30 feet from the grate to the peak. She
stated that these changes are the ones that have the most immediacy to her having seen her overlay in operation over the
last several years. She said there are additional changes and additions she believes will serve and enhance this overlay as
well and they can be addressed in the future when a more thorough review is done.
Chair Paul Moore asked if any other public comment on Highway 9 Overlay.
Speaker John McMillan thanked Chairman and Committee for their service and stated they had all been around a long
time in the community and he sure appreciated there taking the time away from their families to help make Milton a better
place to live. He said he too had been involved in the Highway 9 Overlay, and in fact back in 1998 or so, he said he
thinks he was one of the people that asked Commissioner Fulton to form the overlay and he said at that time that they
Page 13 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 14 of 21
were forming the one in Johns Creek and would be happy to help do when for Highway 9, so he was part of the original
overlay committee and then was blessed to be a part of the update which he believes was put in place in 2003. He said
that one thing he would say is that both of those processes were characterized by many hours by all the various different
members of the community, the homeowners' associations of various different groups, and individuals from the county
that would also have some input. He said that those were literally hundreds of hours and many months of meetings to
formulate those. He said they were starting from scratch, there was a lot more work that was required then and the product
that came together for the most part he thought was excellent. He said they started out with no overlay and trying to
prevent metal buildings and concrete blocks and things of that nature and he thought for the most part they did. He said
there were other things he heard most recently that most people are dissatisfied with is the infamous Quantum bank
building and he said that Heidi has proposed some things that might help deal with those types of situations again and he
heartily agree with all that. He said that they also had another informal weekly meeting before the sign ordinance recently
and what he heard from that group was a various number of stakeholders some who had been involved before and some
who had not, was that they want to try to improve Highway 9 and have it look more like Deerfield to give it a look that
they would be more proud of than even some of the look that we are today. In particular try to prevent some of those very
same things that they have spoken about from happening again. He said there was a tremendous amount of time and
effort put into this overlay and he did not think that any of us would want to be scrapped and start over again. He said that
every work of this nature is a progress, not a perfection and so if they can refine it and tune it with the community's input
and other stakeholders, he thinks that is hopefully what they are all about. He does not necessarily think that this type of
forum where you are kind of under the gun to make a few quick changes and stamp it and that is it and the process is done
is the way to do it. He totally recommends that we take the time as they have in the past to get community input and
really try to come up with a product that everybody can be proud of and not try to rush anything. In building the City of
Milton, he thought that part of their charge was that they would bring over the things in place that they had formulated
under Fulton County -- specifically the overlays and some other ordinances that the community had worked a long time to
put together -- so a lot of effort and well thought out design elements and other things into them and work on the big
things first. Security, fixing some intersections and then go back and tweak some things at a time when there is more time
instead of trying to do everything at once. He said that he thought there are a lot of very talented people, but he believed
we need to focus on the bigger things first and take time to do it the correct way and get input from the entire community
before they rush into anything. He said that this is the vision of the people he has talked to. Try to improve what they
have, but not try to rush it. Above all, we want full community input. Thanked Commission for their time and service.
Commission Member Curtis Mills said that the intention of this meeting tonight was solely to seek community input. He
said they actually thought that there might be hundreds of people here and went to pretty great lengths to advertise and
solicit and is not quite sure what more they could have done. He said that clearly this group is interested in doing exactly
what he suggested and making intelligent informed decisions and he feels pretty comfortable with that.
Commission Member George Ragsdale said to follow-up on Mr. Mills -- so there is no misconception; they were under
the gun specifically with regard to the sign ordinance. He said that the reason these overlays came up for review is
because there were things pulled out of them that with respect to signs as the new sign ordinance was created. He said
that they are not under the gun to do anything with the overlays and they actually initiated this process on their own
because they wanted to do exactly what you suggested.
Commission Member Cary Schlenke said just as a point of clarification too, you [John McMillan] talked about a few
weaknesses that were seen in the Highway 9 Overlay and you spoke about the comments that Heidi Sowder made, are
there any other areas that you have seen that you where you thought we could have done that better or areas that you know
residents had problems with that you would like to see in the overlay as it is now to be revised.
Speaker John McMillan said what he would suggest is for instance, what they did recently the last time that they had a
project approved at Fulton County, is they went ahead and spent the money on a rendering so that there was no question
as to what kind of architecture it was supposed to be and was not left up to a staff member to interrupt that.
Page 14 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 15 of 21
Commission Member Cary Schlenke said like what Buck Bell from the DRB said, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Speaker John McMillan said yes and it was a specific design that was adopted per se by the Fulton County Commission
that the Commissioners reviewed ahead of time and voted on everything at the same time so that you did not shuffle off a
part of it to the DRB to have somebody interrupt it different perhaps than what was presented to the Commission -- so that
worked all real well and think it would have helped for certain in the Quantum bank situation and perhaps some others
that seem to have fell into the cracks.
Commission Member Cary Schlenke said she knew there were some photographs in the overlay of a few buildings -- is
that what you are speaking of? Do you know where that document ever ended up?
Speaker John McMillan said that it is not necessarily a document per se. Fulton County adopted a policy that they wanted
to see a rendering of the projects that were proposed so this is probably in the last 12-18 months.
Commission Member Cary Schlenke said so you are saying if a project is coming forward, bring a rendering of this is
what my building is going to look like?
Speaker John McMillan said yes and so that is all approved at the same time that the zoning is so that way you have the
decision-makers, the Commission passing on it and incorporating it all into the same thing as opposed to having a DRB
that is separate from it to then go back and see what they think was the intent of the parties -- it gives another level of
certainty to the zoning piece which is really where you consecrate on a lot of those things anyway and link it all together.
This is a method of doing this that takes away the interpretation piece from the architecture part of it.
Commission Member Cary Schlenke said thank you [John McMillan] for your input on that but another point she wanted
to make and George may have made this point already, but she said the point of this meeting was to get more citizen
input, especially if we move forward with the Design Review Board for the first time on the Highway 9 Overlay. They
felt that there were quite a few areas that needed some clean-up so that there was not so much left up to interpretation or
areas that did not need to be addressed -- like there would need to be something for the Design Review Board to reflect on
-- like what do they want here. She said like building height was one of the things Heidi had on her list. That is sort of
the point of this -- not a rush to redo the overlay, just to clean up so there are no surprises for the community.
Speaker John McMillan said exactly, and as you have been a party to, they did spend a lot of time on it and even though
there was some give and take, he believed that everyone who was as part of that process really knew what was going into
it. He said as always, it is not a perfect document so they did not understand that somebody could go and say they were
going to use all accent material and somehow staff may miss that. That is obviously in violation of the intent of it, but if
we had a rendering at the zoning, then we would know that there was an issue because it would speak to the type of
material that the exterior façade of that building would have been, so he thought this would have helped it. This is just
mentioned as a method that other municipalities have used that were successful and it takes again a little bit more of the
interpretation out of it.
Commission Member Cary Schlenke said she thought this was a great idea.
Speaker John McMillan said another thing he would mention about height is he thinks they need to look at height in a
context of what is around it so that for instance if something was in the Deerfield proximity that might have a higher
height than something that was out closer to the Bethany Bend area as he calls it, so they may be some ability to relate the
content of it in terms of what is around it might be a good idea.
Chair Paul Moore asked for any additional comments and wanted to remind everyone as Commission Member Cary
Schlenke had mentioned, this Commission will be spending 12 months going over the Comprehensive Plan for this City
and one-third of that component is the public participation component that is required by the Department of Community
Page 15 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 16 of 21
Affairs, so there will be ample time to discuss these areas in a greater context. Look at designs, elevation drawings, and
any recommendations that will be Milton specific. The things that have been done in the past will be very different in our
future, so these opportunities are on the horizon very soon.
Staff Mike Tuller said he said that in the creation of the committee that is going to be appointed to look at the
Comprehensive Plan Use Plan as a part of their charge, there are the 7 members of this Commission that are before you
that are currently appointed to this Commission, there are going to be 2 additional Board members, the Chairman of the
DRB and the Chairman of the BZA, then there are several additional members rounding out that committee to a
committee of 16 that are members of the community at large, so each City Council person has the opportunity to appoint
one member from their district to that additional committee of 7, so if you have any interest, he encourages you to
immediately contact your city council person for your district and please express your desire to be a part of that planning
commission or plan mission which will be undertaken in the very near future. It is absolutely one of the best opportunities
for community input to help design what Milton is, has been and will become.
Staff Mike Tuller said he said they will probably have clarity on the appointees by May 3rd, but the Town Hall meeting is
next Monday, but there is no definitive cut-off point but he said he has been compiling a list of potential candidates. We
will need their home street addresses just for verification of districts, but we are compiling it and they can send me an
email and it is a limited group unfortunately. They can only bring on another 7, but there will be at least another couple of
weeks.
Commission Member George Ragsdale asked what the date of the next City Council meeting was when those
appointments are going to be made.
Staff Mike Tuller said he was not certain if it was going to be addressed on the 3rd, but in the very near future. He said
they will probably know next week.
Commission Member Bob Moheb said he would like to encourage the citizens if they make it on to the task force or not, it
is a very important thing for our city so this is what will plan our city for the next 20 years or so, so this base plan is really
important so even if you do not make it on a committee, please come out and give us your opinions, because they
definitely would like to hear them.
Chair Paul Moore called for any other public comment.
Speaker Laura Wysong. She stated that she is with Crooked Creek Homeowners' Association and they are the largest
community in the City of Milton. She said she has been in this community for 11 plus years and is very excited that they
are going to go down the comprehensive planning route and wished they could have done this a long time ago. She said
she has been banging her head for 11 years because they do not have one. She said that the problem with their area and
she has worked extensively with the Bethany Area Residence Association for many years and many of the members you
know who have made their faces known to Fulton County and the Board of Commissioners. She said there has already
been damage done on Highway 9 -- too much commercialization -- too much density -- too much of a hodge-podge --
there is no coordinative look. She said when she drives out her front entrance -- they are very proud of their community.
