HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 04/26/2010 - 04-26-10 Reg. Mins (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 1 of 65
*No 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 Council, but not quoted. This document
includes limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form. This is an
official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings.
The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on April 26,
2010 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood was presiding.
INVOCATION
Micah Rastelli, Vision Baptist Church
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Interim City Clerk Gordon called the roll and made general announcements.
Council Members Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Julie Zahner
Bailey, Councilmember Bill Lusk, Councilmember Burt Hewitt, Councilmember Joe Longoria
and Councilmember Tart.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Bradley and Spencer Keegan with the Boy Scouts led the Pledge of Allegiance with Mayor
Lockwood.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Approval of Meeting Agenda (Agenda Item No. 10-1110)
Mayor Lockwood:
• Do we have any changes to the Agenda or other items to be considered?
City Manager Lagerbloom:
• We would like to add to the Consent Agenda two contracts. They are contracts for
advertising that we need to get into the paper before Memorial Day. One is approval of
contract between the City of Milton and Around Town Publishing for the 2010 Memorial
Day Ceremony advertisement.
• The second I would like to add in case we need it, an executive session to discuss land
acquisition if we get to the point where we need to do that.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to approve Agenda Item 10-1110, Approval of
'^ Meeting Agenda. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously (7-0).
rr�
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 2 of 65
„t. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Lockwood read the rules for Public Comment.
• Public comment is a time for citizens to share information with the Mayor and City
Council and to provide input and opinions on any matter that is not scheduled for its own
public hearing during today's meeting.
• There is no discussion on items on the Consent Agenda or First Presentation from the
public or from Council.
• Each citizen who chooses to participate in public comment must complete a comment
card and submit it to the City Clerk.
• Please remember this is not a time to engage the Mayor Pro Tem or members of the City
Council in conversation.
• When your name is called please step forward and speak into the microphone stating your
name and address for the record.
• You will have five minutes for remarks.
Interim City Clerk Gordon:
We have no public comment.
Mayor Lockwood:
Now" Will the City Clerk please sound the items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Interim City Clerk Gordon read the Consent Agenda items:
Added by Motion and Vote:
Approval of contract between the City of Milton and Around Town Publishing for the 2010
Memorial Day Ceremony advertisement
Approval of an executive session to discuss land acquisition.
1. Approval of the March 15, 2010, Regular Meeting Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1110)
(Sudie Gordon, Interim City Clerk)
2. Approval of the March 22, 2010 Special Called Work Session Minutes.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1111)
(Sudie Gordon, Interim City Clerk)
3. Approval of Financial Statements for the period ending March, 2010.
'^' (Agenda Item No. 10-1112)
(Stacey Inglis, Finance Director)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 3 of 65
ftm 4. Approval of a Contract between the City of Milton and URS Corporation to Provide
Preliminary Engineering Design and Geotechnical Services for the Cogburn Road Bridge
Replacement Project.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1113)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
5. Approval of a Contract between the City of Milton and Urban Collage, Inc. for the State
Route 9 Design Guidelines Landscape and Streetscape RFP# 10-CDO I.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1114)
(Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
6. Approval of a Contract between the City of Milton and Team RV for the Missing Man
Flyover During the 2010 Memorial Day Ceremony.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1115)
(Presented by Cyndee Bonacci, Parks & Recreation Director)
7. Approval for the Execution of an updated I.G.A. with the City of Alpharetta for a GCIC
Criminal Justice Information System Holder of Record Agreement.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1116)
(Presented by Deborah Harrell, Chief of Police)
Motion and Vote. Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.
ftwo Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
Interim City Clerk Gordon read the Reports and Presentation items:
1. A Proclamation Recognizing May Is Older Americans Month.
(Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood)
Mayor Lockwood presented a Proclamation recognizing May Is Older Americans Month to two
members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Mark Reed and Scott Stachowski.
2. A Proclamation Recognizing the City of Milton Parks and Recreation Department as a
New Member Agency of the Georgia Recreation and Park Association.
(Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood)
Mayor Lockwood presented a Proclamation recognizing the City of Milton Parks and
Recreation Department as a New Member Agency of the Georgia Recreation and Park
Association to Parks and Recreation Director, Cyndee Bonacci.
FIRST PRESENTATION
(none)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 4 of 65
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(none)
ZONING AGENDA
(Zoning items typed verbatim.)
Interim City Clerk Gordon read the zoning rules and agenda items.
U09-03 — 2880 Mountain Road by T -Mobile South, LLC to obtain a use permit on AG -1
(Agricultural) zoned property for a 145 foot tall monopole cell tower with an additional 4
foot lightning rod for a total of 149 feet (Article 19.4.7).
(Agenda Item No. 10-1096)
(First Presentation on April 12, 2010)
(Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Lynn Tully, Community Development Director:
Good evening Council. The subject site does include 10.33 acres and has been developed with a
now" single family residence. It is located in an area that is apposed for agricultural forestry and
mining land use designations on the focus Fulton 20/25 plan which was in place at the time of
the application. Council, you are required to consider the following in determining the
rr�. appropriateness of this use beginning with whether the use is consistent with the comprehensive
land use plan and/or accounting development revitalization plan is adopted by the Mayor and
City Council. Staff has reviewed this and determined the proposed monopole cell tower is
inconsistent with the intent and policies of the focus Fulton 20/25 comprehensive plan in the
areas of encouraging development that is consistent with the surrounding scale transition of
densities and uses and comprehensive plan policies as well as in protecting the existing rural
character of Northwest Fulton. Further, you are to review the compatibility of land uses and
zoning districts in the vicinity of the property for which the use permit is proposed. Staffs review
has stated that the proposed 145ft monopole with a four foot lightning rod is inconsistent again
with the adjacent land uses with single family residences on large agricultural parcels and is
associated agricultural uses such as barns and riding rings. Further, you are to determine if the
proposed use may violate any local state and or federal statues or ordinances or regulations
concerning land development. This particular use had some concerns regarding the placement in
relation to state waters. Those have been resolved and the revised site plan does show that no
portion of the tower facility encroaches into the required buffer and non impervious set back at
this time. In the effect of the proposed use on traffic flow and vehicular and pedestrian
circulation along conjoining streets staff has stated that the proposed monopole cell tower does
not impact the traffic flow. Further, the location and number of off street parking spaces as this
is a relatively unusual place for people to be visiting this site other than routine maintenance.
