The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - PC - 05-22-2007CiQ of Milton Planning Commission Regular Meeting Mav 22,2007,7:00 PM Commission Members Present: Curtis Mills, Bob Moheb, Paul Moore, Cary Schlenke, George Ragsdale, Fred Edwards, Paul Hackman Meeting LeaderICity Staff Robyn MacDonald, Planner Mike Tuller, Assistant Manager-Planning & Zoning Mark Scott, City Attorney CONDJTIONS ANID STATEMENT OF BOARD Chair Paul Moore read to attendees of meeting. TNTRODUGTION Chair Paul Moore introduced members of the Planning Commission. RULES AND PROCEDlRES OF MJXTING Chair Paul Moore read to attendees of meeting the rules and procedures from the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION The invocation was led by a local high school student. DISCUSSION ABOUT AGENDA Chair Paul Moore asked for a motion from the Commission to hold the meeting in the order as posted by the Agenda. Bob Moheb made the motion and Fred Edwards seconded. No discussion, vote was unanimous and motion carried. Chair Paul Moore called for public comment. There being none, motion was made by Commission Member Bob Moheb, seconded by Cary SchEenke, vote was called and it was unanimous, so public comment closed. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chair Paul Moore called the first Agenda Item, Amendment of the Bylaws and stated that in their previous work session, they discussed the possibility of having additional discussion requiring the Commission to defer, but Commission Member George Ragsdale said he put forth some information he wanted the Commission to discuss this evening. Commission Member George Ragsdale said his commitment was to get that information to the Chair by tonight and it would be taken up at the next cycle, so he said they did not need to consider it tonight. Page 1 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 2 of 2.2 Chair Paul Moore called for a motion to defer the Amendment to he Bylaws to the next work session. Commission Member Cary SchPenke made motion to defer Amendment to the Bylaws to the next cycIe. Commission Member Bob Moheb seconded motion. There was no hrther discussion, vote was taken and passed unanimously. Chair PauI Moore called the second Agenda Item, ApprovaJ of the Minuresfi;om the April 24, 22007 Planning Commission Meeting. Commission Member George RagsdaEe made motion to approve the April 24th meeting minutes with a change he had in the 5th paragraph under the section called "Meeting Called to Order" on the first page, second sentence of that paragraph. He asked to change the word adoption to the word amendment and delete or new changes to the bylaws deleted. He made a motion to move the Bylaws to the next work session and then adopt them at the next public meeting. Commission Member Fred Edwards seconded the motion. Chair Paul Moore called for discussion. Comrnission Member Cary SchIenke stated that she wanted the Highway 9 Overlay changes to be spread on the minutes and wanted to make a friendly motion to add this. City Attorney Mark &ott stated that what they have been teaching the Council --and he stated that he understood the Commission had not had their training and would be provided shortly --is what is really supposed to happen under Roberts Rules. That is that friendly amendments are realIy not allowed. The Chair is supposed to restate the motion after it has been made and at that point the motion is to be the entire body's motion and not just the maker's motion anymore, so at that point friendly amendments are not allowed. He said technically since the Chair had not yet restated the motion, they could make the fiend1 y amendment. Discussion about proper wq of stating motions. Commission Member Cary Schlenke stated she wanted to make a correction or addition to the minutes to include the Highway 9 Overlay identified suggested items being spread on the minutes. Robyn MacDonald asked ifthese were the items Heidi Sowder came to the public hearing with. Commission Member Cary SchIenke stated it was referenced on page 2 1 of the minutes at the bottom. City Attorney Mark Scott advised that it be included in the motion and ask Staff to attach list to the minutes. Chair Paul Moore stated that a motion was made by Commission Member George Ragsdale to amend the minutes of April 24th in the 5th paragraph, to strike the word adoption by the ward arnendmt and delete or new changes to the bylaws deleted, and to move the Bylaws to the next work session and then adopt them at the next public meeting. In addition, the Commission wouId like to make an insertion on page 20 requested by Commission Member Cnry Schlenke to include the list of comments or suggestions submitted by the incorporation committee relating to the Highway 9 Overlay. Chair called for discussion. Commission Member Curtis Mills stated he had some corrections on pages 3,4, 6 and 7 Gust typographical in nature). Page 2 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 3 of 23 Commission Member George Ragsdale said he believed if just typographical in nature to just send to Staff for correction and not require a motion if there were not substantive. Robyn MacDonald asked Commission Member Curtis Mills if he could give Francesca the copy be had with his changes so she could make the changes to the minutes. Chair Paul Moore called for further discussion. There being none, vote was called and it being unanimously, motion carried. Commission Member George Ragsdale said he wanted to reiterate and state that it would be very helpful when any of the documents are sent to the Commission, if they could be sent in Word format so they can work with them instead of PDF files. Chair Paul Moore called the next order of business Agenda Item No. RZ07-004, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Article 19.4.1 and 19.4.2, Adult Book Stores and Adult Entertainment Establishments and stated it would be presented by City Attorney Mark Scott. City Attorney Mark Scott stated that Article 19.4.1. was fiom the original Fulton County Zoning Ordinance. He wanted to make clear that what they are bringing to the Commission was solely for one single purpose and that was to tighten up a potential Constitutional objection regarding the adult entertainment ordinance or the sexually oriented business ordinance that the City adopted. He stated that what they found was that the sexually oriented business ordinance on its own is fine, but the problem is that when they looked at the zoning map they realized that under 19.4.1 and .2 in the City of Milton, such an establishment --and we have to alIow them whether we like it or not because Constitutionally there has to be a place for it-- but you both cannot allow it and take it away and as the ordinance is currently written it is only allowed in M-1 and M-2, and Milton has no M-2. He stated he believed there is about 11 acres in M-I, all of which is within 1000 feet of the types of uses that you cannot have one ofthese uses within 1000 feet from which include residences, churches, schools, anything to do with chiIdren like daycare and that kind of thing which is appropriate. City Attorney Mark Scott stated that what we have done on one hand is to grant the use and then on the other hand, we have taken it away, and we do not want for example the man in the City of Johns Creek to come into Milton and do the same thing and take advantage of a problem with our ordinance. He stated that we did not have to allow these in NW Fulton --they were not allowed anywhere in NW Fulton when it was not the City of Milton, but as soon as we become a city we have to allow for them somewhere. The question becomes where and how do we do this and how do we avoid dumping them into places like Highway 9 which we know nobody wants to do. This is clearly the designated commercial area of the city but at the same time, we do not want to dump that on our friends here on Highway 9. He fold the Commission that they have done an exhaustive with the help of the GIS department of CH2Mill and came up with a couple of maps (4 maps), because the original ordinance as it is currently written requires boundary lines from those types of properties that he mentioned earlier about the sexually oriented businesses to be 1000 feet or more away from them. He further stated that when they looked at those types of uses in Milton, if they kept the 11500 foot buffer, you couId not have them anywhere either and that is because the proxirniv of residence to commercial throughout the city. He said that a} we could not just keep them in M-1 and M-2 and b) we did not want to dump them on people and c) we could not keep the 1000 buffer and then the other problem was then what do we allow them in since they are allowed somewhere, yet are far enough away from these types of uses that they will not be a problem. City Attorney Mark Scott told the Commission they had several maps that they settled on [Ciry Atlorney holding up rhe drfSerenr maps for the Commission and showing the buffers and the areas referencing from the maps]. He told Commission that they realized they would have to go to C-1 and C-2 and at the same time, the hefield development had deed restrictions and that Johns Creek is fortunate because the way they inherited their zoning from the county, they allowed it within M-1 and M-2 and the only M-1 in the city was within the Johns Creek Technology Park, so on one hand it is alIowed, but the technology park's deed restrictions do not allow it. He said what is most interesting about that legal concept is that there is a case right on point from the Georgia Supreme Court that says that where it is allowed by the local Page 3 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 4 of 23 zoning, but not allowed by a private agreement, it does not matter, because the city allows it and the private agreement does not interfere with the legal allowance of the thing from a governmental point of view. Therefore, it is a good way to shoehorn these types of uses you do not want into areas that they cannot practically put them in. The City Attorney then showed the Commission fiom the maps what they came up with for the 500 feet buffers under the existing zoning. [City Attorney holding up the dflerent maps for the Cornmissi~nand showing the bufers and the areas referencing from bhe maps, indicating where they could put those types of businesses]. He stated that this would be if the ordinance is adopted as Staff recommends. Commission Member Cary SchEenke asked the City Attorney Mark Scott to tell them what the crossroads were from the map. City Attorney Mark Scott responded Windward Parkway, Highway 9 and to a lesser extent, Deefield Parkway, so it is right in this area and it is the retail area just to the south of us here. He stated just so they were clear that it has been looked at thoroughly, they also have a map showing the future land use areas under the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that can be conceivably rezoned for C-1 or C-2 in the future. [City Artorney holding up the map for the Commission and indicating