They are a nice golf course community and they like their community -- it is an active community. When they drive out
to the right -- you kind of look and say, what happened here. She stated that the Highway 9 Overlay did make a
difference -- thank goodness. She said there was a couple in her community and down the road that helped put this
together because prior to that it was frankly a living nightmare. It is a mess so the question is what we do now moving
forward to kind of clean up what is there so it can have the look and feel of the City of Milton which we all want. She can
say that all the residents of Crooked Creek want which is why many of us on our government affairs committee are very
active and spend a lot of time dealing with Fulton County and being very frustrated if she can be quite honest. She said in
moving forward, they do not want to see the density -- the Beazer Homes, the town homes, the things that were put in
place frankly just to look pretty darn tacky. She said she thinks they have ruined some of that look, so what can they do to
Page 16 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 17 of 21
move forward and believes they need to think very hard about that. In addition to this, traffic really needs to be focused
on. The biggest frustration that she has had with Fulton County was the studies did not take into consideration what is
going to happen to traffic in the future -- not right now -- but when we put 500 residents in a community, what is going to
happen? That is what we need to know. We need to design things so that they work when we have people there and she
certainly can understand Crabapple's perspective, because they are experiencing some of these issues. She said they have
some real issues along Highway 9. Bethany Bend and that area as the transition to the City of Milton occurs -- we are
getting a CVS and I cannot imagine what traffic is going to be like, but I think it is going to be really awful because it was
not designed -- or designed with the thought of all the traffic that already exists. She really believes that this is a very
important part and you have to somehow incorporate that moving forward. She said that currently with the Highway 9
Overlay, it does focus on commercialization which is good -- it has town homes, it has apartments, but we also need
homes. We are whole communities, so we need to incorporate that as well. We need to have more specific kinds of
density because we do not need what we have right now and we need to have more serious consideration addressing the
traffic. The city has to just be more comprehensive and really look toward the future. We need to focus on turning lines,
signalization, the number of cars passing through there at a future state not at the current state and these are things she
hopes are considered moving forward and as we go down making modifications to Highway 9 and go down the cleaning
path, that these issues are looked at.
Chair Paul Moore asked for any additional public comment. He read into the record that Commission Member Curtis
Mills had a previous engagement this evening and was required to leave the meeting tonight at 8:55 p.m.
Speaker Joelle Cochran. She resides on Morning Mountain Way in Crooked Creek in the City of Milton. She said she
was here tonight to voice her thoughts and opinions on Highway 9 and the overlay area. She said as she has seen over
thee past 6 years living within Crooked Creek. She thanked the Commission for taking forward their recommendation to
have the Highway 9 area part of the design review process. She stated she knew there were many in this area that do not
feel that this is an effective process and that it delays maybe the speed with which things can be done, but having been
part of that Highway 9 overlay development, it became obviously to her over the past several years that there are some
inherent weaknesses in that overlay. She stated that are also many strengths. She said that many of the accidents that
have occurred over the past 3 years in that area were really secondary to an oversight from Fulton County versus an
overlay that was weak. That being said, she stated that she did believe Heidi Sowder's recommendations to put specific
percentages on buildings materials of primary materials and accent materials would be beneficial. She said that after
review many of the overlays, there was really only one other overlay that she came upon that was the Chattahoochee Hill
Country that does not have specific percentages within that overlay. She believes and Mr. Bell talked about this, it would
be helpful to the Design Review Board if they knew specifically what they are looking for. The Quantum bank happened
for exactly that reason because there was no specification and it was left to interpretation of what an accent material or
primary material was. She believes things of this nature could be prevented. She said she certainly understand Mr.
McMillan's thoughts on not overhauling the whole thing. She does think in time the Highway 9 Overlay does need to be
looked at because they are all well aware that Highway 9 will be widened and she said they really need to think 5 years
down the road and consider what the setbacks are, consider the faces and how everything will look once the road is
widened. She said she knew that right now the youth of this city -- that is not something that we can take the time to do,
therefore, she thinks that making those minor amendments to maybe just being specific on their percentages would help at
least in the short term. Lastly, one thing that she heard this evening that she believes Mr. Bell first said and then Mr.
McMillan took it a step further, and she would like to consider as a resident of Crooked Creek, there was a discussion of
planning and looking at the densities along Highway 9. She thinks it was a good recommendation that they take the major
corridors such as Windward Parkway and Highway 9 - obviously to the North we have McFarland and Highway 9 -- and
really consider focusing our commercial density within those areas. She said she believed that the Commission and the
Council needs to be very mindful that although Highway 9 is a commercial corridor, over the years Fulton County chose
not to necessarily treat it as commercial and allowed many residents to live along that corridor. She often hears that it is a
commercial corridor and there are not very many residents there, but she calls that into question. There are about 6000
residents along that corridor and that is where the residential density exists. She thinks that Council and your committee
really need to think about that when you go forward with your policies because it is our backyard.
Page 17 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 18 of 21
Commission Member Bob Moheb asked Joelle Cochran about the residential population out there, but at the same time
you said something about sort of grouping our commercial together in those commercial corridors. So just for
clarification on that, where do you think exactly a cut-off for that commercial corridor would be along Highway 9 coming
up toward Crooked Creek, Bethany and that area?
Speaker Joelle Cochran said she believes it would be hard to give a cut-off. She said she looks at the corner of Bethany
and Highway 9 which is very close to Crooked Creek -- you already have two corners there developed commercially and
there is a third that is on the table as we speak to be developed. She said she is sure that that fourth corner will build that
way. She said she did not think that they have to fill all that space in between going south or even going north. She said
she was part of the comprehensive 2025 planning process for the area right outside of Crooked Creek that has one
commercial little section but it is surrounded by residential, some multi-family and a whole lot of single family homes.
She sat that for our city we want to have a minimum intensity type of development and around those areas this is
something to be considered. She said she is not speaking on behalf of all of Crooked Creek but there are two other
members of Crooked Creek here tonight and she does believe that all the members in the community need to get much
more involved. She said she did not know what all of those people want, but she said she would have never bought her
house if she thought she was going to be living on a commercial corridor like Highway 9, but now her family is situated
and life is fine and they will make the best of it, but she gets very concerned -- she understands the financial significance
of having it be a viable commercial corridor -- she does understand that, but there are a whole lot of residents that live in
that area and they really need to be considered in all of their decisions. She said if this means that we have to build the
finest commercial developments and jump up those square footage costs because there is wow factor to it and it makes
those residents feel okay to live there, then that is important. She said Highway 9 with regards to the whole city is a place
where the billboards have been allowed and where they have the Love Shack or whatever -- it wound up on Highway 9
and again, that is where a huge percent of the residents of Milton live, so this is where she is coming from.
Commission Member Bob Moheb asked Joelle Cochran in her opinion; would she say the main problem in that area is
more the commercial or the multi-family?
Speaker Joelle Cochran said she there are certainly probably many people in there area that are disappointed with how
much town home development occurred within that area. That being said, she is also very sensitive to the fact that not
everybody in this world can afford to live in a $500,00 or $700,00 home and there are very good people that live in those
establishments. She said they now understand that there should have said that the products that were built would be
something they would not mind looking at 20 years down the road. She said they were all very new when they got
involved in that process and those of them that were around at that time that were fighting were constantly told that we
could not say no to a lot of things. In hindsight, they could have probably pushed a whole lot harder. She said as a city
you need to have balanced housing and she thinks what Highway 9 did for the City of Milton is it gave all the standard
housing in one spot. She said she believed they can still make it the best that it can be and that is where she thinks the east
and west of the City of Milton get a little skewed. She said that the reality is that for those of us who are living in homes
as nice as those in the west, that is our reality and those folks that are living in those town homes are just as important
residents to Milton as everybody else, but the city has a responsibility to take what is left to be developed on Highway 9
and step it up many, many notches and make it better than Fulton County ever saw it and that is what she is asking of the
city and why she worked as hard as she did for the City of Milton to happen because it was just to hard to fight it at Fulton
County.
Commission Member Cary Schlenke said she did not know if it was her or Ms. Wysong that talked about the hodge-podge
-- can you explain as they are trying to go forward -- and she believed it is just the nature in what get sold and who buys it
as to what they decide to put there, but if there are any community members that have any input about how an overlay
Page 18 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 19 of 21
may better serve that hodge-podge look. She said she did not know if they have those answers here, but maybe just to go
on the record.
Speaker Laura Wysong said that due to what the City of Alpharetta has done with the rendering -- Old Town Alpharetta
-- they are trying to put together what they want it to look like. She said she believed Milton really needs to do the same
thing and then as John said, when there is another to build, how will we fit it into that bigger picture versus -- well you
have a cinder block thing here and you have got another thing here -- you know, you look at Publix on Bethany and
Highway 9 and I am sorry, but it just does not fit and yet Starbucks on the front -- well you wish the same design could
have happened but there is no consistent feel or look for how the community wanted the construction to happen and it is
all over the map and if they really want the city to look and feel different -- she said one of the places she always
remembered when she traveled -- in her many travels, is the City of Delmar out in California. It is an older city and they
have a lot of stuff out there but they have figured out a way to make the look and feel of the city blend and it works. They
have old construction and new construction and they have developed walkways and the lighting and everything blends so
as the old stuff turns over -- they can say this is what you need to have it look like as you turn this property over and
things get aged. She said she really thinks this is what Milton needs to be looking at as they start the comprehensive plan
because when she travels up toward Forsyth, frankly that is a nightmare and she is happy she is not living up there. She
said she thinks Milton can make it happen and she will do everything in her power from Crooked Creek and being on the
board to support the efforts moving forward. She stated the community really cares and the committees care or they
would not all be here.
Speaker Heidi Sowder said the history about the Kelly Tire and Montana's, that was way before the overlay was even in
existence. Publix was also done before the overlay was redone in 2003, so the ones that are very much out of place,
except for two items, Loving Hands Animal Hospital and the Quantum Bank are all prior to our overlay. She said the
reason they are all up in arms is what happened with Loving Hands and what happened with Quantum Bank was
specifically what she addressed in her request -- that there was no specification for building materials and there was not a
DRB and when those items went through, they did have their renderings with them because that is something that
Commissioner Riley had requested that all the paperwork be together when it goes through the entire permitting process
within Fulton County, so when this went along, it was subject to interpretation and this is when you get into the gray
areas. A person's idea of what an accent material looks like was not what you got on the Quantum bank project -- actually
that was like a primary building material. Tile is not a primary building material, so that is why for her over the past 8
years that she has lived here; she has been involved in the whole application of the overlay.