"^ Therefore, parking has not projected to impact any surrounding areas due to the size of the large
parcel and the location of the least area towards the center and where the site is. Further to
sr... include consideration to open space, the parcel is approximately 10 acres which does provide a
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 5 of 65
rw. large area of open space outside the least area. Regarding protective screening, staff does
recommend that the applicant provide a 20ft landscape strip in lieu of the required 10 foot
landscape strip to provide additional screening of the towers in associated facilities. This has
been reflected in the recommended conditions. Regarding hours and manner of operation, the
condition that site maintenance be completed between the hours of 8:30 and 5:30pm Monday
through Friday except in cases or emergency has also been reflected in the recommended
conditions. Regarding streetscape lighting, there is no streetscape lighting indicated for the site
with only security lighting utilized and the applicant has been made aware that the maintenance
area must comply with the northwest overlay district and our night sky ordinance in regards to
the security lighting for the particular property. In regards to ingress and egress, access to the
lease property will be derived from the existing driveway into the site off of Mountain Road. I
should note that staff has done a full and thorough site plan analysis and the appropriate meetings
have been held with the design review board as well as public participation and in conclusion,
the staff's opinion that the proposed cell tower is inconsistent with the adjacent land uses of
single family residences on large agricultural parcels and is incompatible based on the location of
the tower to adjacent residential structures. In addition, the proposed tower is inconsistent with
the surrounding scale, transition of densities, and does not protect the existing role character of
Milton and staff does recommend denial of this request. The planning commission did have a
hearing and make a recommendation at their March 23rd, 2010 meeting, that recommendation
was for denial and that was a unanimous recommendation. Mr. David Gilly of Georgia Tax and
Regulatory Solutions did present his findings as a consultant for the city. The planning
commission discussion did include the following issues. Property values that might be affected
by the cell towers, T -Mobile's ability to collocate on other towers and potential construction time
for the request. Submittal of engineered drawings of the structure in regards to win load
specially. The amount and type of coverage in the area and that the property owner is not a
current resident. Please note the following that the planning commission did request additional
information to be submitted by the applicant by Friday April, 91h by the close of business for the
submittal to the city council. That information has not been received; primarily this was in
regards to the load requirement found in the requirements of the ordinances. Are there any
questions of me before we move to the consultants recommendations?
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have any questions?
City Manager Lagerbloom:
We have Mr. Carlos Mucha representing GTRS he will continue our staff presentation.
Carlos Mucha, 3500 Lennox Rd. Suite 760 Atlanta, GA:
Good evening. My name is Carols Mucha, I am with Georgia Tax and Regulatory Solutions.
We were retained by Planning and Development to review this application. I have the report that
we have prepared. If you would like I can read it into the record.
Application for a use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility at 2880 Mountain
Road, Milton, GA 3004.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 6 of 65
We have reviewed the application as requested. The application was submitted
before the new telecommunications ordinance was adopted. As a result, this analysis is
conducted in the accordance with the following sections of the Milton Zoning ordinance
provided by your office: Section 19.2.4, use permit considerations (as amended
02/07/96); section 19.2.5, additional restrictions; and section 19.4.7, antenna tower to
exceed district height (as amended 05/17/06). Accordingly, we offer the following
review and recommendation.
Section 19.2.4 Analysis
Section 19.2.4 provides criteria for the review of use permits. The first inquiry is
whether the proposed facility is consistent with Comprehensive land Use Plan and/or
Economic Development Revitalization plans adopted by the Board of Commissioners.
The Comprehensive Plan does not directly address recommended locations of
telecommunications towers. However, it does recommend that the City provide adequate
services for its citizens, which would include providing adequate coverage for emergency
911 calls. The Applicant states that providing emergency 911 coverage is a justification
for the tower at this location. The property is zoned Agricultural, which is compatible
with the property's land use designation of one (1) unit per acre. Telecommunications
towers are a permitted use in the Agricultural zoning district designation.
`"d A thorough review of both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) registration databases indicate that there are
several towers within two miles of the proposed location. According to the information
and network coverage maps provided, the Applicant already has antennas at these
locations. In spite of that fact, according to the propagation maps, the radio frequency
engineers' report, and our own analysis, it does appear that coverage is lacking for this
geographic service area. A signal strength of -86 dBm will provide reliable in -vehicle
coverage for individuals travelling through the area. T -Mobile's target signal strength is -
76dBm. This level of signal strength will provide reliable service within residential
buildings. Field tests were performed in the subject area and a coverage level of-76dBm.
This level of signal strength will provide reliable service within residential buildings.
Field tests were performed in the subject area and a coverage level of -76dBm was not
achieved throughout the vicinity. Therefore, the Applicant has demonstrated that there is
poor coverage in this geographic service area.