future land use areasfrom map]. He stated that partial lots do not count so if partial, they cannot have it. He told the Commission that the border on the north is Webb Road and the good news is that the end result is that if the ordinance is changed as it is drafted to allow in Section B. (1) all boundary lines of the properry included within the use permit asfded masf be located 01 least 500feetfrovn the properg listed below instead of 1000, so while it looks like they are being more liberal --we are actually not because 1000 would not allow it at all and we cannot do that -so the other issue is that the required --and again, this is not a use that is just sirnpIy alIowed. This is a use that has to be permitted. He said that this is what they are asking the Commission to amend the 6-1 and C-2 to allow the use in C-1 and C-2, but when you combine that with the boundary lines, the buffers that you have to have from those other types of residential, public, child-oriented and places of worship uses, again, it pushes it down to this Deerfield complex and we have examined the deed restrictions --we have a copy of them --we know and are comfortable to say that this applies to this area and the good news is that we can legally allow for these businesses to have a pPace in the City of Milton, but fortunately the place that they are going to be allowed from a legal standpoint will not allow you to rent to such a business or open such a business even if you purchase the property because of the deed restrictions. He stated he felt they ended up with quite a good result in that they practically are not going to be seeing these establishments and at the same time they do allow for it at least on paper so they meet the Constitutional obligation. City Attorney Mark Scott told the Commission that one of the things they did with the ordinance is that they brought it up to date by substituting the Fulton County references, references to the County Commission (substituting that for Council), and just so you understand, the Intent and Finding section beginning is something you have to have in such an ordinance because you have to adopt and incorporate by reference various studies and they certainly did that in terms of the sexually-oriented businesses ordinance. He said that they were just going to reference the studies that the County Commission already adopted on our behalf as citizens of the county and we are moving on with that. He then told the Commission that Commission Member George Ragsdale had mentioned to him a couple of issues that he wanted to be clear of early today and one of those was the permit processing. He stated that it is 60 days to act on an ordinance and that this is important because if the city does not act in 60 days then it is automatically granted from the time the applicant submitted the appIication. Board Member Bob Moheb asked if this was 19.4.1 (e). City Attorney Mark Scott stated that was correct. Board Member Bob Moheb said his copy showed 30 days. City Attorney Mark Scott said this copy has 60 and that is what they are proposing. Page 4 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tue~day,May 25,2007 Page 5 0023 [Discussion among Board Members about time period]. City Attorney Mark Scott told the Commission to include this as an amendment because he felt 60 days is a much safer call. Me said it is the same for most of the First Amendment issues. If an ordinance does not have essentially a "drop dead" date for the city to act on something whether it is a billboard case or an adult entertainment type case, if you do not have a "drop dead" date by which something is deemed granted, you have a ConstitutionaI problem because the downside to that is the applicant could say that you accepted the application and you never acted on it and that is as god as denying it without acting on it. He stated that there was plenty of case law that says that this is a complete no-no and you do not want to do that. Commission Member Bob Moheb asked what the reason was for going from 120 to 60. He asked why not keep it at 1120. City Attorney Mark Scott stated because 60 is a number that the Staff was comfortable with and they believed they could get it done properly. He further said that 120 days could be egregious for an applicant and 60 days is safer when it comes to litigation is the bottom line. He believed it is safer to recommend 60 than 120 because 120 days drags it out too long and opens you up to a challenge. He said it takes more than 60 days to get through you and then to Council. Commission Member Bob Moheb asked if they want to further look at something and wind up deferring it. City Attorney Mark Scott said that Staff would have to tell you that under the ordinance it would have to be acted on within this time frame and you will not be in a position to defer. He said that there are issues like that (billboards and these other types of businesses). There are cases like that and there will be many times when unless the applicant is willing to give you more time and grant us [City], it has to be acted on in a certain time period and frankly it is really better legally to put ourselves in that than to face the possible challenge. Commission Member Bob Moheb asked if the City Attorney would also suggest for example 90 days would not be a good option. City Attorney Mark Scott said that 90 days is better than 120, but he thought 60 would be the best compromise. City Attorney Mark Scott said that Robyn MacDonald [Staff]is suggesting that you may want to go with 90 days so that we can go through the fuIl cycle. He said he would certainly be menable to that if that is what Staff was suggesting. Commission Member Bob Moheb said his concern was that someone could file an appIication on a certain date and then going through their cycle it may exceed 60 days. Staff Robyn MacDonald said the way it is set up it is a good two and a half month cycle so 60 days would not be enough. She stated that you wowld need at least 90 days to even to go from application to City Council approval or denial. City Attorney Mark Scott said that there were just a couple of other issues that were pointed out to him by Staff Robp MacDonald early today. He said that if the Commission had a chance to review the two ordinances --and he reiterated to the Commission that he wanted them to understand that what they are bring to them is not a total revamp and they were not being asked to do a total revamp. He said frankly, they are asking them to not do a total revamp. He said this will all. be addressed within a new zoning ordinance hopefully within the next several years. He stated that what they needed to do is to adapt the Fulton County Ordinance to the realities of Milton more or less on an ad hoc basis for the time-being as we are getting started as a new city. The references to the various Fulton County Boards and Commission have been taken out, and have substituted the word Planning Commission for Community Zoning Board, which was, of course, the Fulton County equivalent. He told the Board they are only asking them to approve three things in each of the sections. The 500 foot buffer instead of the 1000 foot buffer, the text changes to conform to the correct terms for Milton, and adding C-1 and C-2 and then changing the referenced 30 day deadline to 90 days in both places that this appears. Page 5 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tue~day,May 22,2007 Page 6 of 23 City Attorney Mark Scott said he would ask that the Commission adopt the amendment as before them, but striking all references to a 30day deadline and substituting 90 days. He then said the last thing he wanted to address were some comments that Mr. Ragsdale made to Robyn MacDonald and which were pointed out to him today, and that is in 19.4.2 under the Standards Section which is B., on page 6, in 6-1 1, if you compare page 6 with page 3 under 19.4.1, you will see that on page 6 there is a 6-1 1 and there is not that on page 3. He said that the suggestion can we just go ahead and also put 6-1 1 in 19.4.1 as well as 19.4.2. He stated that on one hand he was not sure if that would be a bad idea, but his concern was if you look at these, these seem to be dealing with larger crowds, more people coming and go because of the fact that this would be an adult entertainment establishment. His concern is that because they were not in on the original drafting of this ordinance, there could well have been a determination based on a study or facts that there is a difference between adult bookstores and adult entertainment establishments in terms of the number of patrons coming and going. He did not think that adult bookstores attract the same size of a crowd as adult entertainment establishments do if they are putting on a show, so from a legal perspective, one of the first tests when you are dealing with First Amendment issues is there has to be the least restrictive means as possible. He stated that if Fulton County made the determination that they would apply that to adult entertainment establishments and not adult bookstores, he did not want to put ourselves in the position of opening ourselves up to a challenge because we did not adopt the least restrictive means. He said, therefore, it seemed to him that it is fine to leave it where it is for adult entertainment because of the possibility that you are dealing with larger groups of people or a larger number of patrons. He said even though these are good ideas in terms of dealing with traffic, he was not sure that those are necessary to put in 19.4.1 and also,just so you how, the on premise signs shall not display lewd or pornographic depictions of body parts or acts in Number 9 under 19.4.2, so that is already covered under the sign ordinance, under Obscene Signs. He told the Board that you do not have to be content neutral when it comes to obscenity. He said that obscenity is an exception to content neutral. City Attorney Mark Scott said they are asking you [Commission] to pass the ordinance with the exception of the 30 day deadline window to 90 days. He then asked if the Commission had any questions. Commission Member Paul Hackman asked if the deed restrictions could change and if so, how. City Attorney Mark Scott said that they really cannot because they run with the land and last at least 50 years. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said that if someone new came in they would have to take the previous landowner's deed restrictions. City Attorney Mark Scott talked about some of the Board perhaps living in subdivisions and being part of a Homeowners' Association and pay dues and this is all part of the deed restrictions and covenants. Commission Member Cary SchIenke said that if someone wanted to change that, could they. City Attorney Mark Scott said that they could not because it runs with the land. Commission Member said then as far as this Purchase Agreement, you cannot put in an adult entertainment establishment. City Attorney Mark Scott stated that was correct because it is in the deed. He said that frankly this has already been a problem from a racial and civil rights perspective at times because there used to be deed restrictions that did not allow you to seIl to people of color, and those have all been ruled unconstitutional, but this is not in deed restrictions allowing this type of usage, so he believed we are very safe in this regard. The deed restrictions will be running with the land for a long time and they can be renewed and it would not surprise him in 40 something years down the road, whoever owns or operates Deerfield Park would want to decide to reestablish these things once again to keep the quality of the clientele to be where it has been. Page 6 of 23 Pranning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 7 of 23 Chair Paul Moore asked City Attorney Mark Scott if he was satisfied that the current deed was in that range of 40-50 years. City Attorney Mark Scott said yes, that he had been give a copy of it to review. Commission Member Cary Schlenke asked about the 500 feet versus the 1000 feet. She said that you [City Attorney] spoke about the Constitutional obligations and that you did not want it to be challenged. She asked if he could provide specific examples where 500 feet has been challenged versus 1000 feet. City Attorney Mark Scott said that was not the issue. Commission Member Cary Schlenke is it because it has eliminated any opportunities at all? City Attorney Mark Scott said because the 1000 feet was so restrictive that it eliminated any opportunities at all. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said she thought it still was allowed in M-1. City Attorney Mark Scott said that it was, but there was no M-2 that is even within a couple of hundred feet from these other types of uses. [He referencedfrom map where the M-I areas were]. He said there were only 11 acres in the entire city that are zoned M-I and all of it is within extremely close proximity to those types ofuses. I-le said he would be happy to give the Board more restrictions if he thought that this was something they could get away with constitutionally, but he said he recommended that this is the best way to deal with it --that we allow it but not completely outlaw it. Chair Paul Moore said that in keeping in that same vein, in 19.4.1 (a) under Required Districts for the language describing M-1 and M-2 and then they have made the addition of C-l and C-2. City Attorney Mark Scott said that they had deleted that. He stated that this was initially in there because when he first wrote it he did not have the benefit of these maps and did not realize that those were all still within the 500 foot buffer. Chair Pad Moore said that in that same section, Required Districts, it now reads C- l and C2 and the rest is sltnrck after the word commercial. City Attorney Mark Scott said this also applies in 19.4.2 as well. He said that he wouId ask the Commission to make that an amendment as well because he and Mr. Wilson had discussed that a week or so ago and you actually had some questions about that at your work session. There was no reason to keep it, so it was decided to get rid of it. He said that at first blush because Crabapple and Birmingham may have both C-1 and C-2, I wanted to make sure that we kept it out of those areas, but we do not have to because they were still within the buffer offset. Commission Member George Ragsdale said he did not know how the City Attorney wanted to handle it, but he had some concerns in reading this. He said he recognized that what they hacl in front of them to deal with from a vote perspective is the document that they had at the workshop, but unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, what you got were his comments, so the rest of the group has those, but that is not what they are voting on. He stated he was concerned that the text in the Intent and Finding Section that the references to the proposed amendment seem to indicate that there is another document somewhere. He said he would recommend that those changes be made so that it refers to this section of the Resolution as opposed to an amendment that is somewhere else. City Attorney Mark Scott asked Mr. Ragsdale to point this out to him. Page 7 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 8 of 23 Commission Member George Ragsdale said it was in the second paragraph, top of page 2. He said what the Commission has in front of them reads the CouncilfuPtherfids that the proposed amendment to the zoning resolution. He said he believed it would read better if it said rhe Council furtherfinds shut this section of fhe zoning ~esolu~ion.He said that it intends to imply that there is some proposed amendment somewhere else or that the preamble was written to be outside of the document itself. City Attorney Mark Scott said he would be happy to accept his suggestion and stated he felt it would be a good clean-up as well. Robyn MacDonald asked George Ragsdale to restate this so she could capture it. Board Member Cary Schlenke asked that all the Commission Members be provided with copies. Commission Member George Ragsdale said that there was one other section that was not mentioned and he thought they should talk about it and that is the reference to the major thoroughfare. City Attorney Mark Scott said yes, there was a question posed to him earlier in the day. He said that George Ragsdale had asked Robyn MacDonald about that major thoroughfare issue [read section aloud talking about major thoroughfare]. The question was what did that mean as defined in the ordinance. He told the Commission that Robyn and he checked the zoning ordinance and that is a defined term under the zoning ordinance. Mr. Ragsdale suggestion was that because it is a defined term, he felt we should capitalize the letter "M"in major and "T"in Thoroughfare so he said this would certainly be an amendment that he would be happy to agree with. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said she had it at the bottom of page 3. She asked if it was in two places and where the other one was. Commission Member George Ragsdale said on page 6. Board Member Cary Schlenke said she still had questions about what George had brought up about the same standards being included under the adult bookstore that was under the adult entertainment -if there is not a specific example of why that would be a problem to add this Ianguage to the adult bookstore section, she stated she would rather have it there. City Attorney Mark Scott said again, his only hesitation about this was that he cannot be certain as he sits here tonight what the rationale that Fulton County had in adopting that and the difference in the first place. He said there is a very good chance there was some type of study done that indicated that you needed it for adult entertainment establishments, but you did not need it for adult bookstores and because of the legal Constitutional requirement that we adopt the least restricted means necessary to reguIar First Amendment activity, he said he did not want to open us up for a problem and that is why he made the recommendation he did. He said at first blush he was thinking like you to just let it conform, but he said he is not comfortable recommending that if he did not know what their rationale was. He stated he is hesitant to adopt a more restrictive scheme of regulation if he did not know why and he said he did not believe that they are left unprotected by leaving it out either. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said that her concern was that with Fulton County it may not have been an issue as you describe, but it was just an oversight on their part. Chair Paul Moore asked if it would be possible in the process of what we want to approve this evening, hopehlIy by motion, that between now and the time it goes to the City Council and the Mayor that we can take a look at this issue. City Attorney Mark Scott said yes. Page 8 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22.5007 Page 9 of23 Commission Member Cary Schlenke said she wanted to add to something he [City Attorney] talked about earlier about the Constitutional obligation in that first paragraph that identifies the 1980 study by the Minnesota Crime Prevention -- and also a 1978 study --is there any danger that that could be challenged legally because those studies are so outdated? City Attorney Mark Scott said he did not believe so but he told the Commission that they adopted other studies and included those in the record when they adopted the sexually-oriented business ordinance and really this is just the second part, the companion to it. Board Member Curtis Mills stated that it starts out with the oldest and comes current toward the end. Commission Member Cary Schlenke asked City Attorney Mark Scott if he though they were safe with it because more current ones are in the document. City Attorney Mark Scott said that a lot of this was amended by FuIton County. He said if you look at the deletions off to the side which tract their amendments, you will see that these were brought forth as recent as 1999 and 2003 so he told the Commission he thought they would be safe as he recommended. Board Member Cary Schlenke said she guessd she did not have the same comfort level as he did as far as Fulton County was concerned. City Attorney Mark Scott said he understood that and he did not have a great deal of comfort with Fulton County, but he feels that he will probably have more comfort with them in the area of these hot button issues because they know and certainly their legal staff knows that if they do not keep up --especially in the areas that are going to get you sued more than anything else (billboards and sexually-oriented businesses), these are the two main hot button issues aside of just zoning issues. He said that these are the most challenged for civil rights and First Amendment litigation for municipalities. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said that with all of the things Johns Creek has gone through, have you [City Attorney] been able to work with their attorneys? City Attorney Mark Scott said the sexually-oriented ordinance that was passed prior to the Planning Commission being instituted was based almost entirely on the same ordinance that Johns Creek adopted and again, that is the companion to this. He stated that all this does is show where you can have them. He said that they adopted the newest and toughest version of their ordinance which has frankly a Iot of teeth. He stated that it was avaiIable on the city website and he could get a copy of it for them if they wanted. He said that this ordinance made it very clear --it was based not on just inventory, but gross sales, square footage of merchandise --that ordinance was written by a nationally recognized expert who is an attorney named Scott Berghold out of Chattanooga who reaIly specializes in fighting sexually-oriented businesses in governments around the country, and he was retained by Johns Creek specifically to both represent them in the Love Shack litigation and to draft a very tight, very tough ordinance and we adopted their ordinance, so he stated he believed the City was in vely good shape in dealing with one of the newest and best ordinances that they could have dealt with in that arena and said that all we are doing with this amendment that is before the Commission is to just basically tailor that to the actually types of land use in Milton and also to tailor the actual types of land and categories of use within Milton that would allow these things to reflect where it would be most appropriate to put it --particularly because it is deed restricted. Commission Member Cav Schlenke thanked City Attorney Mark Scott and said she hew he had put in a tremendous amount of work on &is and she appreciated all the work that went into it [as welt as the other Commission Members]. Page 9 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page PO of 23 Chair Paul Moore asked if there were any more questions. Board Member Curtis Mills said he had a follow-up question for the City Attorney on 19.4.2 (6-1 1)and said maybe this is just a toothier version of what Commission Member Cary SchIenke asked in the end, but is it fair to ask that when you do figure out Fulton County's logic as it pertains to that exclusion, if he could somehow report back to the Commission or have someone else explain that to us. He stated if the city does approve this as it stands, assuming they approve it as it stands, he said the Planning Commission may want to follow-up and make an amendment at some point in the future. City Attorney Mark Scott said sure, and he would work with Robyn MacDonald on that. Chair Paul Moore asked if there were any additional questions. Commission Member George Ragsdale said that since it looked like the Commission was going to try to use this document, he proposed to the City Attorney at the top of page 4 in Item 6 if that is acceptable, necessary or not. City Attorney Mark Scott asked him which one that was. Commission Member George Ragsdale stated the no depiction of anatomical areas or sexual activities speci$ed. He said that when the Commission looked at this at their briefing Iast week, they thought that the language was a little fizzy, so he did not know if he improved it or not by his suggested language, but wanted to make sure that if they are going to use this document, that you [City Attorney] would be okay with that change. [Discussion about visibility from outside of the structure or on signage outside of the structure]. Commission Member George Ragsdale said he thought they wanted to make sure that if it was visible inside of the structure even though you were standing outside, this was something they did not want to allow. He said it may be fine the way it was. City Attorney Mark Scott said it was all fnclusive. Chair Paul Moore said he thought this was addressed in the sign ordinance as well. City Attorney Mark Scott said he was not saying George Ragsdale's suggestion was a problem, but he does think it is okay and accomplishes the same objective. Commission Member George Ragsdale said just for clarity for Commission Members Schfenke and Mills, the only elements in that string of items 1-1 1 in 19.4.2 that are not in the prior one are items 4, 6 and 7. He stated that the rest of the items are a11 covered, and here are only 3 items that are not covered. City Attorney Mark Scott said that one thing he wanted to make clear to the Commission tonight Is that he knew there was some misunderstanding regarding the sip ordinance, and he wanted to tell them that it was a situation where there were too many chefs stirring the soup he was afmid. [Discussion with Commission und Ciq Attorney about them knowing thus they are an advisory board, but there had been the benefit of additioaal kga1 input prior to this Commission's reading of the document and they did not get the benefir of this so they invesled a good deal of time and energy in the document w irhovt the benejt of she additional language that ended up being pul in]. City Attorney Mark Scott said one of the reasons he was there tonight is to make sure that something like that does not happen again. Page 10 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday. May 22,2007 Page 11 of 23 Commission Member George Ragsdale said that one comment he wanted to make that was particularly frustrating to him was that the sign ordinance that the Commission was presented with represented to be something that represented the consensus of the Council, so along those lines for the record tonight, the ordinance that they had been presented with at their briefing, the ordinance that they worked with [tonight's document], was the ordinance that was adopted by the city and the only changes that were proposed when it came to this Commission were the changes proposed by the City Attorney and Staff. City Attorney Mark Scott said yes, the Council had not seen this document before and had not been before the Council previously, so he did not believe the Commission was going to have a probIem with this one, and this was one of the things he wanted to be very clear with them on. Board Member Cary Schlenke said that she wanted to put her two cents in and stated that her frustration on top of the two previous things that were mentioned was that a group, they had recommended either agreements or changes or whatever to the sign ordinance and it was not even rolled over in the Council's mind. She said this was the problem she had, stating that the Commission spent collectively both at the briefing (about 5 hours) and regular meeting (5 horns), on top of the individual hours that were spent. She stated she understood that Council does not have to take their recommendation, but if they had that much time invested in it, she would like to at least hear that it was discussed among them at the Council meeting that they are considering it. City Attorney Mark Scott said that sign ordinance issues are always an emotional and controversial issue and, of course, you have the opinion of folks in the community, the Council and you also have the legal requirements and legal issues and then we are also faced with the challenge as well -the one lawsuit we did receive was a challenge to the sign ordinance which frankly was a bit premature because they did not even get their facts sight as to what sign ordinance we had a the time they applied and, in fact, we did not have a sign ordinance in effect at the time they applied --we had a moratorium in effect at the time they applied for this billboard and they had assumed we adopted Fulton County" sign ordinance which had aIready been declared unconstitutional, which we knew had been declared unconstitutional and that is why we did not adopt it, so we still had to go through the requisite hearings and we did adopt something in late December, so at that point we were able to lift the moratorium. He continued to state that they had to especially be careful and not only had competing interests of the various community members and the competing opinions of various community members, but we had legal input as well from me and the attorney who was assigned to defend us in that case by the Georgia Municipal Association. Chair Paul Moore asked if anyone wanted to entertain a motion. C~rnmissionMember George Ragsdale moved that the Commission recommend to the City Council the amendments to Article Sections 19.4.1 and 19.4.2 as presented in the document that was distributed by Robyn MacDonald this evening with the following specific changes: The first change being in Section 19.4.l(b)(5) on page 3 -the words major and thoroughfare shouId be capitalized and the comments should be deleted. In Sectlon 19.4.lCbX6) at the top of page 4, the proposed change should be deleted and the original language should be used. In Section E9.4.1(e), the two references to 61) days should be changed to 90 days and the word "p1anning'~should be spelled correctly. In Section 19.4.2(b)(8), the words major and thoroughfare should be capitalized and the comments on items 6,7, 8 and 9 should be deleted, and lastly, in Section 19.4.2(e), the two references to 68 days should be changed to 90 days and the word "department" should be spelled correctly in the middle of that paragraph. Commission Member Fred Edwards seconded the motion. Chair Paul Moore called for a vote, it was unanimous, and there was no discussion, so motion carried. City Attorney Mark Scott thanked the Commission and told them he believed they made the right called and that this was the best way to protect the city fiom these types of businesses. Page 11 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22.2007 Page 12 of 23 Chair Paul. Moore thanked the City Attorney Mark Scott and then called the next order of business, the first of the rezonings, RO7-003, 12608 Crabapple Road, to rezone fm AG-1 (Agricultural) to MIX (Mixed Use Development). Staff Robyn MacDonald stated she was presenting the application for The Park at Crabapple. mobyn read the application for rezoning and the Staff Report (provided as part of their packet) to the Commission and explained what conditions had been met and what variances would be needed]. Rabyn MacDonald stated that in conclusion the proposed retail and residential development is inconsistent with the policies and intent of the Crabapple Crossroads Plan and the FuIton County Board of Commissioners Policy, therefore Staff recommends that this request to develop 12,000 feet of commerciallretail and 31 units of residential be denied and Staff further recommends that the subject property be rezoned to NUP, Neighborhood Unit Plan with conditions. Chair Paul Moore asked applicant to come forward to present his case and to state his name and address for the record. He also advised of Iength of time he had to speak. Speaker William de St. Aubin stated his name and address, 5250 Pikes Peak Court, Marietta, Georgia, and said he was a consultant for the applicant. He said he was involved in the original master plan for this area and what they were hying to do is just to implement the master plan in this. He said the main thing with the master plan was to do a mixed-use walkable rural village. He said that this area was under a lot of threat for strip centers when they got involved out here and it had transportation issues relating to the historic center so they wanted to create something that was in character with a rural village and one of main things you do are to keep the retail within 600 feet of the main intersection. He said this falls within this policy. He further stated that the buildings are small (6,000 sq. ft.) in accordance with the plan, the intersection lines up to help with the trafic situation [referencing from diagram] and what really helps with the traffic is that all of these roads need to connect to take pressure off of these streets, so getting this property developed is critical -- more critical than the density he would say if you ask any traffic engineer to have the alternative roads. He said that everyone wanted pocket parks so they put those in. He stated that the Plan