Speaker Buck Bell (DRB) said that the Highway 9 Overlay was written to avoid the DRB's involvement, so nothing up
there went before any council. They have asked for it now to be a part of it and he did not know if the votes have come
through to make it such, but to everyone else's concern, as a member of the DRB, they cannot restate facts. If it says that
there is a 30 foot maximum height, then they cannot tell them it has to be 25 feet, but you have designers and architects
and people with good taste sitting on that board and they can interpret every other visual and aesthetic aspect of that. He
said that one thing that they ask for in these types of situations for renderings when it goes before zoning it is important.
At times he said they actually had Fulton County send out to the DRB pre-zoning to look at these renderings and past
judgment, so we were not only able to critique their work but help you understand what could be done to get more of what
you wanted, so there is a little wiggle and wobble room here to get this housekeeping done and straighten things out a
little bit if you trust their taste and opinion to help you get what you want to get. He said that the other thing that is very
important is what Heidi was saying, in that there needs to be some cohesive element introduced into Highway 9 that starts
to link it together. What is coming and what needs to be redone. The tighter you get it when you start rewriting this
thing, you add that in so when they develop in the future, they have to conform, like street signs and things the city can
control. You start spreading this continuity along Highway 9 and slowly you will start pulling it all back together to
mitigate some of the aesthetic problems that occur. He said he just wanted to add that with the DRB. He said they are not
going to think any less of Highway 9 than they do of Birmingham or Crabapple or any of those that come our way.
Page 19 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 20 of 21
Commission Member Bob Moheb asked Buck Bell if he knew, if he could clarify something for him. He heard that
Quantum Bank got through with their tile that they have -- their accent material they have all around the building -- is
because somehow whoever was interpreting their plan came to the point that it is there was 4 different types of accent
materials and they interpreting that each accent material is allowed 25% or something like that.
Speaker Buck Bell (DRB) said he was involved in that and he said he did brief through the Highway 9 Overlay today just
to kind of look to see what the weaknesses are, and it is written in a very general conceptual position statement compared
to the Crabapple and Birmingham which are very specific straight down the line, so it does leave a lot to this
interpretation again, but he said he was sorry, but there is never any excuse for bad taste.
Commission Member Bob Moheb said that maybe the Board would like to have the DRB coming to meeting with them
sometime and some former Crabapple Coalition members and get there input and some local business owners and
stakeholders.
Public Speaker Rose Prestianni who resides Providence Point in the lovely City of Milton. She thanked everyone for
allowing for the public forum and allowing their input tonight. She said that it was not a big turnout tonight, but she felt it
was the beginning because it is wonderful to hear the concerned citizens. She said it is really about the total picture -- not
the big picture, because small can be beautiful and she thinks is really about putting all the pieces together and looking at
this in context. She said they heard a lot about the Crabapple Overlay, the Highway 9 Overlay, but not much about
Birmingham Village, but she thinks it is really about looking at all of these as a total and not each in its own so that we as
a City of Milton have a common look and feel that will be the envy of all the cities around us and she believed are already
on that path, so the Comprehensive Land plan is critical and we can start beating the drums in our own neighborhoods and
really get more on exposure here. This needs to be done in partnership with our neighboring communities. Earlier this
evening we talked about the Crabapple Crossroads and she said she would not put her comments into the record because
she preferred not to do that, but if we need to get people to bypass it, we elude to some other roads where we could offset
traffic and this needs to be looked at again as a total picture and we do not create a problem somewhere else by trying to
bypass because we want to strengthen our partnerships with our neighboring communities and see the DRB strengthened,
see this Commission strengthened. It is a little said to hear that 90% of the recommendations were not taken into
consideration and that they did not apparently have good information before you made your recommendation. She said
they need to let the traffic flow, let the communities grow, but not at the sacrifice of the quality of their lives.
Chair Paul Moore asked for any additional public comment on Highway 9.
Speaker Carol Lane said she appreciated all the people that were here tonight and commented that it is not 100 people,
just one more than it was the last time. She said that one of the things people can do is to join these sites. Go on the
websites and you can look at the calendar and see when these meetings are. She witnessed the sign ordinance on
Thursday and was there until 1:15 AM and she believed it ended at 2:00 AM or something. She was so impressed with
the Planning Commission and the sign ordinance that they had passed and it was a really good feeling, but then once the
City Council made their decision, it was for naught. She said she would recommend to the people that you attend these
meetings. They want to know what you think and they are elected. She said she knows that they represent her, but it is
your obligation to be involved in this city.
Commission Member Cary Schlenke asked about the items for the Highway 9 Overlay to put on the table for
consideration for changes in the overlay that she emailed to the Planning Commission and also emailed them via the City
of Milton. Can she have those spread on the minutes and for the people who remain in the room, this is a list of
Page 20 of 21
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Page 21 of 21
recommended changes that were identified during the City of Milton incorporation effort to some of the groundwork that
was done to try to find areas of improvement to the Highway 9 Overlay. She stated she did not have them in front of her
to read, but she did not.
Motion was made to close public comment and seconded. No discussion so motion carried unanimously.
Chair Paul Moore said he wanted to make a closing comment to those people who joined them this evening. He said
although they are not necessary good at what they do yet, he said they intend to be and are hoping that they will go back
and share with the community what you encounter in your daily lives, whether your business day or your private after
hours lives, weekends, engage people at the ballparks, schools, and invite them to these meetings. We invite public
comment, take it seriously and will try to act on it so we can move forward and create the comprehensive land use plan
and we really truly have the input of the greater community. He applauded all who appeared tonight and made public
comment. Some of the faces we have recognized from past meetings and he challenged each and every one of them to
bring somebody new next time so we can fill out some more public comment cards and get additional input. He said it is
all too often those who have taken a historical interest in this city that are the only voices heard and he recognized that in
many cases, each of you speaks for a much larger crowd that is not sitting behind you in the chairs this evening and for
whatever reasons those folks are not able to join us. He said as they are putting the cornerstones of Milton in place right
now there is no other time that is going to be as important as right now to make sure that these cornerstones are aligning
the foundation of what we want Milton to become and it is very easy for it to be a narrow scope of voices, although he
does not discredit any of those voices they have heard today, because they all are so engaged, but please ensure that your
community hears your outcry for more input. We intend to provide the opportunity and he hopes it is seized by a large
community going forward.
ADJOURNMENT
After no further business motion was made and seconded to close meeting. It was voted on and unanimous. Meeting
adjourned at 9:17 P.M.
Dated Approved:______________________
____________________________________ __________________________________________
Francesca Ivie Paul Moore, Chairman
City Clerk’s office Planning Commission
Page 21 of 21
Planning Commission Meeting 5/22/07
1
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
ARTICLE XIX
Amended 07/07/99 (Z97-60), 07/02/03 (2003Z -0048)
Section 19.4
Use Permits
19.4. MINIMUM USE PERMIT STANDARDS.
19.4.1. ADULT BOOK STORE. (Added 06/05/96, Amended 07/07/99, Amended
07/02/03)
INTENT AND FINDINGS.
It is the intent of this article to regulate the place of operation of Adult Book
Stores as defined in this Resolution. The Board of CommissionersCity Council
finds, based upon an October, 1980, study by the Minnesota Crime Prevention
Center, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, entitled An Analysis of the Relationship
Between Adult Entertainment Establishments, Crime, and Housing Values, that
adult book stores are significantly related to diminishing market values of
neighboring residential areas, that adult book stores should not be located in
residential areas, and that adult book stores should be permitted only in locations
that are at least 1/10 mile, or approximately 500 feet, from residential areas.
The BoardCouncil further finds, based upon a June, 1978, study by the Division
of Planning of the St. Paul, Minnesota, Department of Planning and Economic
Development and the Community Crime Prevention Project of the Minnesota
Crime Control Planning Board entitled Effects on Surrounding Area of Adult
Entertainment Businesses in Saint Paul, that the presence of adult book stores
correlates with a decreasing market value of neighboring residential areas, that
adult book stores tend to locate in areas of poorer residential condition, tend to be
followed by a relative worsening of the residential condition, and that more than
two adult entertainment businesses in an immediate area is associated with a
statistically significant decrease in residential property market value, and that
such a concentration of adult entertainment businesses in a given area should be
discouraged. The Board also finds that such worsening of residential conditions
will adversely affect uses found in residential areas or in the proximity of
residential areas, such as public recreational facilities, public or private
institutional uses, churches, schools, universities, colleges, trade-schools,
libraries, and day care centers.
Planning Commission Meeting 5/22/07
2
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
The BoardCouncil further finds, based upon a May 19, 1986, land use study
conducted in Austin, Texas, that an adult book store within one block of a
residential area decreases the market value of homes, that adult book stores are
considered a sign of decline by lenders, making underwriters hesitant to approve
the 90-95% financing many home buyers require, and that patrons of adult book
stores tend to be from outside the immediate neighborhood in which the adult
book store is located.
The BoardCouncil further finds, based upon a March 3, 1986, study conducted by
the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Community Development Department entitled
Adult Entertainment Businesses in Oklahoma City - A Survey of Real Estate
Appraisers, that an adult bookstore will have a negative effect on residential
property market values if it is located closer than one block to residential uses.
The BoardCouncil further finds that the proposed amendment to the zoning
resolution regarding regulation of adult book stores has been carefully considered
by a workgroup of CountyCity staff drawn from the areas of law enforcement,
land use, land planning, and law; by the Community Zoning BoardCouncil
Planning Commission at public meetings where public comment was available;
and by a committee of citizens with expertise in law, real estate, land use, and
other disciplines, who have reviewed the amendment particularly with respect to
its provisions relating to the effects of adult book stores on market values of
residential and other property, and that the information gathered and results of this
informal study support the need for these development standards.