The property is a wooded lot that will provide some natural screening for the
tower's accessory structures. In addition, the trees should provide some screening of the
tower itself. The Applicant proposed to use an existing driveway as access, which will
further minimize the amount of trees that would need to be cut down to accommodate the
No" proposed tower.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 7 of 65
VS." However, the Applicant indicates it identified several possible alternate locations.
One property is located to the east of Hopewell Road and is referred to as the Chary
Property in the application. This property is part of an existing golf course and is large
enough to enable a tower to be placed further from neighboring residential properties and
roadways. In addition, the existing tree coverage would appear to provide better
screening. The Applicant states that the Chary property was targeted but that the general
manager of the course would not discuss the possibility of placing a wireless facility on
the parcel. Therefore, the use proposed by the Applicant is more compatible with the
land use and zoning district on the Chary Property than the proposed Property.
The applicant proposed to place a 149 -foot tower on the Property. A tower of this
height will clearly be visible from nearby properties and public rights-of-way, as it will
extend at least sixty feet above the existing tree line. Applicant has provided photos and
photo simulations from a balloon test that show the tower will be clearly visible above
the tree line (See photo -simulations marked photo Sim Supplemental 1,2, and 3). This
could have an adverse impact on the adjacent and neighboring properties. Therefore, the
height proposed by the Applicant is not that the height be reduced to a maximum of 100ft
and that the tower be disguised as a pine tree or provide another stealth design to
minimize its visual impact. Based on the radio frequency analysis, a reduction in height
will not prohibit cell coverage in the area. Near the proposed tower site, the Applicant
can already provide "on street" coverage in some areas and "in -vehicle coverage" in
others. Although a reduction in height may not provide the signal, strength desired by the
Applicant, it will greatly improve coverage in the area.
The proposed use appears to be in compliance with local, state, and federal law
related to the communication tower use. However, a more throughout review will need
to be conducted at the time a building permit is issued to ensure the proposal meets all
building code requirements. The application includes stamped engineering drawings
from walker Engineering. However, the notes indicate Walker Engineering accepts no
responsibility for the suitability of the tower to accept proposed loads. Section 19.4.7
requires applications for a telecommunication facility to include a certification from a
registered engineer that the structure will meet the applicable design standards for wind
loads. The Applicant did not submit this certification with the application. As a
condition for the use permit, Applicant should be required to submit construction
drawings signed and sealed by a licensed structural engineer with its building permit
application.
The cell tower and associated structures are by nature unmanned and only require
occasional maintenance trips to the facility. Due to the lack of vehicular traffic on a daily
basis the new cell tower will not impose any negative impact on traffic flow nor vehicular
and pedestrian traffic in the immediate area. In addition, the need for parking spaces will
be minimal. One or two spaces are more than adequate and space is provided on the
outside of the perimeter fencing for vehicles to park while visiting the facility.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 8 of 65
This particular facility will encompass a 2,025 square foot lease area. An existing
gravel drive will be used for most of the length of the access from Mountain Road. A
new twelve (12) foot wide gravel drive will be constructed for the remainder of the
access. The remainder of the Property is grassed and wooded.
Adequate protective screening will be provided. The Applicant will construct a
six (6) foot high fence around the new facility along with nineteen (19) Leyland cypress
trees. The new cell tower is an unmanned facility and will only require periodical
maintenance trips. As a result, hours and manner of operation should not impact adjacent
property owners. The tower will have no outside lighting on the buildings nor will the
new monopole have lighting. The FAA only requires towers that are 200 feet or higher
to be lighted. A twelve (12) foot wide gravel drive is being provided from Mountain
Road to the new facility that will allow vehicles to travel to and from the site.
Section 19.4.7 Analysis
Sec. 19.4.7 of the code provides additional supplemental requirements for antenna
towers that will exceed the district's height limits. Towers must be set back a distance
equal to one and one-half times the height of the tower adjacent to residential and/or AG-
I zoned property. The proposed height of the tower is 149 feet so the required setback
distance would be a minimum of 223.5 feet. According to the application documents (see
construction drawings labeled "Sheet 3 of 3"), the closest adjacent home is approximately
304 feet to the east and the closest adjacent property line is approximately 229 feet to the
northeast.
The tower and associated facilities shall be enclosed by a six (6) foot fence and
will be equipped with an appropriate anti -climbing device. A ten (10) foot wide
landscape strip will surround the facility and be located outside the required fence and
nineteen (19) Leyland cypress trees are being planted within the landscape strip.
The tower will not be lighted. The FAA requires towers to be lighted if they are
200 feet in height or more. According to the FCC registration database there are no
existing towers located within one-half mile of the new proposed tower. As a result, the
proposed tower meets the distance requirements. In addition, as a telecommunication
tower not requiring FAA painting or marking it will have a galvanized finish or will be
painted a dull blue, gray, or black finish.
The tower must comply with applicable state and local statutes and ordinances,
including, but not limited to, building and safety codes. As stated earlier, as a condition
for the use permit, Applicant should be required to submit construction drawings signed
and sealed by a licensed structural engineer with its building permit application.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 9 of 65
NNW The Applicant has stated that the tower will not be used for advertising purposes
and will not contain any signs for the purpose of advertising. The Applicant has designed
the tower to allow two (2) additional co -locations for other coverage providers without
any increase in height.
Finally, the proposed tower will not be located in 100 -year flood plain or
delineated wetlands per the City of Milton Flood Plain Map dated October 9, 2009.
