Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PC - 09-25-2007City of Milton Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 25,2007,7:00PM This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media,and staff. It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice. Public comments are noted and heard by the Planning commission,but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by the Planning Commission and invited speakers in summaryform. This is an orfflciol record of the City of Milton Planning Commission meeting proceedings. OfJ;aCIaIMeetings are audio recorded. Commission Members Present: Paul Hackman, Curtis Mills, Cary Schlenke, Paul Moore, Bob Moheb, Fred Edwards, George Ragsdale Meeting LeaderlCity Staff: Tom Wilson, Community Development Mike Tdler, Community Development Robp MacDonald, Community Development City Attorney Mark Scott DISCUSSION WITH STAFF AND CHAIR ABOUT AGENDA INVOCATION The invocation was led Commission Member Cary Schlenke PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CONDlTIONS AND STATEMENT OF BOARD Chair Paul Moore read to attendees of meeting and introduced Board Members. RULES AND PROCEDURES OF MEETING Chair Paul Moore read to attendees of meeting the rules and procedures from the City of Maon Zoning Ordinance. CHAIR PAUL MOORE Caned for public comment on any topic that was not being addressed by the formal agenda. No public comment. AGENDA I MOTION AND SECOND: Paul Moore made a motion to close public comment. Commission Member Paul Hackman seconded the motion. VOTE: (7-0). Motion passed unanimously and public comment was closed. A. Lo7-003 h'C07-007 VIX. REzomGfs To rezone from C-I to GIto allow the existing wine store to MCC ro/i8/07 sell liquor/spirits not to exced City of Milton Zoning Ordinance, MCC Work Approval excepk for Article r2G, State Route 9 Session -izG.4.E.r~ Overlay District 9/13/07 PC -9/25/08 DRB-lo /z/o7 MCC-10/18/07 N OTHER BUSINESS Vote to transmit letter to the Milton City Council L regarding future plan update to the Crabapple 2540 Hopewell Road To develop a 16,728 square-foot church with 199 fixed seats. Also to requ& a 5 part ooncurrent variance to 1) Reduce the 75' buffer and ten lo'improvement setback to a 25' buffer and ten 10' improvement setback along the south and west property lines {L~.H.~.I.C.~).2) TOallow parking between the building and the right of way (Article 12.H.3.5.F.3); 3) TOincreaw the building setback along the right of way (Articlc 128.3.5.C.1). CZIM 7/25/07 DRB 8/7/07 PC $/25/07 MCC 10/18/07 Approval Conditional Withdrawal of Part i of VCo;r-007 Denial of Pacts 2 and 3 VCo7-007 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 CHAIR PAUL MOORE Called for City Attorney Mark Smtt to address Commission. CITY ATroRNEY MARK SCOTT: Tom Wilson requested his attendance to address a topic of concern at the last PC meeting. Discussed previous applicant submitting a preservation of constitutional objections. * Explanation of procedure and legality. m PC should not have received that document. m Attorney representing appIicant must due to preserve any constitutional issue should an appeal be necessary. It is a boilerplate form. Same form used for any zoning application you submit anywhere. Language is not aimed at you as members or the city. Simple what is required by law in order to preserve those issues if needed later. a An attorney representing an applicant would probably committing malpractice if did not do so. Commission not used to seeing this and can understand it would seem abrasive. Wanted to make certain PC understood this. * In hture should submit just to staff. E Willing to have dialog with any member who desired to discuss further with him. COMMISSION AND ATTORNEY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BOILERP~TE LANGUAGE. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: a First of its kind to us as a commission Appeared to us to be inflammatory language. Did not understand that this was boilerplate language. Board is friendly and there to do good for city. m Do understand now that it was appropriate to applicant's application. COMMISSION MEMBER C ~~SMILZS: Responsible for the pubIic comment. Thought it was a veiled threat. Had not seen anything Iike this since Fulton County. * Hard time believing anyone loses rights to appeal for an uncanstitutional decision by not saying a decision not in favor of their request would be unconstitutional. = If unconstitutional,the right to appeal shouId stand on its own. E Did not appear to be "boiler-plate" as there were typographical errors in the document. a Thought language was clearly threatening and corrosive. * Wording could have been more friendly and in a different tone. Questioned whether common person applied for zoning variance without attorney and not a way of stating grounds for an appeal and request was denied,would he lose right to sue if request unconstihztional? Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, Septem bes 25,2W7 CITYATFOrn MARK scm * ABorney Pete Hendricks who drafted the language is one of the foremost zoning application lawyers in the county. Mr. Hendricks is very good at what he does. Does not litigate zoning appeals. Mr. Hendricks only handles the applications. I understand the language in the document may have been offensive. I could take a look at it. Number procedural issues in zoning and variance applications. Must be extremely cautious in following or could be in legal jeopardy. * If applicant is denied and it is not appealed to Board of Zoning Appeals, the adminiskative remedies are exhausted. If they then sue, we have a valid defense to stop them from proceeding further. * Definite legal procedural requirements that must be met. One is to place any constitutional argument that could be raised on the record or they are waived. Codd lose appeal if constitutional requirements are not met. CITYATIVRNEY DISCUSSED SOME CASES WITH COMMISSION. CrrY ATTORNEY MARK scorn: * Moved on to another matter. m Will talk to anyone about this more if desired. m Wanted to discuss some issues regarding Comprehensive Plan. Received an email from one of the Eulton County Assistant Attorneys. Sent me an Order from the Fulton County Superior Courk. Order was resolution of a zoning appeal case regarding property on Milton side of Arnold Mill Road. e Referenced our zoning map. * Property was rezoned by Fulton County from AGI and R2 to C-1. Asked for rezoning and allow different use. * Fulton County Commissions pIaced a condition that could not use for requested purpose. * Fulton County denied the variances regarding shape of lots and setbacks. Case was appealed to Superior Court. Order stated rezoning was to be granted. Fulton County no longer has the power to do that any longer. Conditions placed were not valid and that variances were to be granted. Fulton County had jurisdiction at the time, but even though Court had been informed that the issue and case is basically moot, due to not having jurisdiction over land any longer. Order states NW Fulton Overlay District as enacted by Fulton County was ambiguous and did not apply to this property when rezoned from AG-I to C-1. At the time the way the overlay district was written it applied t~all non-single family residential uses what is now the City of Milton. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 Did not realize that there is an entire section in there about what applies to non-single family residential, This was judge's issues with the whole overlay. He stated overlay does not apply to AGI. Good news is order not aimed at Milton, only refers to NWFulton Overlay District. NW Fulton Overlay District that Milton has currently in place only states the purpose and intent applies to all property within the boundaries of the City of Milton as described in attached map. Map is in zoning ordinance. Took out reference to non-single family residential which was source of judge's problem. This more than clarifies the matter. I was ready to draft amendments for Commissionk review on an emergency basis to go to Council. Our ordinance had already been amended. Judge said cannot decide if zoning applies based on use, but on dktrict. If applicant brings an action against Milton now, I think we are fine because we had already changed our ordinance. We dodged a bullet. STAFF ROBYN MACDONALO: Came from dealing with jurisdiction of Milton and areas that were annexed. BOB MOHEB: Asked if same property that had rights to billboard. ATTORNEY i?MARKscm One case was included in the covenant media case. Do not know if this was one of the properties being contemplated for a billboard. Do not believe they are going to be able to do that. Our sipordinance specifies for billboards maximum size of 120 sg. feet and 12 feet high. Solid constitutional ground for billboards when only regulated by size and height. Happy to address any questions about these items in the future. Concluded his presentations and lefk the meeting. CHAIR PAUL MOORE Called the first agenda item, Approval of the Augurst 28,2007 Planning Commission meeting minutes. MOTION AND SECOND: Commission Member Fred awards made a motion to approve the August 28, 2007 PIanning Commission meeting minutes. Commission Member Paul Hackman seconded the motion. VOTE (6-0-12. George Ragsdale abstained as absent from the August 28, 2007 meeting. Motion passed and minutes were approved. CHAIR PAUL MOORE-Asked Staff Robyn MacDonald to read first Agenda item, UO7-oog and VCo7-007 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 STAFF ROBYN MACDONAID: U07-oon.and VCo7-ow. 2sc;d0 Hopewen Road.MiBon. GA * Part I) To develop a 16,728 square-foot church with 199 fmed seats. Also to request a 3 part concurrent variance to 1) Reduce the 75' buffer and ten lo' improvement setback to a 25' buffer and ten 10' improvement setback along the south and west property lines (12.H.3.1.C.2). 23. Based on Applicant" revised site plan, Staff is recommending withdrawal of that. * Part 2) To allow parking between the building and the right of way (Article 12.H.3.5.F.3); * Past 3) To increase the building setback along the right of way (Article irH-3.5.C. I). Matter was heard at last Planning Commission meeting. PC had recommended a soday referral. New site plan was submitted on September 11th. r Staff met with applicant's architect and co-applicant church representative. r Revised site pIan went before the Design Review Board at a work session. a DRB wanted church to be positioned right at the corner previously discussed. Read changes to Commission fm revised site plan. Staff recommends approval conditional withdrawal of Part 1 of VCo7-007 and denial of Parts 2 and 3 VCo7-007. APPLICANT, JON ERICKSON, 3680 Pleasant Hill Road,hluth, Georgia: Met with Staff and worked in good faith and church to meet requirements set forth by zoning. Current plan is best compromise can come up with to meet those goals. Have met 213 of the zoning objectives requirements. Church not willing to orientate their building on the property toward that comer due to utility structures currently there. Not a conducive use of the propee for their building. Will move forward with petitioner as it is currently and accept recommendations of Staff. GEORGE MGSDAIX: Wanted clarification from applicant about his last statement about accepting Staffs recommendations. APPLICANT, JON ENCKSON: a Stated that was correct. Will currently move forward with Petition with the recommendationfor denial of the two part and withdrawal for the third. 0 Will go before Mayor and CounciI with those recommendations as they stand. STAFF ROBYN MACDONALD: .r But would prefer PC recommend in favor of your petition and approved the variances? APPLICANT,JON ERICKSON Yes, but we are prepared as it is to move forward. Pianning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 CHAIR PAUL MOORE: Called for public comment -there was none. No support or opposition. CaIled for motion to close public comment. MOTION AND SECOND: Commission Member Bob Moheb made a motion to close public comment. Commission Member Paul Hackman seconded the motion. VOTE. (7-0). Motion passed unanimously and public comment closed. DISCUSSION: BOB MOHEB: Clarification about applicant's statement. * Not requesting he is withdrawing application? CHAIR PAUL MOORE: For the record understood applicant asking PC to give consideration to items recommended by staff to be changed. Is prepared to move forward to City Council with current recommendation of staff if PC does not grant other relief. CURTIS MIW: Questioned applicant about why they felt changing Iocation of church not conducive to good use of space, and why it was considered infeasible to move utility structures. APPLICANT, JON ERICKSON: Because building corner lot and has to be 20 feet off landscape strip on either frontage. Building would be on very corner of intersection. Large utility items there that would be difficult to overcome. * Orientation of building would face those utility structures. Utilities structures are over 5 feet tall and quite large. * Believe intrusive to design and appearance of church. Could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to relocate those structures. DISCUSSION WITH BOARD AND APPLICANT" ABOUT P7"rILlTY STRUcTURJ33 REFERENCING PHOTOS, CARYSCHLENKE: * Do not blame applicant. * Wodd not want building facing those utility structures. GEORGB RAGSDALE: Still need clarification. Staff made number of recommendedconditions. Recommended approval of the application subject to conditions. Willing to go forward subject to all the conditions including the denial and withdrawal? Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 APPLICANT, JON ERICKSON: Would go before Mayor and Council to review our application as submitted. a Request approval of the application overriding Staffs recommendations. I would ask Commission to consider going along with their view on use of property. Prepared to go forward as stated in any event. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: Believe this case is a bit unusual because of the power boxes. GEORGE RAGSDALE: Question about one of the conditions on page 17, 4&) vi. of Stars Recommended Conditions. last item about east bound versus left bound lane. COMIMISSION AND STAFF DISCUSSION ABOUT POSSIBLE DISCREPANCY. STAFF ROBYN MACDONALD: * Change to Conditions on page 17, 4@3!vi. from Symmetrical EB left turn lane on Hopewell Road to Symmetrical EB right or west turn lane. COMMISSION AND STAFF DISCUSSION ABOUT TURN LPLNES. CARY SCHLENm Public comment about that intersection. Asked Torn Wilson about letter sent to City Council and PC about this case. TOM WILSON: Applicant would be required to handled traffic they generated but not correct an existing problem. There are impact fees to take care of those types of system improvements. STAFF ROBYN MACDOMALD: There has been a traffic study done and based on that smdy it does not warrant a light for applicant to contribute to. CURTIS MILLS: Mentioned Kings Ridge area. STAFF MICHAEL TULLER*. Intersection down at Kings Ridge part of reason so much traffic at this current intersection. * That has exacerbated the traffic at this intersection. * At a Iater date should be a traffic signal there, but this project does not warrant it. * Peak period problem at this intersection. * Developer is responsible for paying their share. a City getting appropriate amount of right-of-way to put this in at a later date. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 APPLICANT,JON ERICKSON Weekend Sunday activity site. a Some weekday evening non-planned activities,but no regularly structured activities. CUKTIS MILIS: * Any prohibitions about declaring them having a preschool there and it then turn into a 5-day per week preschool program? STAFF ROEYN MACDONALD:-A use permit would need to be applied for this type-of ackivirtJr. CARY SCXLEPIXKE:-Underground water retention being changed to an underground facility. * Water run-off concern. * Lakes nearby problems with sediment. Possible to increase recommendation,page 17 5(a). * Can make more reslrictive and put into corrditions of zoning. Road and bridges that go over that roadway. Banks are starting now to give away. * Do not want to jeopardize the bridges crossing the roads. Large numbers of parking and water coming off that site not there previously. TOM WILSON: You could do that by making it a 50% reduction. 25%reduction is fair robust reduction. You have ability to increase to a ga%reduction and make a condition of zoning. If you want to reduce it, 50% might be a number you may want to consider. Conditions of zoning are placed on property to mitigate if impact on surrounding neighbors -to correct an existing problem. CARY SWL;ENKE. On 17 5(c) -75%impervious on maximum build-out. What was staffs original recommendation and end recommendation? ST'ROBYN MACDONAID: Around 95 or 96 if counted entire area to have seats including back side of sanctuary. If permanents seats,around 300-320 seats and calculate at 3.5. Just under loo. * Explained about church have two wards at different times. Seats are split in time periods. Not all seats in church are permanent seats. COMMISSION DISCUSSION ABOUT CHURCH SEA.TING. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 CAW SCHLENKE: m Pervious parking question. a Is this included here? STAFF ROBYN MACDONALD: * Not in conditions because already in the NW Overlay District. Not indicated on site plan. With a Land Disturbance Permit would be required. If got to engineering part and could not meet requirement, would go before Board of Zoning Appeals to ask for a variance. APPLICANT,JON ERICKSON: Offered to do pervious paving as part of a solution for city minimum parking requirement. m Had detailed discussion with Staff about how wards operate and overlap. a Church can demonstrate their need for parking. m Do not want to overburden Ithe streets or the neighbors with parking by having inadequate parking. This is where the number comes from. Asked for pervious concrete paving. Advised this would be acceptable. Pervious concrete alIows water to go through it. Verycostly. Trying to avoid tripping hazards by not using open pavers. PAUL HAC-: * Asked applicant to explain the use of the wards in the church. * Parking lot area discussion. APPLICAlr$r, JON ERICKSOM: Explained church has capacity for up to three wards for facilities. m Church will never grow beyond that capacity. m Will start with two wards or congregations. m Services are longer than traditional church. Members of congregation come in at differenttimes. Move to another classroom and another ward comes in and occupies main sanctuary. e Wards for overlapping of space in building. e Can change up parking but has to do with orientation of building. FRED EDWARDS: Has arborist looked at area? m Trees? ST-ROBYN MACDONAID: m Trees to be saved are outside of the building area. m One pine tree in bad shape was okayed to be removed. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 No major tree issue. GEORGE RAGSDAZE: * Anything in topography that precludes septic field being moved to corner of Hopewell and Cogburn and having parking behind the church? APPLICANT, JON ERTGKSON:-Ordinance required building be in that corner. * fiat could take place but would not meet requirements of ordinance. GEORGE RAGSDALE: * Would address the problem of the parking being between the church and Hopewell Road. CURTIS MILIS: What would conflict be if it placed there? CHAIR PAUL MOORE: Ordinance calls for church to be within a certain distance of Cogburn Road and Hopewell Road. Would be creating a green space but not in compliance with the setback distance. STAFF ROBYN 1CZACDQNALD: But would be then compliant with parking. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: * To clarify what Mr. Wilson was saying, it wouId not remove the recommendation today for denial of that part of application. Would add an additional condition. TOM WllSON Would add an additional condition and reduce the number of the 3-part variance to one withdrawal, one denial and one approval with conditions or two withdrawals and one denial. CARYSCHLENKE: Reaction of Hopewell Road residents, e Now have parking where there was going to be green space. * Topography and elevation in corner. Concern about septic waste being sent upstream. APPLICANT, JON ERICWON: Number of considerations to be looked at before being acceptable. Due to elevation,could field be placed there? Testing was mainly done in back site and was okay there. Building may need to shift toward Hopewell Road to accommodate parking. * May not be room for a replacement field and primary field at that location. Church prefers parking on both sides where entrances are located. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 BOB MOHEB: Stated he would like to make a motion. MOTION AND SECOND: Commission Member Bob Moheb made a motion approval conditional on the use permit, withdrawal of Bart r of VCo7-007 and denial of Parts 2 and 3 of VCo7-007. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: Motion made is basically Staffs recommendations. BOB MOHEB: * Stated that was correct. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: * Called for a second and there was none. Motion failed. * Called for another motion. CARY SmLm: * Stated she would like to make a motion. MOTION AND SECOND: Commission Member Cary Schlenke made a motion for approval of the application conditional on the use permit for the church and recommend denial of Parts 2 and 3 of VCo7-007. In addition, I would like to add that the recommended conditions that staff has listed be included and amend 5(a) to restrict to 50% as relates to the stormwater runoff. I would also like for --I am not sure how to word this exactly, so this may fail too, but I would like analysis to be given to the relocation of the proposed septic field to that north corner of Hopewell and Cogburn intersection. Bob Moheb seconded the motion for discussion. Robyn MacDonald asked with withdrawal of Part 1, concurrent variance, vc07-007. Cary Schlenke added to her motion the withdrawal of Part 1,concurrent variance. GEORGE RAMDALE: Clarification of motion. * Not making the relocation of septic field a condition -just a condition that they evaluate that. CARY SCHLENKE: That is correct. Planning Cammission Regnlar Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 BOB MOHEB: I think worthwhile to defer the application to give applicant more time to analyze and look at septic situation if this something we want. PAUL HACKMAN: Agreed an analysis needs to be done. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: * Do we need to make a friendly amendment to the Commission who has made the motion to amend her ow motion? TOM WMON: * It would be a friendly amendment. Motion not restated yet. She would have to accept the friendly amendment. GEORGE RAGSDALE: * Would personally object to the 50% condition. Should not be applicant's responsibility to correct current runoff problem. BOB MOHEB: * At 75% he is making it better than it currently is. TOM WILSON: Suggested that Cary Schlenke withdraw her motion and restart a new motion. BOB MOHEB: Would like to know if applicant would like opportunity to revise site plan regarding the septic field. APPLICANT JON ERICKSON * Would need to discuss with church. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: Motion on floor is not to have the applicant to go back to the church. * Have a conflict situation where trying to address a lot of different issues. CURTIS MILILS:-Asked staff their opinion about the percentage number, SO%, 75%%and 80%. STAFF TOM WILSON: * Stated 75%is sufficient. Additional 25%underground storage or vault is very expensive. 75%is number used for several years? Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 CARY SCHLENKE: Number of years this number has been in place? Number is not working based on the erosion, STAFF TOM WILSON: Around the time Crooked Creek was built. First number was a go% number. * Three years ago 75%became generally accepted number. COMMISSION DISCUSSION ABOUT PERCENTAGE NUMBERS. APPLICANT JON ERI(JKS0N We concur with Tom Wilson's opinion. We would not look favorable on the 50% number. CARY SCHLENKE: * Would Abbie be overseeing this during the LDP? STAFF TOM WILSON: = Yes, there would be a hydrology study. * There has to be an engineering study that proves a reduction. CARY SCHLFiNKE: * I will go back to the 75% if you are comfortable with it. BOB IMOHEB: * Asked that motion be restated. CARYSCHLENKE: m Stated she was going to withdraw her motion. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: Need to vote on allowing Ms. Schlenke to withdraw her motion. VOTE:To allow the motion by Cary Schlenke to be withdrawn. 7-0in favor of withdrawal. Motion carried. GEORGE RAGSDALE: Ready to ky to make a motion. * Concern& about ability to impose the septic field relocation as a condition. PAUL HACKMAN: Could we move to defer for a month to give them a chance to make the septic fieId determination? Planning Commission Regular Meetimg Tuesday, September 25,2007 BOB MOHEB: a Is there one person in charge ofthis whole deal? APPLICANT JON ERICKSOM: That is correct. BOB MOHEB: I am just guessing being a builder and deveIoper, if 1had two deferrals I would be pretty upset by now. Could this be addressed perhaps by a phone call if we were to recess for a short period? GEORGE RAGSDALF.: Believed that is what should be done. APPLICANT JON ERICKSON: At this hour, I do not think I codd address it right now. CURTIS MILLS: * Would there be a hardship or would it be seen as a problem if we did ask you to come back in another month. Realize you already were deferred once. APPLTCANT JON ENCKSON: a At this point, do not believe deferral would be a hardship. a If we could consider these issues and move forward it could be in everyone's best interest. * If deferral was too long, we might just entirely withdraw. CURTIS MILIS: So it may be completely acceptable or completely unacceptable? APPLICANT JON ERICKSON Thatiscorrect. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: * Called for a motion. BOB MOHEB: m I would like to make a motion. MOTION AND SECOND: Bob Moheb made a motion to defer this matter until our next meeting in 30 days to give applicant the chance to try to get the septic field to the northern side of the property. Seconded by Curtis Mills. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 DISCUSSION: CURTIS MIL-: Win-win for the community if can have green space in the front and solve the parking problem. Do not know of this would be a loss to the church and not practical. Believe benefits are positive enough for community to ask. This is an important corner and worth the consideration. BOB MOHEB: * Would eliminate one of the variances. * Might make it so favorable to overlook Staffs recommendation of denial on the other one. VOTE:7-0. Motion unanimously carried to defer for 30 days. CHAIR PAW-,MOORE: Asked Staff Robyn MacDonald to call the next Agenda Item, RZZo7-oin STAFF ROBYN MACDONAID: RZo7-oxz.q80 Birmingham Road, Milton. GA * To rezone from C-1 to C-i (??) to allow the existing wine store to sell liquar/spirits not to exceed 30%of their total floor area. All conditions were lthe same and transferred from FuItlan County case that was approved except if you approve and change conditions of zoning. Based on existing policy not to allow a liquor package store on the existing site based on 204-043 and 204-116located on SW corner of Birmingham Highway and Hickory flat Road, it is Staffs opinion that the proposed change of use is not suitable for the subject site. Wine store is permitted for the site but without any liquor sales. License to sell liquor must meet different standards than license to sell beer and wine. Liquor cannot be sold under same license. August 22nd Applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information Meeting at City Hall. Staff received one letter and one email presented tonight in opposition to the proposed sale of liquor. Staff recommends request to sell liquor in 30%of the store's floor area be denied based on current policy on the subject site as well as in the immediate area. APPLICANT TIMOTHY ALLEN, 980 Birmingham Road, Milton, GA: Owner of the Wine & Bortle Shop located at Market Place at Birmingham Village. Gave history of business. Approached our landlord A. G. Armstrong back in 2005. Spoke to them about intention of opening wine store. Plan was submitted to them that went to Birmingham Planning Committee. What was brought back to us then was the 30%figure for liquor. They stated they wanted a wine store but 30%to have mid to top shelf liquors for sale in the store. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 Concept was developed to be consistent with the development of the area to be upscale in design. Did not want shop to look like just a retail wine store. While going through design process we found out the 30%liquor was not going to be allowed for zoning purposes. At that time it was not a big issue for us so we went ahead and opened the wine portion of store. Started getting a lot of feedback from customers which now is about 600 customers in just 5 months inquiring about the 30%liquor. Realized we would have to go through a rezoning process. Started taIking with customers about their desires and put a petition in store. Got only positive feedback from those efforts. Decided to proceed with zoning application. Desire of store is to be primarily a wine store. Community needs somewhere to buy some type of distilled spirits. Community has to drive 15-20miles to the closest place. Want to protect community from a liquor store going in if we put in conditions for 30%of flmr space to sell liquor. Have to know do business in area and can buy their wine, but have to leave this area and go to Alpharem to buy any top shelf spirits. Have been adamant about the 30%since we signed our lease with A. G. Armstrong. Wanted the zoning condition to be clear about the 30%. Willing to have certain type of shelving to block the liquor from being seen. Would contain the liquor in back of store inside of the special shelving. Desire a small 30%inventory of top shelf liquor. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: Called for any opposition comment regarding this application. TOM KUETTON, 105 Providence Oak Point, Milton, GA. Requested zoning be maintained as it currently exists * Requested that the recommendation of Staff be upheld to deny request. STAFF ROBYN MACDONALD Referenced the email and the letter in Commission's packet. CHATR PAUL MOORE: Asked applicant if he wished to rebut my comments made by the opposition. APPLICANT WMOTHYALLEN: Restated their desire to keep this consistent with the development. This was brought to them by their customers and people in the communiw. Reiterated intent of the 30%compliance. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 CWR PAUL MOORE: Called for a metion to close public hearing. MOTION AND SECOND:Pad Hackman made a motion to close public hearing. Fred Edwards seconded the motion to close public hearing. VOTE: 7-0. Motion passed unanimously to close public hearing. BOB MOHEB: Did not see a problem with request. * Like idea of wine store. * Perhaps muld even make limit for spirits wen less than 30%. * Restrict to back of store. No visible liquor advertising signs hanging from ceilings. a Believed Birmingham Crossroads was created to provide people in area somewhere to go that was closer to their homes. Read from page 7, under (f), second paragraph. Asked Staff if there was an official definition on Iiquor store or wine store. STAF'F TOM WrLSON: * Stated they did have definitions for those items. * Are in alcohol and beverage Iicensing in the City Code. GEORGE RAGSDALE: Distinguish license requirements, not uses. Is Iiquor stare defined as a use? STAFF TOM WILSON: a Would have to get that. FRED EDWARDS: * Is this a zoning issue or licensing? = I believe it is a licensing matter. * He would have to apply for a liquor license and then city conbols that licensing. STAFF TOM WILSON: Only a zoning issue because there is a condition of zoning that prohibits it. a Not a land use issue. a Still would have to apply for a Iiquor permit. BOB MOHEB: Do not believe he would be asking for the Iiquor if customers,were not asking for it. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 STAFF TOM WILSON: e Wanted to make the point that it would not be for just this store but any liquor store that wouId open at that location, not just the current store. a Condition of zoning that prohibits liquor applies to the entire rezoning parcel. a Specific to that NE corner for any wine store that also had 30% liquor. GEORGE MC;SDALE: Stated that was not the case. Two separate zoning cases. One applies to the NE and one applies to SE. CARY ScHrnKE: Question about Staffs recommendations readings items a. and b. a Fulton County approved the C-1 zoning that did not allow liquor stores on site. ROBW MACDONAID: This was addressed what the previous zoning was for the entire C-1 parcel. Does not apply to this. Unique request because does not require a lot of physical planning. e Transferred some of it from the previous zoning. * A portion of site was already zoned C-1. DISCUSSION WTJ3 STAFF ABOUT RECOMMENDATIONS. CURTIS MILCS: Discussion with applicant about misunderstanding with k G. Armstrong. APPLICANT TIIMOTHY AI;LEN: No clear definition of a liquor store. We gave them our concept of higher end store. Boutique type store. m We submitted a proposal. a Came back with how would it work with wine, beer and 30% top shelf liquor. a I understood that they went before the Birmingham Planning Committee and it was okayed by them. a We signed our lease in late 2004 or early 2005 when our lease was signed. Common thing for 5,6 -up to lo people coming in and asking about liquor. Many have signed a petition. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: Mr. Ragsdale and I were on that committee. Remembers a discussion about 30%on the table. Believes the negotiating condition of that fell off of the table in order for developer to get other concessions. As a condition ofzoning, the developer agreed unconditionally to terms as put forward by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 With that policy being accepted here, he believes that takes the 30%discussion off of the table now. Application before us is an application for liquor with conditions to be considered by this Commission. 30%number needs to be taken out of the discussion. Inappropriate for this Commission to put it back on the table since it was a condition that was negotiated out of the equation. Remembers there was a good deal of support from community. You stated the business is being deemed a success with 500-600 customers with just the wine business. It does not appear that if denied, this would pose a hardship to the business. BeIieves this may be a self-imposed hardship. You knew conditions before opening the doors to your shop. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION DISCUSSION ABOUT 30% CONDITION AND LEASE AGREEMENT. APPLICANT TIMOThfYALLN: m Believes it does because the customers wanting to come to buy wine also want to buy liquor so will go to liquor store and get their wine there as well. People will start leaving Milton and going to closest liquor store and eventually create hardship when they do so. m Customers will grow tired of spot shopping and this will affect the business. We were too far into the business to back out. * Would have been more of a hardship to back out. E Opened up shop around same time Milton became a city. We stuck in a gray area and had to make a decision. a Thought things would work out the way the original concept was and all would be happy. PAUL HACKMAN: Publix sells beer and wine. If we approve this,can they say they want to sell liquor as well? Asked applicant to explain high end liquor. APPLICANT TlMoTHYALILm: No way for anybody in that shopping center to sell liquor. * In my lease nobody else can in that area. State law prohibits hblix from selling liquor because it is a grocery store. Distance issue.-If I can a liquor license in that area, nobody else can. Have to be so far from churches, schools and residential areas. * 30% is reasonable for the supply and demand. * Prices can be controlled. High end would be like Grey Goose Vodka. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 GEORGE WGSDALIE: * Two zoning cases approved by FuIton County in 2004. * One pertaining to the NE corner. One pertaining to the SE and SW corner. Managed by both developer and Board of Commissioners. Advisory committee ms put into place voluntarily by the developer. Had full support of Fulton County. Advisory committee was to get a better pulse on what community wanted. 0 They had no authori~,but there was active participation in the committee. Original cases approved and accepted by developer had very specific limitations. Problem was no definitions to back up what the limitations were. * Words liquor package store does not have a definition. * Terms nail salons and beauty salons as well. * Need to put these on a timeline. All discussions about the NE corner took place in middle of 2005. All discussions on the SE and SW corner took place toward end of 2005 and into 2006. The committee nominated or volunteered had a number of people from the community on it. This committee created the definition of what would be "acceptable" Iiquor package store. e The 30%conditional floor space with the additional condition that the liquor had to be at the rear of the store and not at the front. * On June 14,2005 that committee voted to support that recommendation and take it to the Board of Commissioners to define liquor package stores for the NE corner to allow for up to 30%. A number of things banspired after that. Key point is that group of people not only came up with the definition but voted in favor of that definition as being applicable to this corner. Same committee did not agree with what was on the table as the definition of nail and beauty salons. m City of Milton has distinguished the definition of liquor store as something that we are going to parse differently than we have with respect to nail salons. e Does not understand why one use would have to come back for a rezoning and the other would not. a Both of those uses were precluded under the original zoning conditions that were never changed. 0 For the NE comer, I am in favor of supporting the petition that the 30% floor space be allowed to sell liquor provided if is located in the rear of the store. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 CHAIR PAUL MOORE: Concurred with George but remembers there was some opposition that night. m My recollection was in dealing with the developer, the 30%was negotiated away as a condition of the developer to get some other considerations for approval. m A vote in support tonight would be a real surprise to the community after working regarding that corner for as many years as we did. Believe nail city should not have allowed the nail salon in its current presentation. Also stated he thought Subway in that area is in violation of original intent. * Community did not want fast food chains in that area. Intent was smaller privately owned businesses. a There were some things that were specifically written out on purpose. Felt a vote in opposition for the liquor to be added would be consistentwith what the community expects. BOB MOHEB: Majority of community did want 50% liquor. Birmingham Crossroads was created for citizens of that area. Not to have to drive out of community to get their liquor. Show me a definition that says a wine store cannot have one bottle of liquor in it, CARY SCHLENKE: * Question about when Staff reviewed from Fulton County Board of Commissioner's approved,their interpretation was that it was just to be a wine store. * If community felt differently, that would have been changed before it got put into the zoning. Concern if applicant leaves the store what someone else might do as far as quality and aesthetics of store. FRED EDWARDS: Controlled by the licensing. a Cannot transfer license. Would have to get a new license. CURTIS MILIS: Appears that we have to stand by zoning decision made by Fulton County. Personally it is not what I want. TOM WLSON: * Quoted from minutes of Fulton Counv. I would also like to add, go back to condition i(g) where the conditions are excluded, where we would like to add some exclusion on uses we include. We have some, but, we would iike to exclude,I mean exclude liquor stores exceptfor wine stores, GEORGE RAGSDALE: Asked Tom Wilson to continue to read from that quote. * motels, hotels, aduIt entertainment establishments, check cashing stores, pawn shops, coin operated laundries, convenience stores, video arcades, pool hall, massage parlors, nail salons, beauiy salons, etc. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2003 TOM WILSON: Stated the difference between this occasion and the spa. * Spa also had an interpretation from Fulton County. Spa was allow& use where stand alone nail parlors, massage parlors and beauw shops would not be. Had information from Fulton County saying spa was permissible. In this case we have information that says liquor stores are excluded except for wine stores. Applicant is not asking Commission for an interpretation of this or a condition of zoning. Asking Commission to reconsider whether or not liquor would be an appropriate use in this zoning parcel. CARY SrnLENKE: * Regarding the petition applicant spoke of, community at large has not had an opportunity, only the store customers. Planning Commission offers open forums. GEORGE RAGSDALE: Stated to Tom Wilson that comments that were referred to were made by Staff not by the Board of Commissioners. As of this point can only look at the face of the document that was approved with those conditions. Language read was not in that document. * Specifically excludes a package liquor store, but nothing about allowing one. Specificallyexcludes nail salons,it does not say a spa that has nail senices is ahwed. a Troubled about the appearance of a double standard here. Does not appear to be an accepted definition. * We have allowed one but not the other. I believe community supported defining a store that we would accept to be wine and cheese and up to 30%liquor. CARY SCMLENKE: * Concern about once door is opened for the 30%of the floor space. If Applicant closes his business, they may not have his same good intentions. TOM WIISON: If his business closed and another wine store opened, they could have the same 30% liquor in back of store restriction. GEORGE RAGSDALE: MOTHIN AND VOTE: George Ragsd.demade a motion to approve the 30%liquor in store with conditions. Bob Moheb seconded the motion. Planning Corn mission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 CHAIR PAUL M00aE: Called for a vote. VOTE: 3-4 with Bob Moheb, George Ragsdale and Fred Edwards in favor and Paul Moore, Curtis Mills, Cary Schlenke and Paul Hackman in opposition of the Motion to approve. Motion to approve application was denied. CUR PAUL MOORE: Stated he would make a motion. MOTION AND VOTE: Paul Moore made a motion to deny the request as recommended by the Staff and deny the application. Cay Schlenke seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: There was no discussion. VOTEz 4-3 with Paul Moore, Curtis Mills, Cary Schlenke and Paul Hackman in favor and Bob Moheb, George Ragsdale and Fred Edwards in opposition.Motion carried to deny petition. ROBYN MACDONAhD: Presented the next agenda item, RZo7-016, Text Amendment,City of Milton Zoning Ordinance,Article 12G,State Route g Overlay District. Staff recommends approval except for Article 12G 4.e.13. Went before City Council Work Session. Council happy with changes. Items amended or added: Page I, 126.2 under State Route 9 Overlay District Regulations. In the first sentence after properties, deleted zoned or developed for nonresidential and residential uses. On Page 2, a2 G.4, added B. Undisturbed Buffers. Same requirement currently requiring of the NW Overlay District for non-residential uses. Robyn read addition to the Ordinance. Nothing was amended based on any Council comment at the work session. Basically this is same document that left you before. * On page 7, 12 G.4.e, #7, in the first sentence, added exterior wall materials on the vertical wallfaces within each block of units and. * On page 8, #8, added: Townhouse and Dtrplex development rooflines should exhibit dflerentiated architectural features such as gables, pyramidal, and hip. Rooflines should be varied. Mansard roqfs are notperrnitted. On page 8,#IS, added: There shall be a maximum of s stories with a maximum height of 30 feet from average finished grade to bottom of the roof eave, excluding Morris Road and Deeqf7eId Parkway. On page 9,#15,added: The exterior wall materials of all non-residential buildings and townhouse,duplex, and multifamily buildings consist of a minimum of 75% (per vertical wallplane) of thefollowing: brick or natural stone. It was edited from 70%. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 On page 9,#16,added afier Accent building materials ... added: for all non-residential buildings, and also townhouse, duplex and multifamily units ...are limited to added: a maximum 0f25%. It was edited from no%. Last item: On page 10 in color chart we have eliminated 675C which was a pink color. This win go before the City Council in October. CUR PAUL MOORE: a Called for public comment, There was none. a Called for a motion to close public comment. MOTION AND VOTE:Paul Hackman made a motion to close public comment. Cary SchIenke seconded the motion. VOTE: 7-0. Motion carried unanimously and public hearing was closed. DISCUSSION: CHAIR PAUL MOO=: Discussion with Tom Wilson regarding Staffs recommendation not to include height restriction as noted in 12 G.4.e.13. a Not certain if this height restriction may be inconsistent with some other regional direction that we may have to be compliant with. At this time it may be too constrictive and inconsistent and suggested with poll 13 from the list of items to be added this evening. m Planning Commission members represented wanted to go fonvard with more restrictive text with opportunity to step back if inconsistencies were found with regional requirements. TOM WILSON: Uncomfortable recommending approval of the two-story height unless additional study is done. During comprehensive pIan will be determining what the tax impact will be. a Feels likely inconsistent with regional policies. Not decided if city is going to uphold regional policies or not. This may deny us opportunities for regional funding. GEORGE RAGSDALE: Are there height restrictions in other overlays? TOM WIlSON: There are height resbictions in other overlays. This is part of the ARC mega corridor. Do have height restriction policies. r Would be inconsistent with the two-story height restriction. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,20QT CARY Sam: I Asked abut length of corridor and if went all the way into Roswell. Hew many buildings currently exceed that height? Would be opening this area to be first of the tall buildings along Highway g? Close until it can be studied, it could be considered if someone came forward with a variance,but would not have to go through zoning process if left at the 30 feet. a Possibility of devaluing the properties that abut the zoned commercial lands like Crooked Creek, Lake Laurel, Avonsong, Fairmont and others that could have a 60 foot building. Surprised it was 60 feet. * Could have a significant impact on our tax base. TOM =ON: a The corridor goes all the way into Po& County. m AIthough do not see any 60 foot buildings driving from Roswell through Alpharem it is not because the twostory height limitation. They do not have policies contrary to the regional poliey. m Concern if ordinances are written contrary to regional poIicies, may deny ourselves opportunity to get regional funding. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: a Would like to move forward with this as quickly as possible. Time order to make determination of whether city is compliant with ARC? 0 Is there a risk may high buildings higher than two stories in the meantime? TOM WIWON: Will not have a good answer to that question until probably late spring. * Certainly that is a risk. If this came before us probably would be for a rezoning so would have opportunity to restrict height of building if not alIowed under the zoning. The issue on whether or not city wishes to uphold regional policies is not coming out of Highway 9 guidelines study. m It will come out of the Comprehensive Plan being developed over the next 12 months. ShouId have pretty solid pIan by next spring. BOB MOHEB: r Do not want another problem written up in Herald from decision made by Planning Commission. a Study will be done. * Better to leave it open now and then restrict. m Other cities like Roswell and Alpharetta depend on funding. We would be at disadvantage if Milton lost that funding. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 STAFF ROBYN MACDONAID: Some properties may have a height restriction already from the Fulton County zoning. Whatever zoning parcels are zoned O&I. Would have to pull all those cases to determine this. Under district standards of C-160 feet is permitted. Some C-is have height restrictions of two stories. DISCUSSION WITTI STAFF AND COMllC'EISSTON ABOUT HEIGHT RES~CIION AND LANGUAGE IN ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 126 STAm ROUTE, 9 OVERLAY DISTRSCT. TOM WILSON: Anything that is already currently zoned is tied to a specific site plan. m Specific height is determined already. Commission's change to zoning ordinance would not bump a condition of zoning or the site plan attached to that zoning. What you are contemplating in the overlay district here would not change that. GEORGE RAGSDALE: Stated he wouId like to make a motion. MOTION AND VOTE: George Ragsdale made a motion to approve the proposed amendment to Article 12 G subject to the City Attorney reviewing and amending the language of the first paragraph of Section 12 G.2 and with the deletion of the change in i~G4.e.13.Bob Moheb seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: a No discussion. VOTE:6-1.Commission Member Cary Schlenke being in opposition. Motion carried. STrn ROBYN MACDONAID: Presented the next agenda item, Other Business. Vote to transmit letter to the Milton City Council regarding future plan updates to the Crabapple Crossroads Plan. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: a Several members of the Planning Commission expressed interest in making it clear to the City Council that they would like c1ariv how funds used. Letter was drafted by PauI Hackman and reviewed by the Planning Commission. m Discussed need for the letter at last briefing meeting. m Some concern by Staff that it was not a necessity to go forward with letter. m Did not want to overstep bounds, in interest in working with concert with City Council. * Afraid might ruffle some feathers. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 DISCUSSION BOB MOHEB: Thought this was resolved. a Wanted to make sure money was used through the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Task Force. We are going to do that anyway. Do not now see a need for the letter. What we wanted to happen is going to happen. TOM WIFSON This was my understanding as well. CURTIS MILIS: Requested a moment be taken so Commission codd read the letter. Few moments were taken while Commission Members read the letter. GEORGE RAGSDALE Two concerns. Agree with intent behind letter. Not focused on Crabapple but focused more generally. Concern is letter very focused on Crabapple. Crabapple already incorporated in comprehensive plan as part of the scope of work that will be completed in first phase of that work. * City Council is aware of this. m Do not think necessary and believe this would be poking at something that has already been resolved. Fear that they wiIl react negatively. TOM WILSON: Only part of the letter not being accomplished by the current plan is the last line in statement number two which reads, The Overlay District should focus only on transportation trafic issues. a The study will focus on land use issues, transportation issues -all issues, not just transportation and traffic only. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: Will the S i5,ooo-$2o,oooearmarked for the traffic study be rolled into the larger scope? TOM WTMON: That is correct. CARY SCHLENKE: * What was final dollar amount and how is billing determined as to how much time, effort and money is spent by consultants? Concerns about how Highway 9 looks and public perception is fixing things for certain people and not what the whole city may want. Planning Corn mission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 TOM WON: * There is somehirig that will be done for Crabapple that is not also going to be done for Highway 9. ROBYN MACDONALD: * $30,000is budgeted for Highway 9, not $io,ooo as I previously stated. CURTIS MILIS: Thought the letter made perfect sense right after the council meeting. Circulated numerous times. Frustrated that we are getting pushed back and change from group consensus because we have changed direction at I I:59. * The things we thought made sense have been done to a large extent. Only concern is it was sort of accidental that those things were done. Not sure it still makes sense to put anyone on notice as previously believed. Made points in first or second meeting about scope of responsibility and authority. Believe we might have been compromised by the Iapse of time. Perhaps a more toned down letter. CHAIR PAUL MOORE: * Paul did a great job of drafting letter. * Appropriate next steps have been taken to diminish the value of the letter. My recommendation would be to wait and if something comes up important we can address City Council then. Believe we are currently okay where we are. FRED EDWARDS: Was money regarding Highway 9 not going to roll into this? Should we be concerned about the other $20,000or $30,000or will we have any input into that? TOM WISON: The Highway 9 $30,000 for design guidelines or quality of life guidelines is in a separate account and not commingled in anyway with the comprehensive plan money. $15,000 from the state has been rolled into the comprehensive plan and will be paid as part of that plan. It will become part of the zoning ordinance and come to you for recommendation before it goes to City Council like the comp plan would. GEORGE RAGSDALE: * Comprehensive planning process is not going to get done to design guidelines. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 25,2007 CHAIR PAUL MOOIRE: Going to'make a motion. MOTION AND VOTE: Paul Moore made a motion to save the letter for another day and at this point simply vote to withdraw the need for the letter at this time. Fred Edwards seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: PAUL HACKMAN: Perhaps at next briefing may consider what George said about perhaps a more generic letter. Reason for letter was did not want things going in all different directions while doing the comprehensive land use plan. GEORGE RAGSDALE: One of the drivers behind making sure Crabapple was included in contract was Councilmember Karen Thurman. Councilmember fiurman insisted on it. VOm 7-0. Motion carried unanimously to withdraw the need for the letter to City Council at this time. BOB MOHEB: Make a motion to adjourn. MOTION AND VOTE: Bob Moheb made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Paul Hackman seconded the motion. VOTE:7-0in favor to adjourn meeting. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Paul Moore, Chairman Planning Commission City Clerk's office