This section is intended to be a carefully tailored regulation to minimize the
adverse land use impacts caused by the undesirable secondary effects of adult
bookstores, and the Board of CommissionersCity Council finds that restricting
adult book stores to industrially zoned areas and imposing development standards
can legitimately regulate adult book stores by establishing zones where adult book
stores are most compatible with other uses or the surrounding neighborhood, and
by requiring minimum distances to be maintained between adult bookstore uses
and other uses so as to afford the most protection to residential uses.
It is not the intent of the Board of CommissionersCity Council, in enacting this
amendment to the zoning resolution, to deny to any person rights to speech
protected by the United States or Georgia Constitutions, nor is it the intent to
impose any additional limitations or restrictions on the contents of any
communicative materials, including sexually oriented films, videotapes, books, or
other materials; further, in the adoption of this amendment to the zoning
resolution, the Board of CommissionersCity Council does not intend to deny or
restrict the rights of any adult to obtain or view any sexually oriented materials
protected by the United States or Georgia Constitutions, nor does it intend to
restrict or deny any constitutionally protected rights that distributors or exhibitors
of such sexually oriented materials may have to sell, distribute, or exhibit such
Planning Commission Meeting 5/22/07
3
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
constitutionally protected materials; finally, in the enactment of this ordinance,
the Board of CommissionersCity Council intends to adopt a content neutral
measure to address the secondary effects of adult bookstores.
A. Required Districts: M-1, and M-2 (Industrial), C-1 and C-2
(Commercial) districts not located within the State Route 9 Crabapple or
Birmingham Crossroads Overlay Districts only.
B. Standards:
1. All boundary lines of the property included within the use permit
as filed must be located at least 1,000 500 feet from the properties
listed below:
a. The property line of Suburban A, Suburban B, Suburban C,
R-1, R-2, R-2A, R-3, R-3A, R-4A, R-4, R-5, R-5A, R-6,
NUP, CUP, TR, A, A-L, AG-1 zoned property or property
conditioned or used for residential purposes.
b. The property line of any public recreational facilities,
public or private institutional uses, including but not
limited to churches, schools, universities, colleges, trade-
schools, libraries, day care centers and other training
facilities where minors are the primary patrons.
2. The boundary line of the use permit must be located at least 1500
feet from the property line of any other adult entertainment
establishment or adult book store.
3. Submit with the application for a Use Permit, a certified boundary
survey by a licensed surveyor of the site and the property lines of
surrounding properties identifying the use of properties at or within
1000 feet of the boundary lines of the subject property and adult
entertainment establishments or adult bookstores within 1500 feet
of the boundary line of the subject property.
4. If the adult book store is to be located in an existing structure
where a Land Disturbance Permit is not required, an existing
building permit review application must be filed and determined
by the Environment and Community Development Department to
be in compliance with the terms of this resolution prior to any
occupancy.
5. Permitted curb cut access shall be from a major thoroughfare.
Planning Commission Meeting 5/22/07
4
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
6. No depiction of anatomical areas or sexual activities specified in
the definition of “adult entertainment” shall be visible from outside
the structure or on signage outside the structure.
7. The minimum landscape areas required for the O-I zoning district
as specified in Section 4.23 shall be required. Where buffers are
required, the underlying zoning district buffer standards shall
apply.
19.4.1. C. Permit Issuance. (Added 07/02/03):
Notwithstanding the provisions of 19.2.3 and 19.2.4, any applicant
meeting the above requirements and standards shall be entitled to the
issuance of a use permit.
19.4.1. D. Permit Applications. (Added 07/02/03):
Notwithstanding any other provision herein, any material omission or
untrue or misleading information contained in or left out of an application
for a use permit shall be grounds for denial of said permit.
19.4.1. E. Permit Processing. (Added 07/02/03):
The CountyCity shall have 12030 days (unless the application is
suspended by failure of the applicant to provide data, information or
records as reasonably requested by the CountyCity and required by this
code, to complete the investigation) from receipt of a completed
application for a use permit to make a decision in which to grant or deny a
use permit. The Department of Environment and Community
Development and Community Zoning BoardCouncil the Plannig
Commission shall make recommendations to the Board of
CommissionersCity Council regarding the approval or denial of the use
permit and the BoardCouncil shall make the final decision after a public
hearing regarding the same. In the event the Board of CommissionersCity
Council has not granted or denied the application within 12030 days
(unless the application is suspended by failure of the applicant to provide
data, information or records as reasonably requested by the CountyCity to
complete the investigation), the use permit shall automatically issue.
19.4.1. F. Denial of Use Permit. (Added 07/02/03):
In the event an application for a use permit is denied by the Board of
CommissionersCity Council, the applicant shall be notified in writing of
such denial within 10 business days by U.S. Mail. A decision by the Board
of CommissionersCity Council regarding the denial of said permit is a
final action; therefore, any appeal of such decision shall be pursued by
Planning Commission Meeting 5/22/07
5
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
application for Writ of Certiorari filed with the Superior Court of Fulton
County in accordance with applicable statute. within days of the decision.
This appeal shall in no way preclude an applicant from seeking any other
remedies available at law or equity.
19.4.1. G. Permit Application. (Added 07/02/03):
Nothing in this section shall allow for the conducting or zoning of any
business or entity which would otherwise be illegal.
19.4.2 ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS. (Added 7/1/92, Amended
11/03/93, 07/07/99, 02/07/01, 07/02/03)
INTENT.
It is the intent of this Section to regulate the place and manner of the operation of
businesses or facilities that offer Adult Entertainment as defined in this ordinance.
It is well established and has been the experience of other communities in Georgia
and throughout the United States that adult entertainment, which includes public
nudity, has been associated with and may encourage disorderly conduct,
prostitution and sexual assault. This Section advances the substantial government
interest in promoting and protecting public health, safety, and general welfare,
maintaining law and order and prohibiting public nudity. The Section is narrowly
constructed to protect the First Amendment rights of citizens of the Fulton
CountyCity of Milton while furthering the substantial governmental interest of
combating the secondary effects of public nudity and adult entertainment from
areas and uses of the community which are incompatible. Areas and uses which
are to be protected from adult entertainment include but are not limited to
residential, churches, day care centers, libraries, recreational facilities, and
schools.
A. Required Districts: M-1 (Light Industrial), and M-2 (Heavy Industrial), C-1 and
C-2 (Commercial) districts not located within the State Route 9 Crabapple or
Birmingham Crossroads Overlay Districts only.
B. Standards:
1. All boundary lines of the property included within the use permit must be
located at least 1,000500 feet from the properties listed below:
a. The property line of Suburban A, Suburban B, Suburban C, R-1,
R-2, R-2A, R-3, R-3A, R-4A, R-4, R-5, R-5A, R-6, NUP, CUP,
TR, A, A-L, AG-1 zoned property or property conditioned or used
for residential purposes.
Planning Commission Meeting 5/22/07
6
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
b. The property line of any public recreational facilities, public or
private institutional uses, including but not limited to churches,
schools, universities, colleges, trade-schools, libraries, day care
centers and other training facilities where minors are the primary
patrons.
2. The boundary line of the Use Permit must be located at least 1500 feet
from the property line of any other adult entertainment establishment or
adult bookstore.
3. Submit with the application for a Use Permit, a certified boundary survey
of the site and the property lines of surrounding properties identifying the
use of properties at or within 1000 feet of the boundary lines of the subject
property and adult entertainment establishments and/or adult bookstores
within 1500 feet of the boundary line of the subject property.
4. No final Land Disturbance Permit, Building Permit, Certificate of
Occupancy, or Building Permit Review Certificate may by issued until the
approved Fulton CountyCity Adult Entertainment Business License is
filed with the Director of the Environment and Community Development
Department.
5. If the adult entertainment business is to be located in an existing structure
where a Land Disturbance Permit is not required, an existing building
permit review application must be filed and approved in the Environment
and CCommunity Development Department prior to any occupancy.
6. Building shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines.
7. Parking spaces at a ratio of 10 per 1000 gross square feet of floor space
shall be provided.
8. Permitted curb cut access shall be directly from a major thoroughfare.
9. On-premise signs shall not display lewd or graphic depictions of body
parts or acts which are defined in Article and Subsection 3.3.1.
10. No adult entertainment shall be visible from outside the structure.
11. The minimum landscape areas required for the O-I zoning district as
specified in Section 4.23 shall be required. Where buffers are required, the
underlying zoning district buffer standards shall apply.
Planning Commission Meeting 5/22/07
7
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
19.4.2. C. Permit Issuance. (Added 07/02/03) :
Notwithstanding the provisions of 19.2.3 and 19.2.4, any applicant
meeting the above requirements and standards shall be entitled to the
issuance of a use permit.
19.4.2. D. Permit Applications. (Added 07/02/03) :
Notwithstanding any other provision herein, any material omission or
untrue or misleading information contained in or left out of an application
for a use permit shall be grounds for denial of said permit.
19.4.2. E. Permit Processing. (Added 07/02/03):
The CountyCity shall have 12030 days (unless the application is
suspended by failure of the applicant to provide data, information or
records as reasonably requested by the CountyCity and required by this
code, to complete the investigation) from receipt of a completed
application for a use permit to make a decision in which to grant or deny a
use permit. The Department of Environment and Community
Development Deparatment and Community Zoning BoardCouncilthe
Planning Commission shall make recommendations to the Board of
CommissionersCity Council regarding the approval or denial of the use
permit and the BoardCouncil shall make the final decision after a public
hearing regarding the same. In the event the Board of CommissionersCity
Council has not granted or denied the application within 12030 days
(unless the application is suspended by failure of the applicant to provide
data, information or records as reasonably requested by the CountyCity to
complete the investigation), the use permit shall automatically issue.
19.4.2. F. Denial of Use Permit. (Added 07/02/03):
In the event an application for a use permit is denied by the Board of
CommissionersCity Council, the applicant shall be notified in writing of
such denial within 10 business days by U.S. Mail. A decision by the Board
of CommissionersCity Council regarding the denial of said permit is a
final action; therefore, any appeal of such decision shall be pursued by
application for Writ of Certiorari filed with the Superior Court of Fulton
County within 30 days of the decision. This appeal shall in no way
preclude an applicant from seeking any other remedies available at law or
equity.