Recommendation
Our analysis indicates that wireless coverage does not meet the level desired by
the Applicant in this area, but that there is no coverage gap. Therefore the Applicant is
not being prohibited from providing coverage, but desires to improve its level of
coverage. A review of the topography of nearby properties indicates that there are
properties that would provide better screening of the tower and therefore minimize its
adverse aesthetic impact. Accordingly, we recommend that this Application be denied.
Signed by David R. Gilley also of Georgia
Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC
Mayor Lockwood:
Are there any questions for Carlos? Okay, thank you sir.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
That completes our staff report.
Mayor Lockwood:
First I would like to hear from the applicant and then those who are speaking in support of this
application.
Shawn Blassingill, 205 Wild Flower Ln., Canton, GA:
Good evening Mayor and Council. I am a project manager for SAI Communications. We
brought this application on behalf of T -Mobile South LLC. I am sure most of you have seen our
submittal package. We submitted a very exhaustive package. I know it can be overwhelming
but we definitely want to make sure we submit everything that we have in accordance with the
City of Milton Ordinance. I will not go though every detail of that application, but I will go
though the highlights which were mentioned previously by the third party engineer and highlight
those items and also introduce my radiofrequency engineer Marquise Lewis is here to answer
any technical questions or aspects regarding RF frequency. I also have Mr. Beau Sensun who
did a property evaluation study that we submitted into the record from Greystone Evaluation
Services. I would also like to bring up the point that we submitted emails in support of this
wireless structure here. A lot of those emails talked about lack of coverage at their homes and
that they need this particular structure that we are proposing. This particular application is for a
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 10 of 65
145 -foot monopole with a 4 -foot lightning rod for a total of 149 -feet. Again, as stated
previously, this is a AGI property which meets the City of Milton ordinances for wireless
structures. As mentioned previously again, this is 10.3 acres which is very significant for us.
We like to look for the largest parcels we can so we can tuck them back in the properties away
from the road. To give a little background about how we come about a search area in our
process when we are looking for a parcel, our radiofrequency engineers will lease a search area
to us, it is usually a circle. It is pretty small, usually about a half of a mile wide in
circumference. This is based off of customer complaints, weak signal strength, not having in -
vehicle or in-home coverage, that T -Mobile is trying to improve on as mentioned in the third
party report to get this proper signal strength to maintain the sustained calls. When we received
this search area, we drove around and our first objective is to find an existing structure that we
can collocate on. In this particular situation, there weren't any existing structures in our search
area that would meet our coverage objective. If we cannot find existing structures, we look for
other structures such as a rooftop that we may be able to use that gives us the height that we
need. Again, this is another situation where this wasn't available. Once that is exhausted, our
first thing is looking in industrial and commercial areas. As we all know, the City of Milton is
mainly agricultural and there weren't any industrial or commercial areas in our search area.
Once all of those options are exhausted, we look for the largest parcels possible that will meet
the city code. In this particularly one, we found an AGI property which met the ordinance, it
was 10.3 acres and we found a willing landlord who was willing to lease space to T -Mobile
South and that was a big key. It was discussed by the third party report that there was an
additional property with a golf course that may provide better screening. We agree, that was a
target location but they were not interested into leasing space to T -Mobile South. So our search
had to continue for our customers. As mentioned before, we met the requirements of setbacks.
The nearest residential structure was 304ft. The nearest right-of-way is 642ft. It was mentioned
that the nearest property line is 229ft but I would like to point out that the nearest residential
structure on that property line is 317ft from our proposed location. We did relocate this
compound to adjust a 50 -foot undisturbed buffer and a 25 -foot non impervious setback
requirements. There is a small lake on this property and we wanted to make sure we met those
requirements and discuss this with Robyn MacDonald. We did learn that we were infringing
upon that area and we revised our drawings to get out of that area. As also mentioned, were
going to access this proposed location off of the existing drive. This is another way that we limit
the disturbance that we are going to have to this property. As you can see on our construction
drawings that were no specimen trees on our proposed lease area, again, we are going to limit the
disturbance to this particular area. In our design and review board meeting in the planning
commission it was recommended that we change a few things as far as the statics. One mention
was the fencing. Right now we usually go with a chain link fence with barbed wire. We were
asked if we could go with a vinyl plaid fence and we will be doing that. We are revising our
drawings to reflect that. It was also pointed out in the design review board meeting that the
landscape requirements in addition to just evergreens or even Cyprus that we were planning on
planting, we have to have two additional species. I did get that information from the arborist and
�+ we are revising the plans to reflect that as well. Again, there has been comments about us
lowering our height on the structure to better fit with the statics of it. I would like to say that our
.r radiofrequency engineers when they are designed in a search area and determine what we need to
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 11 of 65
WPM
look for, they are looking at the minimum required height we need to meet the coverage
objectives, sustain calls, and meet that signal coverage. That is how we came upon the 145-foot.
Again, that is within the City ordinance requirements of height or height limit of 150-feet.