wanted it to be the densest in the middle and fade out [referencing from diagram]. He told the Commission that all around them is approved mixed use so to have only residential in the middle did not make sense to him. He stated that aIso they did transitional zoning going back. He said they put the parking behind so you do not see the parking like regular strip centers and the buildings are up front and then they put two town homes that are actually detached homes but they help screen the parking further [referencing on diagram] and there is a transition from commercial to urban residential to rural all within a very fine grain. All these were done in accordance to plan, but somehow the overall density is wrong --they have more green space than what is required. He said this was the plan they developed based on the value of the land and they need to make this happen. Speaker John Kieffer, 212 Dahlonega Street, Cumming, Georgia, stated he was one of the partners in the proposed development and he also wanted to introduce another partner, Karen Sanders, and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Kim in the back of the room as well. He said the point he wanted to make is that the site plan is consistent with the building setbacks, the landscape strips and the buffers are consistent except for what adjoins the 100 ft. power line, the parking requirements are consistent, the minimum lot sizes are consistent, the square footages for the condominiumq town homes and singe family units are all consistent, the transportation goals are consistent, the development standards are consistent, and the only thing we are inconsistent with according to Staffs recommendations is the square footage of retail which is due to an apparent cap of 100,000 square feet and also the inconsistency in the density. He said that there are other rezonings around them that have simiPar density and they believe their request is a fair one. He further stated that they were certainly willing to address whatever issues the Planning Commission asks of us. Chair Paul Moore called for my opposition at the meeting tonight. There were none, but he asked that it be noted on the record that there was some opposition cited in the form of emails to the Planning Commission. Page 12 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,207 Page 13 of 23 Chair Paul Moore made motion to close public hearing. Commission Member Bob Moheb seconded the motion, vote was called and was unanimous, so motion carried. Chair Paul Moore asked if there were any questions for applicant or Staff. Commission Member George Ragsdale asked Staff Robyn MacDonald about the properties on either side of this proposed development [referencing diagram] and said he believed they were items 2 and 9 from the graphic. He said as he looked at these two properties, it appeared to him that the approved density for parcel #2 for sub-village B is 2.5 units per acre and for #9, 1.62 units per acre, which are significantly lower than what is being proposed here. He asked if he was reading this correctly --just Sub-village B. Staff Robyn MacDonaEd said yes, that is correct. Speaker John Kieffer stated that in no way did he mean to misinform the Commission. He said there is a zoning to #12 that backs up to this property -one parcel of land, and that has a density of 6.35 units per acre for sub-village B. Commission Member Curtis Mills said to Bill de St. Aubin that he thought he did a good job in presenting the project and asked him about one of the comments he [Bill de St. Aubin] made was that you attempted to implement the master plan. He [Curtis Mills] said in his mind the density issues are fused in with the plan. He told Bill de St. Aubin that he understood there are economic issues that have to be addressed, but how did he factor in density or did you even use that as a constraint in deciding what would go where and how much would go into the property? Speaker Bill de St, Anbin said that as a designer and a master planner, density is not a major issue. He said that this is probably not want you want to hear, but it is not a major issue. He said that they have been trying to encourage residential above retail and nobody seems to want to take the risk in Crabapple at this point, so that may be why you are seeing a higher residential density, but when you do hat, especially the way they are doing it, it allows for smaller unit which allows for a smaller price point which allows for some housing balance in this area. He said that you actually have a pretty good job center with the school close by, so in terms of mitigating some traffic issues, if we can cut down commutes overall it helps and what is being built out here is a pretty high price point which is fairly normal because the demographics are high in this area,but there are people that work in service in this area that can now live in the village because of this project. Commission Member Curtis Mills asked what the range in those price points might be. Speaker BilI de St. Anbin said because of the land value he was sure it was going to hit as high as it can get. Speaker John Kiefder said they have not really gone through that investigation yet, but he told the Commission they have a similar project under development in downtown Cumming and it is vertical mixed use, three stories of residential over retail and the price points there are going to go from the $275-$285 thousand dollar range on the smaIler units and up. He said the smaller units are a little bigger (1250 sq. ft.) and go up. Commission Member Curtis Mills asked if the land value factors were the same. Speaker John Kieffer said he thought that they were --it is only on a 3/4 acre site in Cumming and the land value there is in the neighborhood of $450,000 an acre. Chair Paul Moore said he wanted some clarification and said at this point there is not an established price range for the multi-residential over retail or is there also a price range or not a price range established for the single family residential and the town homes as well. Page 13 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 14 of 23 Speaker John Kieffer said it is still to be determined. Chair Paul Moore asked if there were any additional questions. Commission Member George hgsdale asked Bill de St. Aubin about him about his comment about the trafic concerns and interconnecting roads being a way to divert traffic away and keep the trafic off of the main roads, and asked him if he could comment about the toad that was connecting to Crabapple [referencing diagram-curb cuts] and what wouId be the downside of just eliminating that and letting the inteior road carry the traffic over to the existing intersection. Speaker Bill de St. Aubin stated that in working with retail developers that it is very valuable to have the inltersection. He said that in good urban planning you have to need these things to happen anywhere from 200-400 feet apart. He stated that when you talk to transportation engineers, they will talk 600-1000, but that is not pedestrian planning. He said you do not want a bunch of curb cuts where it is a hazard for the pedestrian. He said when this diagram was made, he believes they were well within the boundary of the 200-400 feet, so it is a logical place so you do not get too much of a super- block and does not breathe enough to be an urban fabric. Commission Member Cary SchIenke asked about the deceleration and acceleration lanes. Staff Robyn MacDonald said the applicant is in the midst of doing a fmffic study and those conditions should be in the back of your packet. The applicant was requested to do a traff~cstudy. Speaker Johu Kieffer told the Commission Bat the study was completed at 5:00 p.m. tonight so they just got it. It was prepared by A & R Engineering that was the sub-consultant on the transportation plan for Crabapple, so they were very familiar with the transportation needs of Crabapple and he pointed out that it does have a recommendation for a right turn lane and according to the State Department of Transportation, it does not meet the needs criteria for a left turn, but there would be a decel lane into that curb cut. Chair Paul Moore stated that at one point in their work session in discussion of this proposed project, there was some question about fire code and access for fire trucks. He asked if this was addressed by the applicant. Staff Robyn MacDonald said that the applicant received their comments and the comments of the Fire Marshall so the applicant knows what his concerns are. She stated for the Commission that this appeared on page 28 ofthe report. Chair Paul Moore asked the applicant about addressing some of those concerns about the alleys and the deepest parts of the project and the ability of the fire mcks to get into those for turning around. This means there wiII probably have to be adjustments to widths and turning radiuses which may begin to impose upon the proposed residentiaI lot sizes and placement of the stmctures on them. Speaker Bill de St. Aubtn said they would not 'be able to get a land disturbance permit without addressing this issue. One way to address this issue would be to widen the alley slightly and then make these radiuses continuous all the way around [referencing area on diagram] and then the fire trucks would have complete access to everything and open up the alleys for potential visitor parking. Me stated they could address these avenues with the Fire Marshall before they go in for an LDP. The question is whether the lot sizes would be affected. Commission Member Cay Schlenke stated that their stom water management shown on their plan (Item #4) it says ...will be provided in underground detention facilities.. .she asked where will that be located? It says it is subject to change pending the civil engineering. Page 14 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Twesday, May 22,2007 Page 15 of 23 Speaker John Kieffer said it was their intention to put all of that they could behind the parking behind the retail [referencing from diagram] --that is what they are currently doing on their project in Cumming. It is below the parking lot and provides both water quality and detention in that one location. Chair Paul Moore asked John Kieffer to point out from the diagram map where the specimen trees were addressed in this application for consideration of the project. Speaker John Kieffer said they were scattered and there were some photos that were with the application that show some of the pictures. Commission Member Cary Schlenke told the Commission it was on page 6. Speaker John Kieffer said there were some trees midway back on the site and they would make every effort to try to incorporate those where they could in their green spaces. Speaker Karen Sanders with Trinity Land Group, 301 Red Gate OverIook, Canton, Georgia, stated that they had ordered a tree plan that they just received. She told the Commission that their arborist met with the city's arborist and they collaborated on what the city needed to see and she believes that what the