19.4.2. G. Permit Application. (Added 07/02/03):
Planning Commission Meeting 5/22/07
8
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Nothing in this section shall allow for the conducting or zoning of any
business or entity which would otherwise be illegal.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 1 of 29
PETITION NUMBER:
RZ07-003
PROJECT NAME
THE PARK AT CRABAPPLE
PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS 12608 Crabapple Road
DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2/2 1135
OVERLAY DISTRICT Crabapple Crossroads
EXISTING ZONING AG-1 (Agricultural)
Use Permit for Church pursuant to U97-60
Use Permit for Cell Tower pursuant to U88-80
PROPOSED ZONING MIX (Mixed Use)
EXISTING USE Church with house and barn
PROPOSED USE 12,000 square feet of retail in 2 buildings
15 Condominiums, 2 detached townhomes, and 14 single
family homes for a total of 31 residential units
OWNER Lee Kim and Young Kim
ADDRESS 12608 Crabapple Road, Milton, GA 30004
PETITIONER/REPRESENTATIVE Trinity Land Group, LLC
Peter and Karen Sanders
ADDRESS 301 Red Gate Overlook, Canton, GA, 30115
PHONE 770-888-3274
INTENT
To develop 12,000 square feet of retail within 2 buildings each containing 6,000
square feet with 15 condos above the retail; to develop 2 detached townhomes
and 14 single family homes for a total of 31 residential units.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
DENIAL
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 2 of 29
LOCATION MAP
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 3 of 29
CURRENT ZONING MAP
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 4 of 29
Crabapple Crossroads Land Use Plan Map
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 5 of 29
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 6 of 29
Subject Site
Subject Site
SUBJECT SITE:
The subject 5.03 acre site is zoned AG-1 (Agricultural) with existing Use Permits for a
church pursuant to U97-80 and a cell tower pursuant to U88-80. This site is west of the
Crabapple Crossroads intersection and is developed with two buildings and a barn
further to the rear of the property. The site is located within the Live/Work Land Use
designation. Within that designation the subject site is located within Village Mixed Use,
Village Office/Residential, and Sub Village Residential B sub areas.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 7 of 29
Standards of Review
(Article 28.4.1) Planning Staff shall, with respect to each zoning application, investigate
and make a recommendation with respect to factors A. through G., below, as well as
any other factors it may find relevant.
A. Whether or not the proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use
and development of adjacent and nearby Property?
The proposed Mixed Use zoning is consistent with the Crabapple Crossroads
Overlay District Land Use Plan that recommends that this site be developed
with Village Mixed Use, Village Office/Residential and Sub Residential B.
However, the stated densities are inconsistent with recent policies set by the
Fulton County Board of Commissioners and the Crabapple Crossroads
Overlay District Land Use Plan Map. The recent policy calls for 5 units per acre
within Village Mixed Use and Village Office/Residential and 1.86 units per acre
pursuant to 05Z-070 located to the east and northeast.
B. Whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of
adjacent or nearby property?
In Staff’s opinion, the proposed development is more intense than recommended
but may have an adverse effect on the use or usability of adjacent and nearby
properties if developed as proposed. Mitigating conditions and perhaps a
different zoning category may provide for a more compatible development than
currently proposed.
C. Whether the property to be affected by the proposal has a reasonable
economic use as currently zoned?
The subject site appears to have a reasonable use as currently zoned with the
operation of the current church on the site.
D. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an
excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities
or schools?
Staff does not anticipate a significant impact on public services and
facilities. However, some impact on the surrounding transportation system is
expected. Mitigation of adverse impacts should be addressed by recommended
conditions.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 8 of 29
E. Whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land
use plan?
The proposed mixed use development is inconsistent with some of the policies
and intent of the Crabapple Crossroads Community Plan and the Focus Fulton
2025 Land Use Plan. A brief description of the project is noted below:
Proposed use/density:
Village Mixed Use (1.03 acres) and Village/Office Residential (1.1 acres) –
The proposal is for12,000 square feet of retail within two 6,000 Retail/Commercial
buildings at a density of 5,106.38 square feet per acre based on the 2.13 acres
within the Village Mixed Use and Village/Office Residential Sub areas. The
proposed use is in conformance with the Village Mixed Use and Village/Office
Residential sub areas; however the proposed retail is inconsistent with the policy
and intent of the Plan and past Board policy of upholding the maximum 100,000
square feet of commercial for the Crabapple Crossroads Overlay District.
Village Mixed Use (1.03 acres) and Village/Office Residential (1.1 acres)-
The proposal for fifteen (15) condo units to be constructed above
retail/commercial buildings and 2 detached townhomes for a total of 17 units
of residential at a density of 7.98 units per acre based on the 2.13 acres within the
Village Mixed Use and Village/Office Residential Sub areas. This is in conformance
with the recommended use; however, exceeds the density recommended of 5
units or less per acre for the Village Mixed Use and Village/Office Residential sub
areas.
Sub Village B (2.9 acres)-
Fourteen (14) single family detached homes at a density of 4.83 units per acre
based on the 2.9 acres within the Sub Village Residential B sub area. This is in
conformance with recommended use but exceeds the density of 2.5 units or
less per acre for this sub area.
The Milton City Council adopted the Focus Fulton 2025 Comprehensive Plan
as the City’s Comprehensive Plan on December 21, 2006. The proposed
development is partially consistent with the following Plan Policies for the
Crabapple Crossroads Community Plan which was included in the Focus Fulton
2025 Comprehensive Plan:
• Increase transportation choices and improve mobility for all users.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 9 of 29
• Provide opportunities for mixed-use developments that are compatible with
a village-oriented development.
• Provide for the transition of land uses from higher to lower intensity land uses
in a pattern that supports village type development.
• Provide a variety of housing choices in the Crabapple Crossroads area.
F. Whether there are other existing or changed conditions affecting the use and
development of the property which gives supporting grounds for either
approval or disapproval of the proposal?
Staff notes that within the Crabapple Crossroads Community Plan, “Node
Designation” was discussed in detail. This plan was approved by the Fulton
County Board of Commissioners on June 4, 2003 pursuant to 2003Z-016.
Previous approved Plans defined a “Neighborhood Node” as a node that:
“Consist of up to 100,000 square feet of retail and service uses and office uses
not to exceed 20,000 square feet per acre with a maximum of 100,000 square
feet in total office uses. Minor arterials and collectors are appropriate for
neighborhood commercial. Residential development in the neighborhood
node should not exceed five units per acre.”
Historically, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners have considered the
“Neighborhood Node” (100,000 cap for retail/commercial) for Crabapple
Crossroads when reviewing and deciding on zoning cases before them. For
example, the proposed rezoning from AG-1 to MIX pursuant to 05Z-117 requested
a total of 39,000 square feet of retail/commercial. This amount of
retail/commercial exceeded the 100,000 allotment by 36,468 square feet;
therefore the amount approved was 2,532 square feet.
Staff has compiled a chart showing the approved zonings and their approved
densities that is included at the end of this report. At this point in time, the
allotted total square footage of 100,000 square feet for both Commercial/Retail
and Office has been filled and any additional approval of Commercial/Retail or
Office would be inconsistent with the Crabapple Crossroads Community Plan and
policy for the Crabapple Crossroads.
G. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered
environmentally adverse to the natural resources, environment and citizens of
the City of Milton?
Staff notes that none of the specimen trees on the site have been proposed for
preservation. According to the City of Milton Arborist, there are trees on the
site that can be preserved and will continue to provide both aesthetic and
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 10 of 29
environmental benefits to the citizens of Milton. The retention of some of the
specimen trees, as recommended by the City Arborist will lessen the adverse
aesthetic affect.
H. Existing uses and zoning of nearby property (See Map following table)
Location Parcel#
On
Map
Zoning Petition/
Name/Acreage
Approved
Square Feet/
Units
Based on Sub
Area
Approved
Density by
Land Use
Sub Area
(++Exceeds
Plan
Density)
Approved
Overall
Density
East, North ,
& West
2 03Z-156/MIX
Crabapple
Crossroads
40.82 Acres
Under Develop-
ment
12,000 sf Comm Vil Mix
7 units Vil Mix Res
11 units Vil/Of Res
8 units Sub Vil A
63 units Sub Vil B
5 units Rural Res
6 units Res 0-1
1.74 u/a
5 u/a
4 u/a
2.58 u/a++
1.5 u/a
1.31 u/a
293.98 sf/
acre
East &
Northeast
9 05-070/MIX
Crabapple
Crossroads
11.98 acres
Under Develop-
Ment
20,000 sf Comm. In Vil
Mix
20,000 sf Office
In Vil Mix
39 units Vil Mix
5 units Vil Off
3 units Sub Vil B
2 units Rural Res
5 u/a
5 u/a
1.62 u/a
2.55 u/a (extra
Unit approved
for historic
house saved)
1,669.45
Sf/acre
1,669.45
sf/acre
Further
North
& Northeast
12 05Z-117/MIX
John Wieland
62.87 acres
Under Develop-
Ment
2,532 sf Comm in Vil Mix
36,468 sf Office
In Vil Mix
14 units Vil Mix
18 units Vil Of/Res
17 units Sub Vil B
50 units Res 0-1
1.61 u/a
7.01 u/a++
6.35 u/a++
1.09 u/a ++
40.28 f/acre
580.06
sf/acre
Further
Southeast
20 81Z-78/C-1
Family Dentistry
(City of
Alpharetta)
Further
Southeast
21 C-1, AG-1
City of Alpharetta
Government
Center
Further
Southeast
14 06Z-74/C-1
Crabapple
Crossing
12,000 sf Comm in Vil
Mix (Previously
Approved 03Z-115)
8,203 sf Office Vil Mix
7,453.42
sf/acre
5,095.04
sf/acre
1
03Z-115/MIX
Crabapple
Crossing
(Under
Development)
12,000 sf Comm in Vil
Mix
31 units Vil Of/Res
16 units Sub Vil B
4.9 u/a
2.5 u/a
347.87
sf/acre
Far
Southeast
04Z-93/MIX
Crabapple
4 Southeast
19,000 sf Comm in Vil
Mix
1,155.02 sf/
acre
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 11 of 29
Station 3,000 sf Off in Off/Res
28 units Vil Mix
11 units Vil Off
19 units Sub Vil A
7 units Sub Vil B
5 u/a
3.42 u/a
3.91 u/a
2.56 u/a
(extra unit
Approved for
Historic House
Saved)
182.38 sf/
acre
South 17 84Z-79/R-3
Crabapple
Chase S/D
(City of Alpharetta)
1.7 units/
acre
Min. Heated
Floor Area
1750 sf
Southwest 19 94Z-79 / R-4
Arbor North S/D
31 units 2.0 units/
acre
West 18 U95-75 Cell Tower
AG-1
Crabapple Knoll
Vet Clinic
Further West 16 05Z-25 / NUP
Approved for
Subdivision
32 units 3.64 units/
acre
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 12 of 29
EXISTING USES AND ZONING MAP
I. Suitability of the subject property under the existing zoning district for the
proposed use?