Again, we are meeting that requirement. If T-Mobile were to reduce the height of this structure
down to 100-feet it may make it aesthetically better, shield it a little more, but what it will do is
create a need for another structure even closer which we may not be able to do because we may
not meet the separation requirements in the City of Milton. So that is something that we would
like to discuss and point out. It is also worse mentioning that we need to submit construction
drawings that were stamped and sealed. We have done that. Actually, when we were at the
planning commission I had to go back after that meeting to confirm what we did submit so that
on two of the locations we had already submitted those, one of them had some revisions that we
were doing and now all three have had stamped and sealed construction drawings. There was a
comment about Walker Engineering statement in the drawings that they do not speak towards the
structure integrity. That is correct; they just do our site plans and our design. We have a
separate company that does our structure reports. Typically as I stated at the planning
commission here, we went into our zoning approval before we started on our environmental such
as GA Technical to check the soils. That triggers us being able to go and get tower and
foundation drawings which allows us to go and get that structure. Again, we normally do that
after our zoning approval. We have initiated that process now so we can get that as early as
possible. We always know those are requirements for our BP application, so that is normally
.•. where we have everything done before we submit for a BP. So we have had our soils done on
this particular location, we have received our internal foundation drawings that we have
requested and ordered our structural. There was a date given at the planning commission
meeting on 04/09. We couldn't get things done in that timely fashion. There are several weeks
for each form of that but I will say that it is standard for us to get. We get our soils done, we get
our foundation, we get our structure that shows wind loading, and the fact that this is a new
proposed structure, we are definitely going to design it to meet the requirements with not only T-
Mobile's equipment but any additional collocates that may show up which again is part of the
City of Milton ordinance that if we are going to construct the facility with 150-feet, it needs to be
able to suite two additional co locators. There are no existing towers within a half mile. That
was discussed previously in the report and again that is our first initial obligation to look for our
existing structures and not only saves T-Mobile time and money, we definitely want to stick
within the ordinance requirement and erect any structures that we don't have to. Other than that,
it's pretty much the highlights. We feel like we have a strong application, we have studied and
reviewed the city of Milton ordinance, we feel like we have met every requirement that there is.
I want to save the remainder of my time for rebuttals. I will have my radiofrequency engineer
come up and speak, and I will also have Beau Sensin with property evaluation studies come up
and speak and address any questions or concerns at that time.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have any public comment?
Interim City Clerk Gordon:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 12 of 65
aftm Mayor, we do have one that does not wish to speak, Susan Jolly a T -Mobile employee and
customer in support. We also have Ravi Prakash.
Ravi Prakash, 12877 Deer Park Lane, Alpharetta, GA:
I am here today as a resident of Milton, as a homeowner, as a business owner, as a parent, and I
have been here since 2005. We moved here from Dunwoody and to this date I cannot use my T -
Mobile phone in my house. Occasionally, I can. It is not so uncommon for me to be on
conference calls for hours and if there is an emergency at any time none of my kids can reach
me, my wife cannot reach me. It is very simple; I do not have anything to say. It is a very
simple business and personal user issue for me. I know several people in this same situation in
this neighborhood who cannot use a T -Mobile phone, I'm talking five years. I have been here
since 2005 in December and I live right across. I can't even probably use my phone in this
building. So I think it is very critical that if there is a solution, T -Mobile is providing a better
coverage, that we look at it seriously and I also use it because I have a ton of business partners
and friends that use T -Mobile and its convenient from me and I do not want to change. I know I
have an option of Verizon and AT&T and others, but I do not want to change for that. That is
just my personal petition on behalf of T -Mobile. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
Is that all we have in support?
Interim City Clerk Gordon:
offilAw Yes Sir.
Mayor Lockwood:
Next I will open up the floor to those who would like to speak in opposition of this item.
Interim City Clerk:
The first person is John Albers.
John Albers, 530 Junction Dr., Roswell, GA:
Thank you Mayor, Council, Staff and Citizens. I am here on behalf of my friends in the Milton
Community. I am not here for politics today; I am here as a subject matter expert for
telecommunications having worked in the industry for over 18 years for Bell Laboratories,
AT&T, as a consultant for most of the Major wireless providers. Ladies and gentlemen,
technology is changing rapidly in cell phones right now. A concern with putting up towers has
been budding up all over North Fulton County. I have been to several of these city council
hearings on petitions for sites and the concerns that neighbors have for having these in their
backyards. You will hear from lots of people tonight that will talk about their property values
and very legitimate concerns. I want to talk to you about the technology tonight. There are
microcells that are the newest technologies that are coming out that if you are not aware of you
should do some research. These are much smaller units and are available to work off of large
towers. Secondarily, most of us have a wireless access for the internet in our house. It is a very
small router or hub that we utilize to boost the signal so we can use our laptops. The same
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 13 of 65
technology now exists to boost a wireless signal and you can walk in any AT&T or Verizon store
and go buy these and go plug them into the wall. We had a gentleman come up just recently who
does not have access, I would recommend that product which is very inexpensive as little as
$100. In fact, for T -Mobile's sake, it would be cheaper to buy one for every single house in that
area than it would be one fraction of the cost to build the new tower. So the question you should
ask yourself is, Why does T -Mobile want to build the tower? Out of the four major wireless
carries in the United States today, T -Mobile has been the less of the least successful of all of
those and they have been positioning themselves for sale for the last four or five years. In the
last 12 years, telecommunications industry has been consolidating due to the elimination of
landlines and those merging together with newer IP based technologies. The reason why this is
important and why they want to put towers and infrastructure in, is when T -Mobile gets sold,
they will be worth more money based on the number of towers they have in place. Unlike
traditional businesses that are sold for the value of the assets they have and the amount of profit
they have, in the telecommunications world they focus more on the infrastructure they have in
place. So there are other technology solutions that are available today that will not take away
from the beauty of Milton, will not have a tower, whether it's a pine tree or not, it's still going to
be 150 feet in the air and everyone is going to see it, and unfortunately once the precedence is
set, what is going to be like for the next neighborhood? Then the next neighborhood? And each
one of the neighborhoods that all of us live in today? So I am here today, again, as a subject
matter expert for telecommunications to tell you that there are good, viable options that are out
there today that technology is changing, and there are options for folks today to have great cell
service without having to do anything to disrupt the landscape of Milton. Thank you for
allowing me to talk.