plan said is that out of the 6-9 trees, that there are 3 of the specimen trees that they can potentially save and make very god use of so they are definitely exploring that option and will certainly address that when they have an opportunity to go back on-site with both of the arborists again. Commission Member Cary Schlenke asked abut the calculation of the green space areas. Speaker Bill de St. Aubin said he had his staff calculate it and subtract the buffers out on the side and it still came out to E 6%. He said he had an email that wanted to send the graphic so they could see it. Commission Member Cary Schlenke asked him to indicate on their site map the areas where they were calculating the green spaces. Speaker Bill de St. Aubin said that without the graphic he could not be 100% sure, but showed her [referencing from diagram area]. He said he would provide this information between now and the council meeting so it will be absolutely clear. Staff Robyn MacDonald said to Bill de St. Aubin, so you are saying that even the previous calculation was probably incorrect -15% if they are saying it is 16%without the landscape strips surrounding it? Speaker Bill de St. Aubin said yes, but he believes that have to actually show them so they are all in agreement as to how they are calculating it. He said P 0% is the requirement and thy are over it. Chair Paul Moore asked Bill de St. Aubin if recognizing that the Crabapple Master Plan today caps the retail square footage at 100,000 square feet is the retail component a "do or die" component to this project? Speaker Karen Sanders said that yes it was. The retail component was definitely critical to this project not only from the land value standpoint but she believes from the principal standpoint. She stated she wanted to share some of her thoughts with the Commission and acknowledged that Ithis has been an issue that has been floating around and is a dimcuIt issue that they have all dealt with and stated they are learning too. She said yes it is critical component from an economic standpoint but also with regard to what they truly believe the vision of Crabapple is and what they believe from the years spent in designing this project using input from the residents and the community to establish this pedestrian- oriented environment where your core is your retail and your office and your perimeter as you go further out is your residential. She said they beljeve that all of the parcels that have been slated for this rezoning --down Mayfield or up Page I5 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 16 of 23 Hwy. 372 or this piece here [referencing area from diagram] on Crabapple, there are some economic issues if this cap cannot be addressed and she felt there are certainly ways to address this issue. She said in the past perhaps it has been historical, maybe an arbitrary number, suggested or recommended, but surely it is inconsistent with your land use plan. She would like to fulfill it with the Crabapple Plan. Commission Member Curtis Mills asked Karen Sanders why she felt it was inconsistent. Speaker Karen Sanders said that the reason it is inconsistent is because the Fulton County Board and Commissioners have adhered to a cap of 100,000 square feet of ofice and 100,000 of retail. She said she believed where that came into play is that there was some market research that showed that demand would exist in Crabapple in the community, but if you look at your future land use map and all of the color-coded components of it that were created based upon the Crabapple Community Plan (looking at the color-coded areas) --you cannot have a cap and fulfiIl the master plan --you cannot have a cap and fulfill this Crabapple Community PIan to create the vision of the interconnected transportation network and the village pedestrian walking environment -it would have just been a waste of time basically just to create the plan, so that is the inconsistency. Commission Member Paul Hackman asked because there is not enough retaiI to go to or walk to --what is the reason? Speaker Karen Sanders said as she had said, the future land use plan designates certain retail and ofice parcels to be rezoned and as Bill de St. Aubin was explaining earlier, the focus and the vision --it says here that the community planning process resulted in a clear vision for she future of Crabapple --a vision to develop is as a mixed-use rural village while preserving historic resources in developing an interconnectivify transportation network. [Referencing colors from diagram]. She said basically this project is retail and office with the core within that 600 ft. walking distance from the center. Speaker Bill de St. Aubin said the plan calls for this to be a village mixed-use, but there are actually three different zones in their master plan. He said they gobbled up the square footage in the wrong place. Commission Member George Ragsdale said in his opinion he thought they were jumping to a conclusion that "mixed-use" means retail and ofice and he said he believes the land use plan calls for mixed use and also includes the caps on both retail and ofice at 100,000. He said that given those caps are there, it rather defines what those ratios are going to be in those mixed-use areas, but mixed-use by definition does not mean retail or office, so he personally did not see that there is an inconsistency and they have dealt with the same caps in Birmingham --same neighborhood node --the neighborhood node was a carryover from the old plan, but it was not changed when the 2025 plan was done for either Crabapple or Birmingham. Commission Member George Ragsdale said to Staff Rob MacDonald, maybe he was not reading the chart correctly, but he was still trying to define the cap. He understood that the cap had been met, but when he looked at the map that was previously up, he was having trouble finding by looking at this [referencing diagram] and the immediately adjacent par~els,where is the approved retail along that road. Staff Robyn MacDonald said that because so much of the property is zoned mixed [referencing map] you will see that it is not a very defined area with the rezoning because within each MIX is a portion of the property developed as commercial so it is hard to see on the zoning map. You would have to see a map that shows the non-residential areas. [Giving empIes of zoning areas and uses]. [Discussion with applicants and Staff about certain defined areas of their plan]. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page17of23 [Discussion with Commission Members and Staff about procedures to make a motion with conditions]. Commission Member George RagsdaIe moved that they defer this matter because there are pieces of this application that are really not in front of us [Commission] --the traffic plan, variances that have been cited, green space calculations, etc. The caps for retail and ofice are things he would personally want to see the applicant work within and give them an opportunity to come back with a revised plan rather than denying what is here. He said that his motion would be that the Board defers this matter for 30 days. Motion was seconded by Fred Edwards, vote was called, and motion carried 5-2 for deferral for 30 days to allow the applicant to engage the city staff as well as the conditions that have just come before the Commission (the traffrc study, arborist, fire and safety) and other things proposed by staff. The Chair stated it was therefore not approved, not denied, but just deferred the recommendation. Speaker Karen Sanders stated she was not clear what Commission Member George Ragsdale said about the cap and she did not know how to address that matter. Commission Member George Ragsdale stated that for him personally, the caps are there and he would look forward to her revised plan working within those caps. Commission Member Bob Moheb stated he wanted to clarify his reason for voting against nay. He said that he believed the Planning Comrnission has the option of denying what the applicant has requested, but going ahead and rezoning it to what the Board thinks wowld be appropriate with the caps and everything else. Staff Robyn MacDonald said that is correct. She said that one ofthe motions could be to deny the submitted application, but approve the staff recommendation for NUP. Chair Paul Moore said that they had already made a motion and it passed, so he called the next order of business, which is "other business." State Route 9 Overlay Text Amendments to go to the Design Review Board. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said that they had discussed at their briefing that it was their [Planning Commission] intention to meet and discuss the proposed changes and the input that they gathered from the community during their last month's meeting and go through those items and also continue to meeting with Staff regarding the text amendments to the overlay district including the build material minimum requires and the definition of those building materials. She said that the plan now is to go forward and continue to get those items together to present to the Design Review Board. Staff Robyn MacDonald stated she had not been able to discuss the emails from the Commission with the DRB yet. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said she just wanted to make sure that they were not duplicating their efforts. Staff Robyn MacDonald said she understood and stated she was going to be at the next Design Review Board meeting on June 5th, Tuesday, two weeks from today, and will address those issues at that time. Commission Member Bob Moheb said he wanted to state on record that he is a little worried about what is going on Highway 9. He said he drove it up and dom and he is worried about the tmff~cconditions, what it is going to do to our schools that are already over-populated, and is really worried that we do not have a master plan for Highway 9 and thinks it is something that should be developed and is something that the citizens of the area want and he said he personally thinks there has to be a stop to all the madness that is going on out there untiI everything is figured out. He said possible this could be done even with something as extreme as a moratorium, but he said something has to be done. Page 17 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 18 of23 Commission Member Fred Edwards said almost every one of them has been approved. There are several "for sale" signs, but he stated he did not know what they could do after these have been approved. He said he totally agreed with what Bob Moheb was saying, as he also drives up and down there everyday, but he said unfortzlnately, he thinks their hands are tied. Commission Member Paul Hackman asked if anyone knew of any vehicles to do more immediate action on planning for the Highway 9 Overlay or is this part of that master pIan and it takes all of that to get to it. Staff Robyn MacDonaId said she did think they are trying to deal with the immediate issues concerning the Highway 9 Overlay District so she believed