The proposed use can not be developed under the AG-1 (Agricultural) district.
The applicant is requesting a higher density of residential as well as commercial
uses that are not permitted under AG-1.
J. Suitability of the subject property under the proposed zoning district for the
proposed use?
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 13 of 29
The proposed use is suitable for the proposed zoning district of MIX (Mixed Use).
This zoning district allows for a mix of uses as proposed for various types of
residential and commercial development.
K. The possible creation of an isolated zoning district unrelated to adjacent and
nearby districts.
The proposed rezoning to MIX (Mixed Use) would not create an isolated district.
There is MIX (Mixed Use) on all three sides of the development.
L. Possible effects of the change of the zoning or change in use on the character
of a zoning district or overlay district?
The Staff is of the opinion that the change of the zoning district and the
change in use may have an adverse effect on the character of the existing
zoning district or existing overlay district as currently proposed because allowing
the development to have more square footage than recommended creates
more intensity of development which thwarts the objective of the overall
Crabapple Crossroads Plan. Positive results would occur if it is developed with the
proposed conditions that allow only residential development at the
recommended densities of the Crabapple Crossroads Plan. Development
consistent with the plan would solidify the character of the area.
M. Whether the proposed zoning will be a deterrent to the value or improvement
of development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
The Staff is of the opinion that the change in the zoning may not be a
deterrent to the value of adjacent properties developed or anticipated to be
developed under existing regulations. Staff notes that the applicant’s site plan
shows the connection of an existing public road to the east and the west to be
completed as proposed in the Crabapple Crossroads Community Plan.
N. The possible impact on the environment, including but not limited to, drainage,
soil erosion and sedimentation, flooding, air quality and water quality?
This property, if developed under the proposed zoning district, must conform to
the current Chapter 14 of the Milton City Code regarding Land Development
including Soil and Erosion Control and Flood Damage Prevention. The
proposed rezoning will add approximately 3.9 acres of impervious surface which
is seventy-seven (77) percent of the site. The Crabapple Crossroads
Community Plan requires a minimum of 10 percent open space. The site plan
indicates conformance by providing 0.76 acre (15%). Staff notes that this 15%
can not include any required landscape strips.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 14 of 29
O. The relation that the proposed zoning bears on the purpose of the overall Land
Use Plan with due consideration given to whether or not the proposed
change will carry out the purposes of this Land Use Plan.
The proposed rezoning as submitted is not consistent with the overall
Crabapple Crossroads Land Use Plan for the area because the proposed
densities for residential and retail/commercial which does not fulfill the purpose
of the Crabapple Crossroads Land Use Plan.
P. The consideration of the preservation of the integrity of residential
neighborhoods shall be considered to carry great weight. In those instances in
which property fronts on a major thoroughfare and also adjoins an established
residential neighborhood, the factor of preservation of the residential area shall
be considered to carry great weight.
The proposed zoning is surrounded on three sides by an existing MIX (Mixed
Use) development with similar type development of residential toward the
back and non residential along Crabapple Road.
Q. The amount of undeveloped or zoned land in the general area affected which
has the same zoning or overlay district classification as the proposed
rezoning.
The Existing Use and Zoning Map above indicate that there is little or no
undeveloped or zoned land remaining in the area.
SITE PLAN ANALYSIS
Based on the applicant’s site plan submitted to the Community Development
Department on April 3, 2007, Staff offers the following considerations:
Crabapple Crossroads Overlay District
BUILDING SETBACKS
Article 12H(1)4 Section B.1.c of the Crabapple Crossroads Overlay District requires a
maximum building setback along Crabapple Road between 0 to 10 feet maximum. The
applicant’s site plan shows compliance with the requirement.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 15 of 29
BUILDING HEIGHT
Article 12H.3.5.D.1. of the Northwest Fulton Overlay District requires a maximum height
limit of two stories with the maximum height 30 feet from average-finished grade to the
bottom of the roof eave. The applicant’s letter of intent indicates the two
commercial/residential buildings along Crabapple Road are to be developed at a
height of 40 feet. Staff notes that the Crabapple Crossroads Overlay District does not
address building height and therefore it defaults to the Northwest Fulton Overlay District.
If the applicant chooses to develop these buildings at 40 feet in height, a variance
would be needed.
LANDSCAPE STRIPS AND BUFFERS
Article 12H.(1).4.B.1.a. requires an 8-foot minimum landscape strip along Crabapple
Road. The site plan appears to be compliant with this requirement.
The site plan indicates a 10-foot landscape strip on the west, north and the residential
portion on the east property line north of Branyan Trail. There is a 5-foot landscape strip
along the east property line south of Branyan Trail.
Staff notes that along the west property line adjacent to the existing MIX (Mixed Use)
pursuant to 03Z-156, where single family residential is proposed south of Banyan Trail, a
25-foot undisturbed buffer and 10-foot improvement setback is required per Article
4.23.1.B. Staff notes that there is an existing 100-foot power easement along the
adjacent property line to the west. If the property is approved as shown on the plan, a
variance is needed to reduce the required buffer and improvement setback.
Article 12H.(1).4.C.4 states that specimen trees should be preserved to the extent
possible. The site plan does not show any trees preserved although there are
approximately 6-9 specimen trees on the site. Staff encourages the applicant to
explore an alternative site plan that would preserve some of these trees. Preservation of
trees could be obtained by compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Crabapple Crossroads Overlay District.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The following chart illustrates the parking required by Article 18 of the City of Milton
Zoning Ordinance for the proposed uses:
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 16 of 29
Proposed Use Minimum Requirement Spaces Provided
Retail Service Commercial 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of
building area (60 spaces)
62
Residential
2 spaces per residence for
3 bedroom unit (30
spaces)
30
Staff notes that the two detached townhomes will have their own covered parking. It
appears that the site plan is in compliance with Article 18 as well as the parking
landscape and layout requirements of Article 12H(1).
MINIMUMM LOT SIZE
The applicant has proposed a total of 31 residential units as follows:
Sub Area Number and Type Minimum Lot Size
Mixed Use Village/
Village Office/Residential
15 Condos above
Commercial
N/A
Mixed Use Village/
Village Office/Residential
2 Detached Townhomes 4,597 sq.ft.
Sub Village Residential B 14 single family lots 4,800 sq.ft.
The applicant’s request is consistent with Article 12H(1).6.B.1. and Table 6.1 in the
Crabapple Crossroads Community Plan.
MINIMUM HEATED FLOOR AREA
The applicant is requesting the following minimum heated floor areas:
• Condos – 1,200 square feet
• Townhomes – 2,250 square feet
• Single Family – 2,000 square feet
The applicant’s request is consistent with recent approvals in the area.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The applicant is requesting the development standards as follows:
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 17 of 29
Detached Townhomes – Village Mixed Use and Village Office/Residential – 2 lots
1 Townhome - Minimum lot area: 4,597 square feet
1 Townhome – Minimum lot area: 4,628 square feet
It appears that the proposed detached townhomes meet the minimum required
development standards for residential lots up to 4,800 (Article 12H(1).6.) square feet as
follows:
Minimum Lot Frontage - 20 feet
Maximum front yard setback - 10 feet
Minimum side yard setback – 5 feet
Minimum rear yard setback – 5 feet
Single Family Lots – Sub Village B (14 lots)
Listed below is the applicant’s request. Staff notes that according to Article 12H(1).6.b.1
that the minimum side yard is 5 feet. The applicant has indicated 10 feet between
buildings, zero lot line. Staff recommends compliance with a minimum 5-foot minimum
side yard with no zero lot line allowed. This will be reflected in the recommended
conditions. In addition, Staff will include a condition of a 5 foot setback for all side
property lines adjacent to a street.
Minimum lot frontage: 40 feet
Minimum lot size: 4,800 square feet
Maximum front yard: 15 feet
Minimum side yard: 10 feet, zero lot line (combine 10 feet)
Minimum rear yard: 15 feet
Minimum building separation: 10 feet
Retail-Commercial Buildings – Village Mixed Use and Village/Office Residential
The site plan indicates two (2) 6,000 square foot retail/commercial buildings. The
conditions will reflect there shall be 2 buildings at a maximum of 6,000 square feet for
each building of commercial/retail. The 15 condo units will be located above the
retail/commercial in both buildings.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The environmental Site Analysis Report (ESA) is sufficient and satisfies the requirement of
the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 18 of 29
The applicant is proposing a minimum of 15 percent of the site in open space which
exceeds the 10 percent minimum required by the Crabapple Crossroads Overlay
District, Article 12H(1)4.H. Staff notes that this common area will not be part of any of
the single family residential lots within the development. A Homeowners Association is
required to maintain the open space and it shall be accessible by sidewalks, streets, or
a trail system. Staff has included the condition for open space and the establishment of
a homeowners association in the Recommended Conditions.
The site plan indicates that the proposed development will connect the two ends of
Branyan Trail. Staff notes that inter-parcel access shown on the site plan is consistent
with the Crabapple Crossroads Plan.