Andrew Shepard, 16450 Hopewell Rd., Milton, GA:
Good evening, I live at an adjacent property. I have lived there for over 25 years. As I
understand it, T -Mobile must approve two things tonight to be granted approval for this cell
tower. First, they must prove that the proposed tower will fill a significant gap in their existing
coverage. Secondly, T -Mobile must also show that the matter in which they propose to fill that
significant gap is least intrusive to the community. In this community's estimation, T -Mobile
has proved nothing than a desire to fulfill their profit margins at this community's expense and at
the overall deterioration of the life and the quality of the people of Milton.
Kenneth Hardin, 16655 Phillips Rd., Milton, GA:
My wife and I have lived in our home now for 18 years. I am an engineer by training and
practice as a professional engineer for a number of years before moving into the computer
software industry and I am an avid supporter of the telecommunication industry, in fact, I am
employed by a small Atlanta software company that develops and markets business applications
to wireless carriers like T -Mobile for managing and employing their network assets including
functions such as site acquisition and zoning so I am familiar with this process and familiar with
the commercial considerations involved here. In the presentation before the City of Milton
planning commission, the citizens' supporter of one of the sites spoke passionately about private
property rights. He rightfully described how private property rights are one of our most
treasured cornerstones of our society. He went on to suggest that anyone that would oppose
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 14 of 65
these rights of a private property owner to enter into a leasing agreement with T -Mobile or
somehow infringing on their basic constitutional liberties. I would like to present a slightly
different prospective if I could. For I, like most of us here tonight who are opposed to these
towers, I am also a private property owner and I also cherish my private property rights. To
quote an example, we are all probably familiar with the constitution also grants us freedom of
speech, but it also limits our ability to falsely cry fire in a crowded theater or to falsely slander
another citizen because our constitutional rights are justifiably limited when they begin to
infringe on the rights of other citizens and our neighbors so that is the reason that virtually all
communities have enacted zoning ordinances to make sure that the property rights of all people
are protected. Communities also recognize that the tries they made that just simply codifying
these laws, each decision has its own subtle differences and values that have to be weighed.
Does it meet the letter of the law? Or is there an overall impact to the community that could be
minimized or the environments and property values, can they be better served or are there
alternatives that deliver favorable outcomes with less negative impact. That is why we are here
tonight. This tower has been thoroughly reviewed and rigorously debated and during the course
of that debate, the opinion from virtually every official reviewer has been to deny these
applications. The city planning staff has reviewed and recommended denial, the city of Milton
Planning commission voted unanimously for denial, an independent consulting company
retained by the city that you just heard recommended denial of the application after a detail land
use review and engineering study of T -Mobile existing coverage. We now as you to follow the
noonuse
of your own board and advisors.
Lisa Cauley, 14680 Freemanville Rd., Milton, GA:
I am the chair of Protect Milton, Inc.; Protect Milton is a non-profit organization in Milton. Our
interest is in preserving the rural atmosphere in Milton although we do firmly believe all
property owners have the right to do with the property what they wish in accordance with the
law. We also believe cell towers pose a unique and different scenario. In comparison to
building an addition, a barn, a work shed, a pool, or other structures on ones property, the scale
of the cell towers are so large and intrusive and will be seen by all. We feel the placement of the
Towers should be located and more commercial areas if possible due to their intrusiveness, over
residential subdivisions, or AGI properties which in Milton are mostly large properties with
residential homes. We are asking the mayor and council to please weigh the impact of the
requested cell towers and their locations with the existing rural atmosphere, property values, and
how the city wishes to proceed aesthetically our unique landscape in Milton. There should be a
win win situation for all parties including T -Mobile. We hope council determines the proposed
location for the cell towers are not a winning proposition as they exist currently for those
involved. We hope the city can work with T -Mobile to find more appropriate locations in Milton
for the towers without compromising what the community wants our city to represent and
maintain. Thank you.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
I would like to suggest extending the time for the opposition and support.
Sam Councilmember Tart:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 15 of 65
I would like to make a motion to extend the time by two minutes for each party.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I second the motion.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
By two minutes or 10?
Councilmember Tart:
I will go back and say 5 minutes and if we need to extend it beyond that, I can certainly put in a
motion for it.
MOTION AND VOTE:
Motion by Councilmember Tart, second by Councilmember Thurman to extend the time on both
parties for an additional five minutes.
Andrew Shepard, 16450 Hopewell Rd., Milton, GA:
..m At the design review meeting, T -Mobile repeatedly declined proof of their need of a tower and
the proof was proprietary prompted by this line of defense, I went out and bought a 49 dollar
%hophone from Wal-Mart. I took this phone and I used it in my neighborhood which is an adjacent
` property to this cell site. I had great coverage in my house. I have coverage in my basement that
I don't have with my normal AT&T phone. If you look at the propagation maps you will see that
the propagation is right around the site. I have driven the roads of Mountain, Phillips, Wilkey,
Hopewell, even Manor Bridge Road and I have not experienced any dropped calls or anything
you would expect to encounter in a fringe coverage area as defined by T -Mobile. Some of us in
the community have driven Hopewell and Cogburn roads during rush hour traffic and have not
experienced any dropped calls. I have right here affidavits from 25 folks in their homes who
used my phone and tested the coverage. They called their neighbors, they called their relatives
and every one of these says they have 100% coverage. We basically stopped. We couldn't find
anyone who said they had marginal coverage inside their home within this area. It was basically
a win win situation for us. We contend as a community that there is already adequate T -Mobile
coverage. GTRS, the cities experts said in their report and I quote "our analysis indicates that
there is no coverage gap. Therefore the applicant is not being prohibited from providing
coverage but desires to improve the level of coverage". GTRS goes on to say "review of the
topography of the nearby properties indicates that there are properties that are much better at
screening the towers." GTRS notes some old Mountain road site is inappropriate as do we. If
you will look at the handouts that we gave you, if that site is drawn at the same scales as the
other two sites, you will notice that there is 21 houses within a thousand feet of this proposed
location. 21, this site does meet the ordinance requirements for 10 acres but just barely by a third
NFAM of an acre. This site is also three times longer than it is wide. T -Mobile has placed their tower at
the widest part of the property so they could maximize the height of their tower. They can't put
OWN a much taller tower at the site that they have chosen. T -Mobile site application also says that it is
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 16 of 65
buffered on three sides. If you will look at the photo that I have there, that is from my back deck.