this is a little baby step in trying to help patch a bigger problem -not patching, but trying to address the bigger picture. Staff Mike Tuller said that as they have touched on before, we are going through a comp plan update and are not going to get to the level of detail noted to design guidelines, but they are going to be looking at land use improvements for the corridor and looking at maybe mixed use, and there is also going to be a transportation master plan that is part of it where we are going to look at bicycle and pedestrian improvement as part of that plan and he said we are in the early stages --it is not being neglected. He stated that as noted, a lot of the decisions that are out there now were based on Fulton County's processes and we do control the zoning so we have a chance to improve that, but some of this stuff will take time. Commission Member Paul Hachan said controlling the zoning means that it has already been zoned in some way. So if somebody wants to build within what that zoning is, they can do that today. Staff Mike TulIer said yes sir, under the current guidelines, if they come under current zoning with no variances and such. Commission Member Paul Hackman said he agreed with Bob Moheb on this --it could be a mixed match and a mess by the time they can get to the point of doing anything about it. He said he is not bIaming here, but he believes that this is what everybody's impatience is about. He said that when they had the public come in and talk about this --he said he was thinking that there are several themes here. He heard the public has said and this Commission has said that everyone is worried to death that this area is just going to be a mess by the time they are able to get to what they really want to do and he did not know if perhaps a moratorium is what they need to do. He asked if there was anyway to say, we are going to put a stop to this until we can figure out how we want it to be. He said from the public meeting the comments were pretty clear --peopIe want it to look nice and do not want it to look like Highway 9 --a bunch of commercial stuff piled on top on one another just trying to make as much money as they can make --that is not the idea of the City of Milton. The City of Milton wants an area that is going to Iook planned, well put together, so he did not know if this Commission can make that statement in a way that makes a difference, but he thinks that is what everyone is trying to get to --this point. Staff Mike Tuller stated that typical corridor studies take about a year to undertake if you really want to involve the public, develop steering committees, --it can be undertaken, but it will probably be in the area of $1 00,000 -$150,000 to do a study of that nature if not more, but it can be undertaken. He said right now they are under serious financial limitations so they are going to have to find alternative funding sources to look at a master plan for this study. Commission Member George Ragsdale said that if he thought back to other similar situations -what is missing in Highway 9 is there is no plan. He stated that Birmingham and Crabapple both had a plan developed. The next item is talking about getting those plans incorporated into the ordinances, so there is still additional work to be done there, but there is no plan for Highway 9 that was every developed. He said that the plan for Birmingham did not cost $100,000 or $150,000, but was basically developed by the community and staff. It did not take n year to do, and it can be done more quickly than that if the can get enough resources to be able to work on it in enough time, but he believed this is the only way they are going to be able to circumvent what is going on now and that is to get n plan developed for that area, irrespective of the overall Comprehensive Plan and try to get that adopted as part of the current land use plan as an amendment to it before we get to the final plan. He stated that the other thing he wanted to say is that he is confused Page 18 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 19 of 23 about what they are doing at the other end of the spectrum. He stated that they have community input, they talked about trying to move this thing forward to try to modify the actual overlay that exists, and he is not sure he understands what they are asking the Design Review Board to look at. He said there is a document or a list of issues, but he did not know what that was. He said that this part of the process was not visible to him. Commission Member Cary Schlenke stated that this is part of what is stilI being developed by Bob, she and Curtis and then they were planning to meet with Staff. Commission Member Bob Moheb said that one of the things he stated in an email was the materials, material mixtures and accent materials, and things like that. Like 70% brick and natural stone and then 30% accents -- Commission Member Paul Hackman said he did not beIieve they can get that specific --there are way too many specific things to do on that level. Maybe they can develop a plan that says the themes they are hearing from everybody. Here is what the public wants and then how do we put this into operation is the interesting question, but he said he thinks this may be the best way to proceed. Chair Paul Moore stated that he and Commission Member George Ragsdale said that they worked on the Birmingham master pIan together and really what it took was time and interest fiom the community. He said he did not believe they were lacking interest from the community on Highway 9 to invite the public, to create a committee and begin to address some of these things. He said they had a pretty good representation of the Highway 9 here -from past organizations, from business owners, as well as the residential community. Me said by forming a study group or a recommending body for Highway 9 some of this initial leg work could be done and then have that information come back before this Commission and then to City Council. Commission Member Bob Moheb said what worried him was that a lot this, at least zoning wise, may be too late and that is why he believed something as extreme as a moratorium until a master plan could be set in pIace would be appropriate. Staff Mike TulIer said that the parcels that ate leR are usually small residential tracts. There is not a lot of big stuff out there. He said yes, they could do a temporary moratorium for 30, 60 or 90 days, but stated that would be more of a political tactic and did not know that it would really make a huge difference, but there are some major developments coming in and single family houses, but chances are everything is going to have to get some type of variance so it will have to come through the city so they do have the ability to look at the design thmugh the Design Review Board and as Commission Member George Ragsdale said, they could do a corridor study in 3-6 months, but he is not in a position to elicit staff time to do that. He said he did do this in Cobb County, but involving the public took about 12 months, but if there was through unified agreement, it could have taken 3-6 months. He said it was all done in-house, but now it is developing into an 8 million dollar corridor plan similar to what you are seeing out on Highway 92 out in Roswell. He said it takes the right people, the right stakeholders --we do not want to do it in a vacuum and that it part of what 'brought this Commission and Council together is the fact that they do want to involve the public and many would venture to say that they need to do this first to the Comp Plan Update to get recommendations to look at corridor specific issues. He said the question they keep hearing is "we do not have time" and so we ask what do we do in the interim to protect ourselves. He said he did not how if the moratorium would be the panacea we are looking for. He said he believed everybody is going to come in through some type of variance through developing what is left out there, because the properties are not all that deep --there is frontage, but a Iot of them will require some rezoning and not everything is of a commercial utilization. There is AG land out there right at Bethany Bend and 9, so there are still a lot of areas that are still in transition, but he said that they can talk with their elected officials and they may want to discuss this with them as well to see what we can do in the interim, but he believed they could get some design guidelines in place through some god public involvement and Heidi and Joelle's group may be a good starting point. Page 19 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 20 of 23 Staff Robyn MacDonald said she believed they had already made a step in that anything for a building permit variance or land disturbance permit has to go to the Design Review Board now, even with what is there now. She said that Tom's goal and our goal is to make an okay project a great project so this is where they have some muscIe to work on it. Commission Member George Ragsdale said that absence to specifics in that Overlay is still going to be subject to the DRB only being able to recommend and not having any force. Staff Robyn MacDonald said she agreed that it needs to be updated and changed, but they need to see their accompEishrnents in such a short time of moving it into the DRB realm to be positive. Staff Robyn MacDonald said they cannot do anything about the old zonings that were already approved, but they can for any new zoning. She said that she knew that much of the plan along Highway 9 is recommended as mixed-use and to be honest, she needs to investigate further as to what the meaning is for mixed-use along Highway 9. She does not really know what Fulton County meant by mixed-use for living and working along Highway 9 because she did not believe it was very well defined. Lengthy Discussion with Commission Members and Staff about possible Highway 9 changes, worries about time going by and processes for possibly accomplishing this]. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said that she completed agreed with what Bob Moheb said tonight. If there was some way to find a way to do the things they keep talking about wanting to accomplish without constantly feeling like their hands are tied and not risking having it all redeveloped before they can get to that end of making those things happen. She said if they continue to do what they have been talking about tonight to get the design --that is what we [Commission] can do immediately with those text amendments to the Overlay and maybe at the same time work on maybe some type of corridor development because there are a lot of people in this area that have a vision of what the city should be and she did not think it would have to be as drawn out as described and if we can do those things as kind of a parallel to each other and present it to people that are trying to develop, because she believed that probably the people that own that property want it to be a viable business and maybe this should be the approach and work with whatever businesses want to develop during that period until we have a plan finalized. Commission Member Bob Moheb said that they have been talking about sending these proposed things to the Design Review Board --are these going to be ready by the next meeting so we could vote on sending our recommendations to the City Council. Staff Robyn MacDonald said she knows that have emails and different ideas we want the Design Review Board to look at and your question is will these be ready before they meet again? Commission Member Bob Moheb said for example, the materia1 percentages and items like this. Staff Robyn MacDonald said the Design Review Board has a very heavy agenda already that is coming up on the 5th of June. She said she would be happy to submit what you have whenever you are ready to give it to them to look at. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said she thought that they were going to meet to get that language finalized because she has not even seen what he [Bob Moheb] has submitted or what Heidi Sowder had submitted and she is not a fan of the 60-40, but she believes they need to get together --the four of use and then have something to p~sentto the DlU3. [Discussion about meeting and ptesenting to DM]. Page 20 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Twe~day,May 22,2007 Page 2 1. of 23 Staff Robyn MacDona'ld said that before they can do any text amendments even once they [Commission] recommend it, is it has to go back to Council workshop and then back to you the Planning Commission and then go back to Council and that is the process for text amendments. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said to Bob Moheb that you wrote it and you are the onIy one that has seen it, so again, she thoughit they were going to get together with Robyn. She said when she sent the ernail to him asking to meet; she thought that is what they had decided to do. Commission Member George Ragsdale said he thought that you were going to meet and try to develop some recommendations and then come back to the Commission after you had done this. Commission Member Cary SchIenke said this can even be done through emails so that it will not have to be done in a briefing or work session. Commission Member Bob Moheb said he wanted to be clear on the process of making a text. Staff Robyn MacDonald said that like for the sign ordinance, Ithe Staff has a request to increase the pole size from 20-25 feet and so it has determined that they need to take it to a work session, then it will come back to the Planning Commission in next month's meeting and then it will be advertised it to come before the PC in their June meeting and then it will go to City Council in July, so this is the process in the cycle. Commission Member Bob Moheb said so we are looking at like a 4 or 5 month period. Staff Robyn MacDonald said it just depends when it gets done in the cycle. City Council has their work session the second Thursday of each month and the first and third Thursdays are their regular meetings. Chair Paul Moore dosed discussion on item and called the last item on the agenda, which is the request fur fhe Milton Ciry Cmdlto include codifcution of the Crabapple and Birmingham Crossroads on the City Work Plan and he said this has been something he had been promoting and encourage that they formally ask the City Council to consider within Staffs plan the opportunity to move the Birmingham Crossroads and Crabapple Crossroads Master Plan into ordinance where they can be more binding and the Commission can move fonvard with putting some teeth into those master plans. Chair Paul Moore asked if there were any questions or comments. Staff Mike Tuller toId the Commission that at the retreat a few weeks ago they did outline the work program for the city and really a lot of the things are related to community development, but because so much of their time is committed to doing the Comprehensive Plan and then the most difficult thing is trying to spread four planners with Tom included and averaging 3-4 meetings a week, so they are hopeful the Bike-Ped Committee is concluding so there may be an extra night to move things around, but Staff has to get direction from the City Manager, City Council, and then try to take the next step. Based on the retreat, they have work theoretically until probably 2010 and so much of the work is tied to the comp plan and keeping these meetings going, the boards, briefings, town hall meetings, work sessions, so we are quite loaded down, but we can balance things. We may have to look at other private and public partnerships and get prioritized. Commission Member Curtis Mills said he understands that Staff is completely overloaded, but he said with all the wealth up here and the damage that is being done from delays and especially dealing with Highway 9, are there not ways we can consider doing more even if it costs a little more money. Page 21 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2007 Page 22 of 23 Staff Mike Tuller said he believes the legislature dedicated $1 5,000 to Jan Jones for the Crabapple plan. Staff Robyn MacDonald said they are actually looking at an intern to help get assistance and hopefully relieve some of the workload. Commission Member Curtis Mills said that there are a lot of things that they need to get done and quickly, but without compromise. Staff Mike Tuller said that was something that came up at the retreat --there have been spelling errors in ordinances, draft resolutions, and they want 'XA" Somework coming out of this group and not "C"type work, but they are doing their best. want us to slow down and do it right and see the results immediately -so it is difficult to accomplish both. Commission Member Curtis Mills said he would be willing to pay more money if that is what it takes to get established. If we do not get these protections mechanisms in quickly, we are going to compromise ourselves and look Iike any number of these other places before we can get a grip on it. Commission Member Cary Schlenke said maybe we [Commission] need to get more creative about getting some free work. Commission Member Bob Moheb said the dilemma is we as the Planning Commission need this done now and the Staffs dilemma is that you do not have the time, so regardless of who has time or who does not, it needs to be done and these things are very crucial. There is no way we can wait until 2010 to get these things done --we need it done now. Commission Member George Ragsdale said he believed one of the things they could do individually and collectively is talk to the city council members. He said to him the whole state of the Comprehensive Plan at this point is indicative of part of the underlying problem, and that is that they are loading everything on you [Staffl and you are the conduit to get anything done. We started talking about getting things done with the Comprehensive Plan three months ago and we are not even to the point yet where they have appointed people to the committee, so we have wasted this much time and part of the reason is because they have charged Staff with leading that process and he stated this is not necessary at every step of the way. He said as Iong as this is the headset of the city council where Staff has to lead everything, then you [Staff] will always be the bottleneck and this is no reflection on Staff, because it is obvious you are overloaded, but he said he would Iike to work with city council to Ery to change this headset. Commission Member Bob Moheb asked if a meeting with city council could be requested to discuss these matters and our worries as the Planning Commission and what they believe is important to them. Commission Member Paul Hackman said he thought that might put too much heat on it in his opinion, but he like the idea of individuaIs letting them know what they are hearing and seeing as the Planning Commission, but not meeting with them formally and then it puts them on the stop. Staff Mike Tuller told the group that they have been trying to get $400,000 in monies from Fulton County for their transportation plan and that has slowed things down considerably and they are still two months away, so the comp plan update has to be moved forward. Commission Member George Ragsdale said he did not want Staff to view anything they said as criticism, but there were a lot of people in the community that not only have energy, but also have professional planning experience that if council was willing to let the community play a larger role in doing the work and letting Staff ultimately be the reviewers of it, it would change the dynamic of the process. Because you as Staff have to do a11 the work, you are overloaded and he said he is suggesting that there are other ways to change the dynamics. Page 22 of 23 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Turyday, May 22,2007 Page 23 of 23 Staff Mike Tuller said you have two council members who have spoken strongly --Councilman haohrig and Councilwoman D'Aversa-Williams about doing something on Highway 9. Councilman O'Brien is right there too, so you have three of the seven that want to do something on State Route 9. Commission Member George 'Ragsdale said in speaking to Bob Moheb's point, there is a difference between wanting to and knowing how and actually being able to take action. They have to have something put in front of them that says, this is what we propose. Staff Mike Tuller said we welcome creativity and that is why we are here in a public-private partnership. We are open to creative minds as Iong as it meets ethical and legal standards. We are willing to do it and we Iove free time and if you want to pass the plate around up there -go for it. He said reassessments are right around the comer too as you talk about money. Re reiterated they are in a difficult situation right now, but he believes that it is coming, but it has only been 4 months. Commission Member Curtis Mills asked about the prioritizing process and if they are doing the best job in making sure the most important items are getting addressed first. Staff Mike Tuller said he believed that they [City Council] are, but they want to make sure what the priorities are and the Comp Plan Update was everybody's number 1 and that so we have to say, do we look at minor amendments before the plan is done? He said he needs direction and you as the Commission may need to advocate that --perhaps creating the subcommittee format. Chair Pml Moore made a motion to ask City Council to consider adding the Birmingham Master Plan and the Crabapple Master Plan to the Work Schedule somewhere to put some more teeth in it. Staff Robyn MacDonald offered to write a letter and have them sign it and transmit it to the Council. Commission Curtis Mills seconded the motion. Chair called for vote, it was unanimous and motion carried. Chair Paul Moore made a motion to adjourn meeting and it was seconded by Bob Moheb. It was voted on and unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 10:QOP.M. Paul Moore, Chairman Planning Commission Page 23 of 23