The subject site is in the Crabapple Crossroads Overlay District of the Northwest Fulton
Overlay District. At the time of application for a land disturbance permit and/or building
permit the applicant will be required to comply with these standards. Prior to the
approval of a permit, the applicant shall be required to meet with the City of Milton
Design Review Board to receive their recommendations.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On April 25th, 2007 the applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information
Meeting held at the Milton City Hall. There were three citizens from the community who
attended. The applicants will be presenting their plan to the Milton Design Review
Board on June 5, 2007.
Public Comments – The citizens attending the CZIM meeting were concerned with the
density of the project and ensuring that the proposed plan was consistent with the
Crabapple Crossroads Plan. Staff has not received any other comments via e-mail,
phone, or letters.
Public Notice Requirements
The rezoning petition was advertised in the Milton Herald on May 2, 2007 and the
applicant posted a sign issued by the Community Development Department on April
10, 2007 along the frontage of Crabapple Road
Public Participation Plan and Report
The applicant has met the requirements of the Public Participation Plan requirements.
The applicant will be required to submit the public participation report 7 days prior to
the Mayor and City Council meeting.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 19 of 29
CONCLUSION
The proposed retail and residential development is inconsistent with the policies and
intent of the Crabapple Crossroads Plan and the Fulton County Board of Commissioners
policy; therefore, Staff recommends that this request to develop 12,000 square feet of
commercial/retail and 31 units of residential be DENIED. The Staff recommends that the
subject property be rezoned to NUP (Neighborhood Unit Plan) with conditions. A set of
Recommended Conditions are included to allow the site to be rezoned to NUP
(Neighborhood Unit Plan) developed with 11 units of residential at a density of 4.6 units
per acre within the Village Mixed Use and 7 units of residential at a density of 2.4 units
per acre within the Sub Village B Residential or an overall density of 3.58 units per acre.
A set of Alternate Conditions are included if the Mayor and City Council chooses to
approve the proposed development as submitted.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 20 of 29
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, it should be APPROVED NUP
(Neighborhood Unit Plan) CONDITIONAL subject to the owner’s agreement to the
following enumerated conditions. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulations
and offerings contained in the Letter of Intent, these conditions shall supersede unless
specifically stipulated by the Board of Commissioners.
1. To the owners agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a. No more than 11 units of attached dwelling units at a maximum of 2.87 units
per acre based on the total acreage zoned, whichever is less (4.6 units per
acre based on 2.13 acres of Village Mixed Use and Village/Office
Residential).
b. No more than 7 total single family dwelling units at a maximum density of
1.39 units per acre based on the total acreage zoned, whichever is less (2.4
units per acre based on 2.9 acres Sub Village B Residential).
c. Approved lot/unit totals are not guaranteed. The developer is responsible
through site engineering (at the time of application for a Land Disturbance
Permit) to demonstrate that all lots/units within the approved development
meet or exceed all the development standards of the City of Milton. The
total lot/unit yield of the subject site shall be determined by this final
engineering.
d. Provide a minimum heated floor area of 2,000 square feet for the single
family dwelling units; 1,200 square feet for the attached dwelling units
2. To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following:
a. To the site plan received by the Community Development Department on
April 3, 2007. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these conditions prior to the
approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. In the even the Recommended
Conditions of Zoning cause the approved site plan to be substantially
different, the applicant shall be required to complete the concept review
procedure prior to application for a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless
otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in
place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
b. All recreational and common areas which may be held in common shall be
accessible by streets, sidewalks, or trails and the common areas shall be
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 21 of 29
maintained by a mandatory homeowners association, whose proposed
documents of incorporation shall be submitted to the Director of the
Department of Environment and Community Development for review and
approval prior to the recording of the first final plat.
3. To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations:
a. The minimum design standards are:
Single Family Lots – Sub Village B (7 lots)
Minimum lot frontage: 40 feet
Minimum lot size: 4,800 square feet
Maximum front yard: 15 feet
Minimum side yard: 5
Minimum rear yard: 15 feet
4. To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication
and improvements:
a. Reserve for the City of Milton along the necessary property
frontage of the following roadways, prior to the approval of a
Land Disturbance Permit, sufficient land as necessary to
provide for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. All
building setback lines shall be measured from the dedication
but at no time shall a building be allowed inside the area of
reservation. All required landscape strips and buffers may
straddle the reservation line so that the reserved right-of-way-line bisects
the required landscape strip or buffer.
45 feet from the centerline of Crabapple Road (SR 372)
or as may be required by the Georgia Department of Transportation.
50 feet of right-of-way for Banyon Trail
50 feet of right-of-way for new road (site entrance)
b. Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton along the entire
property frontage, prior to the approval of a Land
Disturbance Permit, sufficient land as necessary to provide
the following rights-of-way, and dedicate at no cost to the
City of Milton such additional right-of-way as may be
required to provide at least 10.5 feet of right-of-way from the
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 22 of 29
back of curb of all abutting road improvements, as well as
allow the necessary construction easements while the rights-
of-way are being improved.
c. Inter parcel access shall be required on both the east and west property
lines.
5. a. The developer’s Professional Engineer shall demonstrate to
the City by engineering analysis submitted with the LDP
application, that the discharge rate and velocity of the storm
water runoff resulting from the development is restricted to
seventy-five percent (75%) of the pre-development
conditions.
b. Stormwater detention facility shall utilize vegetative measures for water
quality. Individual Land Disturbance Permits/building permits are strongly
encouraged to utilize GASWCC limited application controls such as
infiltration trenches, porous surfaces, etc.
c. The site plan must provide adequate fire truck access in alley and one-way
conditions; as per the draft Right-of-Way Ordinance.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 23 of 29
ALTERNATE CONDITIONS
If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, it should be APPROVED MIX
(Mixed Use) CONDITIONAL subject to the owner’s agreement to the following
enumerated conditions. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulations and
offerings contained in the Letter of Intent, these conditions shall supersede unless
specifically stipulated by the Board of Commissioners.
1. To the owners agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:
a. Retail, service commercial and accessory uses, including all exterior food
and beverage areas, at a maximum density of 2,385.69 gross square feet
per acre zoned or a total of 12,000 square feet, which ever is less,(5,633.8
gross square feet per acre based on 2.13 acres of Village Mixed Use and
Village/Office Residential) but excluding daycare, convenience stores with
gas pumps; freestanding fast food restaurants; businesses with drive through
service; commercial amusements; pawn shops; check cashing
businesses; billiards or pool halls; designated recycling collection stations;
used car lots; self service laundry facilities; arcades, amusements, galleries
or game rooms; outside vending machines, kiosks or other stands except
ATM machines; dry cleaning plant or dry cleaning establishments; sale,
lease or rental of motorized vehicles or trailers; tattoo or body piercing
parlors; adult theme bookstores, video stores, movie theatres, and/or
establishments offering the sale or rental or related machines, tapes, discs,
books, magazines and novelty items; check cashing establishments; liquor
stores excluding wine shops; massage parlors or spas; bars, lounges or other
establishments whose principal business is the sale of alcoholic beverages;
and night clubs or similar establishments, including those offering strip tease
or nudity as entertainment.
b. No more than 15 units of dwelling units above the retail component and 2
detached townhomes for a total of 17 dwelling units at a maximum density
of 3.38 units per acre based on the total acreage zoned, whichever is less
(7.98 units per acre based on 2.13 acres of Village Mixed Use and
Village/Office Residential).
c. No more than 14 total single family dwelling units at a maximum density of
2.78 units per acre based on the total acreage zoned, whichever is less (4.8
units per acre based on 2.9 acres Sub Village B Residential).
d. Approved lot/unit totals are not guaranteed. The developer is responsible
through site engineering (at the time of application for a Land Disturbance
Permit) to demonstrate that all lots/units within the approved development
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 24 of 29
meet or exceed all the development standards of the City of Milton. The
total lot/unit yield of the subject site shall be determined by this final
engineering.
e. Provide a minimum heated floor area of 2,000 square feet for the 14 single
family dwelling units; 1,200 square feet for the 15 dwelling units above
the retail commercial buildings; 2,250 square feet for the 2 detached
townhomes.
f. Limit the square footage for the retail buildings to 6,000 square feet within
the 2 buildings.
2. To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following:
a. To the site plan received by the Community Development Department on
April 3, 2007. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these conditions prior to the
approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. In the event the Recommended
Conditions of Zoning cause the approved site plan to be substantially
different, the applicant shall be required to complete the concept review
procedure prior to application for a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless
otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in
place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
b. All recreational and common areas which may be held in common shall be
accessible by streets, sidewalks, or trails and the common areas shall be
maintained by a mandatory homeowners association, whose proposed
documents of incorporation shall be submitted to the Director of the
Department of Environment and Community Development for review and
approval prior to the recording of the first final plat.
3. To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations:
a. The minimum design standards are:
Single Family Lots – Sub Village B (14 lots)
Minimum lot frontage: 40 feet
Minimum lot size: 4,800 square feet
Maximum front yard: 15 feet
Minimum side yard: 5
Minimum rear yard: 15 feet
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 25 of 29
Detached Townhomes – Village Mixed Use and Village Office/Residential
(2 Townhomes)
Minimum Lot Frontage - 20 feet
1 Townhome - Minimum lot area: 4,597 square feet
1 Townhome – Minimum lot area: 4,628 square feet
Maximum front yard setback - 10 feet
Minimum side yard setback – 5 feet
Minimum rear yard setback – 5 feet
4. To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication
and improvements:
a. Reserve for the City of Milton along the necessary property
frontage of the following roadways, prior to the approval of a
Land Disturbance Permit, sufficient land as necessary to
provide for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. All
building setback lines shall be measured from the dedication
but at no time shall a building be allowed inside the area of
reservation. All required landscape strips and buffers may
straddle the reservation line so that the reserved right-of-way line bisects
the required landscape strip or buffer.
45 feet from the centerline of Crabapple Road (SR 372)
or as may be required by the Georgia Department of Transportation.
50 feet right-of-way for Banyon Trail.