That red thing is the balloon. There is the balloon flying over my house. There is my house.
My house is what is going to buffer this cell tower from Hopewell Rd. when you look down my
driveway. This house is the one in front of my house and you can still see the tower from
Hopewell rd. This is not an appropriate land use. This is also going to impact values of
properties. If you go to the appraisal institutes website, they make a statement that cell towers
cause a decrease in home values anywhere from two to 20%. This is the same sort of reduction
that occurs when high tension wires come into a community. A house 304ft away from a cell
tower might as well be next to a power plant. A factory, a landfill, or any other land
diminishing use. A quick search of the internet will show you many many sites and much
information about real-estate evaluation. T -Mobile does not address the detrimental aesthetic
and economic effects their cell tower will have on our community, the views along Hopewell
Road, and Milton's landscape all for their profit making. We have T -Mobile, we have adequate
T -Mobile services in the proposed area. Nothing in the 1996 FCC ruling and regulations
amended anymore than basic cell service. Certainly, any enhanced services afforded by the
proposed cell tower does not offset the detrimental effects that we have in the surrounding
community in the City of Milton as a whole. We believe your task is to weight the burdens
placed on this community by T -Mobile versus the benefits to be gained by the overall burdens of
the community. They are clear, as evidence by the number of citizens that are here tonight, yet
the benefits are not. We respectively ask that you decline this permit. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
I would like to open this back up to the support side.
Ms. Marquise Lewis, 400 17th St., Atlanta, GA:
I just wanted to offer a rebuttal on some of the technical issues that were brought up by some of
the earlier consultant or experts. The first issue was the concept of the peak -a -cell. Basically
what we would need in that situation is a very small contained area, generally under a square
mile or so, where a peak -a -cell design would suffice. That type of design requires that if we
were going to cover a large area, and we would need a very high number of structures to co -
locate to put a very small cell on that had a very small radius. We do not have enough above
ground power facilities or structures in that are that would allow us to do that and especially to
cover such a large area. In order to do that, we would need power poles, not wooden structures
that did not have transformers on them, and the thing about that is we would probably be limited
to covering a few spots on some of the major thoroughfare but what we are trying to do is cover
all of the residential areas that our customers have needs in. A peak -a -cell design will not suffice
in this situation. I think it was also mentioned that we could use some type of at home or
repeater technology, but that won't work in this situation when we don't have an adequate signal
in the area in the first place. For example, if our signal areas are low, what they also call "noise"
is also high relative to our signal level. A good analogy might be if you are driving down the
streets and you are listening to your radio, and you're driving out on the fringe of coverage and it
.m starts to get static. If you turn the volume up, which is essentially what a repeater is going to do,
you are not only going to turn up the audio signal, the music, but you will turn up the static. So,
rte■ you will not be able to get a good signal and carry on a conversation in that situation. I think the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 17 of 65
own
&no second guy actually mentioned something about T -Mobile's needs in the area, and I do think that
the GTRS study did point out that we had on street coverage, and there were some areas where
we had in vehicle coverage. So I wanted to emphasize that T -Mobile's objective is not to require
a customer to stand outside in the yard to use their phone. We want to be able to use our phones
in our cars. We want the customers to be able to use their phones in their businesses, in their
residences, and so therefore we are kind of in agreeance with what GTRS said. There is some
signal there, absolutely, but just not enough for a T -Mobile customer to adequately make and
maintain a call and maintain good quality in that area.
Harris Simpson, 2368 Academy Ct., Atlanta, GA:
I have been appraising real-estate for about 20 years and have been working cell tower studies
for a number of those years. It is not a big part of our business, but we do it from time to time. I
was asked to do a study as you can see in our package in January for Fulton County and then I
did a specific inspection of this site to render an opinion about whether this tower in particular
has proposed what an impact property value. Our research is mostly pertaining to residential
areas. This is where the controversy usually exists. We look for examples where a tower exists
close to a neighborhood. We can find homes that have a view of it, or that are close to it that
have sold or maybe ones that have sold twice, compare those to another set of sales that have
sold in the same area, and see if there are changes in property values, see if there are changes in
PON appreciation rates, and then we go further than that and we interview the homeowners, especially
the ones that are in view of the tower and ask them if did impacted their decision of purchase? In
this case, we got a cross section of neighborhoods. We had seven different profiles that we put
together. Alone, really it is hard to have one profile that is conclusive that gives you enough
data, gives you enough statistical power which is not something you see much in studies like
this. You have five or six sales of homes in one setting and five or six in another. Statistically,
that is not very meaningful but when you have seven examples and each one of them has that set
of data, and then you follow it with interviews with people and they all point you in the same
direction, it is fairly easy to conclude that the towers in the profiles that we put in our report,
none of those people in those examples felt like the towers impacted the property values and the
data certainly didn't suggest that it did. It didn't suggest that there was an impact on
appreciation or price per square foot. I don't mean to tell you that everyone likes cell towers. I
don't mean to tell you that everybody just says "that's okay". There are certain people that will
say "no, I don't like that' but that does not impact value in our opinion and so in the example that
is before you today, we looked at this proposed tower location and we felt that it was a
reasonable location and we did not think that it would impact property values or appreciation
rates of surrounding properties and that is in the data if you have any questions I'd be happy to
answer them.