50 feet right-of-way for new road (project entrance).
b. Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton along the entire
property frontage, prior to the approval of a Land
Disturbance Permit, sufficient land as necessary to provide
the following rights-of-way, and dedicate at no cost to the
City of Milton such additional right-of-way as may be
required to provide at least 10.5 feet of right-of-way from the
back of curb of all abutting road improvements, as well as
allow the necessary construction easements while the rights-
of-way are being improved.
c. Inter parcel access shall be required on both the east and west property
lines.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 26 of 29
5. a. The developer’s Professional Engineer shall demonstrate to
the City by engineering analysis submitted with the LDP
application, that the discharge rate and velocity of the storm
water runoff resulting from the development is restricted to
seventy-five percent (75%) of the pre-development
conditions.
b. Stormwater detention facility shall utilize vegetative measures for water
quality. Individual Land Disturbance Permits/building permits are strongly
encouraged to utilize GASWCC limited application controls such as
infiltration trenches, porous surfaces, etc.
c. The site plan must provide adequate fire truck access in alley and one-way
conditions; as per the draft Right-of-Way Ordinance.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 27 of 29
APPENDIX A
Comments on Public Services and Utilities
Note: Various City and/or County departments that may or may not be affected by the proposed
development provide the following information. Comments herein are based on the applicant’s
conceptual site plan and are intended as general non-binding information and in no manner suggest a
final finding by the commenter. All projects, if approved are required to complete the City of Milton Plan
Review process prior to the commencement of any construction activity.
Transportation Facilities:
Road name: Crabapple Road
Classification: Minor Arterial
Level of Service: C
Anticipated Traffic Generation Rates:
Awaiting applicant’s traffic study
Fulton County Health Department:
The Fulton County Health Department recommends that the applicant be required to connect the
proposed development to public water and public sanitary sewer available to the site.
If this proposed development includes a food service facility, the owner must submit kitchen plans for
review and approval by this department before issuance of a building permit and beginning
construction. The owner must obtain a food service prior to opening.
Plans of this facility must be submitted to this department for review and approval at the time of
application for a Land Disturbance Permit.
Fulton County Schools
Schools Crabapple Crossing
Elementary
Northwestern
Middle
Milton High School
Estimated Number of Students
Generated
6 to 10
4 to 5
4 to 6
State Capacity+
800
1,100
1,925
Enrollment++
831
1,206
2,088
Under/Over State Capacity+++
+31
+106
+163
Number of Portable Classrooms
07/08 School Year
4
4
4
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 28 of 29
Can Facility Meet Increased Demand?
Yes Yes Yes
+ Updated Georgia Department of Education state capacity
++ Enrollment based upon the official 10 day count of the 2006-2007 school year.
+++Positive values indicate numbers of students a facility is over state capacity/negative values indicated number of students a
facility is under state capacity.
Water and Wastewater (Sewer):
Water:
Anticipated water demand: 8,628 gallons per day
This project is +/- 25 linear feet from an existing water pipeline, located along Crabapple Road.
Comments: This information does not guarantee that adequate water volume and pressure are available
at this time or will be adequate upon application of permits. Please contact the Department of Public
Works for more information.
Sewer:
Basin: Cooper Sandy Creek
Treatment Plant: Big Creek
Anticipated sewer demand: 7,766 gallons per day
The nearest wastewater pipeline to this project is +/- 25 linear feet located in Land Lot 1136, District 2/2.
Comments: This information does not guarantee that adequate sewer capacity is available at this time or
will be available upon application of permits. Please contact the Fulton County Department of Public
Works for more information.
Drainage:
Flood Plain: No Flood Plain.
Fulton County Board of Education:
# of Proposed Units: 31 residential units
Fulton County Tax Assessor
Property Tax ID#: 22-4000-1136-051-4 – Tax Exempt
City of Milton Fire Department
*All hydrants shall be shown on plans.
*Any roadway with a hydrant on it needs to provide a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed clearance for
fire access.
*The Green space one way will not comply with a fire apparatus dead end and shall be compliant with
International Fire Code 2006 edition for apparatus turn around.
*Shall indicate separation distance between parking spaces for ADA compliancy.
*Clearly identify widths of entrances and exits.
Prepared by the Community Development Department for the
Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 2007
5/18/2007 Page 29 of 29
*The perimeter road that states “sub village residential B” does not indicate that it would handle an
appropriate turn requirements for fire apparatus.
s
e n f
D
APPENDIX B
EXISTING ZONING AND USES IN CRABAPPLE CROSSROADS
Existing Commercial prior to the Plan - 20,408 square feet; Existing Office prior to the Plan- 5,229 square feet
Parcel # Currently Zoning Petition/Name/Location Approved SQ FT and/or Approved Density by Approved Overall
on Map Zoned Total Acerage Units based on Sub Area Acreage Land Use Sub Area Density
(++ Exceeds Plan Density)
1 MIX 03Z-115 / Crabapple Crossing Further Southeast 12,000 sq.ft. Vil. Mix 947.87 sq. ft/acre
12.66 Acres 31 units Mix Use/ Office/Res 4.94 units/acre
(Under Development)16 units Sub Vil B 2.5 units/acre
2 MIX 03Z-156 / Crabapple CrossroadEast, North, and We 12,000 sq ft Vil. Mix 2,970.30 sq.ft/acre 293.98 sq ft/acre
40.82 Acres 7 units Vil Mix Use (4.04 acres)1.74 units/acre
(Under Development)11 units Vil Off/Res (2.2 acres)5 units/acre
8 units Sub Vil A (2.0 acres)4 units/acre
63 units Sub Vil B (24.5 acres)2.58 units/acre++
5 units Rural Res (3.47 acres)1.5 units/acre
6 units Res 0-1 u/a (4.61 acres)1.31 units/acre++
3 C-1 03Z-146/ Crabapple Tea Room Further Southeast 800 sq. ft Mix Use 536.92 sq.ft/acre 536.92 sq.ft/acre
4 C-1 04Z-134 / Further Southeast 1,500 sq.ft Vil Mix 1,153.85 sq ft/acre 1,153.85 sq.ft./acre
5 C-1 04Z-136/Interior Decoration Further Southeast 2,500 sq.ft Vil Mix 4,901.06 sq.ft./acre 4,901.06 sq.ft./acre
6 MIX 04Z-093/ Crabapple Station Southeast 19,000 sq.ft Vil Mix (5.63 acres)3,374.77 sq.ft./acre 1,155.02 sq.ft./acre
16.45 Acres 3,000 sq.ft. Off/Res (3.22 acres)931.68 sq,ft./acre 182.38 sq.ft./acre
28 Units Vil Mix (5.63 acres)5 units/acre
11 Units Vil Off (3.22 acres)3.42 units/acre
19 Units Sub Vil A (4.86 acres)3.91 units/acre
7 Units Sub Vil B (2.74 acres)2.56 units/acre*
(*extra unit approved for historic house saved)
7 R-1 05Z-002/ Subdivision Far Southeast 8 units Rural Res (5.96 acre )1.35 units/acre
5.96 acres
(Under Development)
8 C-1 05Z-030/ Far East 2,600 sq.ft. Vil Mix 6,089 sq.ft./acre 6,089 sq.ft./acre
(See #13).427 acre
9 MIX 05Z-070/ Crabapple Crossing East and 20,000 sq.ft. Vil Mix (7.84 acres)2,551 sq.ft./acre 1,669.45 sq.ft/acre
11.98 acr (this includes rezoni further Northeas 20,000 sq.ft Office in Vil Mix 2,551 sq.ft./acre 1,669.45 sq.ft/acre
portion of 03Z-156)39 Units Vil Mix (7.84 acres)5 units/acre
(Under Development)5 Units Vil Off (1.04 acres)5 units/acre
3 Units Sub Vil B (1.86 acres)1.62 units/acre
2 Units Rural Res (1.18 acres)2.55 units/acre* (*extra unit approved for historic house saved)
10 C-1 05Z-072 / Sally Rich Kolb Further Southeast 12,800 sq.ft. Vil Mix (1.36 acres)9,500 sq.ft. counted 9,411.76 sq.ft./acre
1.36 acres 6,985.29 sq.ft/acre
12,800sf-1,850 existing-
1,450 sf bonus for saving historic house
11 C-1 05Z-110 / Larry Davenport Further Southeast 8,000 sq.ft Vil Mix
2.10 acres 6,300 sq.ft. Vil Off
12 MIX 05Z-117/ John Wieland Further North and Ea 2,532 sq ft Commercial Vil Mix
62.87 acres 36,468 sq ft Office Vil Mix
(Under Development)14 Units Vil Mix 1.61 units/acre
18 Units Vil Off/Res 7.01 units/acre++
17 Units Sub Vil B 6.35 units/acre++
50 Units Residential 0-1 1.09 units/acre++
13 MIX 06Z-047 / Bruce Harris Far East 20,800 sq.ft. Vil Mix 3,946.87 sq.ft/acre
(See #8)5.27 acres (2,600 sq. ft. Already Counted via 05Z-30)
2 Units Vil Off/Res 0.75 units/acre
4 Units Sub Vil A 3.37 units/acre
14 C-1 06Z-074 / Patton Further Southeast 12,000 sf Vil Mix Comm. previously approved 03Z-115 7,453.42 sq.ft./acre
1.61 acres 8,203 sf Vil Mix 5,095.04 sq.ft./acre
15 C-1 06Z-079 Far East 1,953 sf Vil Mix Comm. Converted historic structure to non residential
.941 acre
16 NUP 05Z-025 West 32 units 3.64 units/acre
8.79 acres
17 R-3 84Z-079/ Crabapple Chase S/South (City of Alpharetta)1.7 units/acre
()Residential MHFA:
1,750 sf
18 AG-1 U95-75/Cell Tower
Crabapple Knoll Vet Clinic Further West
19 R-4 Z94-079 Arbor North S/D Further Southwest 31 units 2.0 units/acre
(Residential)
20 C-1 Z81-78 Family Dentistry Further Southeast
(City of Alpharetta)
21 Alpharetta Gov't Center Further Southeast
(City of Alpharetta)