Andrew Shepard:
By trait, I am an registered architect, I am a licensed real-estate broker, and a general contractor.
That is going to affect the value of that home right there. I don't care what anybody says. That
will affect the value. Were citizens, were not supposed to come up with T -Mobile's way of
providing the service that T -Mobile wants to provide. As I said earlier, here are affidavits from
tog 25 people in the area in their homes asked to use the phones any way they want, just don't call
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 18 of 65
,W, California or 900 numbers. Call your friends and check the phone out and see how it works.
Everyone had great coverage in the area. This is in their house. Not in their cars, not in their
yards, not in their barn. It was in their house. Please, we have got to get this thing out of here.
Councilmember Lusk:
I think that the last gentleman that spoke, Mr. Simpson, you quoted a survey of property owners
for properties adjoining cell towers and the impact on the value of those properties. In each and
every case, were they property owners or were they rented?
Harris Simpson:
Well, some of both actually. Also, we tried to interview people that bought homes that would
have had a potential impact. In other words, we didn't pick homes that were away from the
towers. We interviewed people that were closest to the towers, that had a view of the tower, or
were physically the closest to it so that if there was an impact, they would say whether they felt
like there was. So we found some cases where there would be a renter living there and some
cases there would be a homeowner, but we are always talking to people who in these datasets
were involved in a transaction somehow in one of those homes. We knocked on the door, and
sometimes it would be the homeowner and they would be interviewed there.
Councilmember Lusk:
p. So they were not all homeowners is what you're saying?
Orm Harris Simpson:
Well, we talked to about 100 people. If you go knock on the door of a house, most of them are
homeowners. In some case, we would call the broker if it was a listing that was being sold, we
would called the broker and we would talk to them or the agent. In a few cases, we would knock
on the door and it happened to be a renter living there and we wound ask them. But they don't
have nearly the opinion that a homeowner would have.
Councilmember Longoria:
Shawn, given the fact that Mr. Shepard and the surrounding community for this particular site,
granted maybe it is not scientific research even though they have done quite a bit of research into
coverage there and for simple cell coverage talking coverage they seem to have a compelling
argument that they don't lack coverage and I understand the purpose is to address the residential
community in the area, is it fair to say that its maybe trying to address data services that go
beyond the voice service that they are referring to?
Shawn Blassingill:
Yes and there are two things that I would like to point out about that. We have heard from
individuals that said they had great coverage in their home. We are not going to dispute that. If
they do, that's great and that's what we're trying to get to the rest of our customers up to that
wow level. Some of the documents that we submitted from our advocates stated that they don't have
that same level of coverage in their basement. So I do just want to point that fact out that yeah,
.. there may be some customers that have great coverage in their homes, but were trying to get all
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 19 of 65
„"d of our customers in the area. The second part of that, it's about sustaining the coverage in that
area. It's also about signal strength which is pointed out by GTRS as well as our RF engineer. I
would rather her come up and talk about that technical aspect than myself. I am more of a site
acquisition and zoning and she would be better to answer that question.
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
I just wanted to clarify that the basis of this application is not to focus on data services. We are
here to provide first and foremost voice services, the ability for our customers, or people in the
neighborhood, or people that are visiting, coming to and from the neighborhood to be able to
have a conversation, to be able to make a 911 call with some confidence. So it is not about data
services, we have to start with just the basic voice services. I understand that nothing is an exact
science, there is no uniform circle where we can say there is not a point in here where a customer
can make a call. So obviously some customers can make calls but we have some people here
tonight that say they cannot. That is in accordance with our research and what we found that in
general, in the area that were trying to serve, a customer cannot reliably make and maintain a call
in their vehicle and in their home. Possibly if they stood outside but when you are driving down
the street or you're in your home and you're in an emergency situation, you can't go outside
necessarily to try and get a signal. So no, it's not about data services, it's about starting with
providing basic voice services, 911 services, and basic communication services for our
customers and we have identified our need and that is why we have designed this facility.
Councilmember Longoria:
iftww As followed to that, obviously you have gotten a lot of information from people that are right
there in the community and I certainly respect the opinions that Bonnie and the other individuals
that said that they lack coverage from T -Mobile, but they weren't specific to this particular site.
In other words, I don't see how a tower over on Mountain Rd. will affect someone who lives on
Deerfield.
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
Like I said, I don't know the exact addresses of everyone and if you look at the coverage plots,
they are all discrete points and those points are averages within an area.
Councilmember Longoria:
I understand that. I just wanted to know if you guys maybe focused on maybe that particular
area and if you got any feedback from customers who were having difficulty.
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
I am not sure of the addresses of the feedback that we did get, but me as an RF engineer, what I
look at is the same thing that GTRS looks at. What are the signal areas in the area? What are the
signal levels needed to reliably carry a call in that area, and we found that deficiency.
.N Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I have a motion for the record. And I would like to put forward a motion to deny application for
liver a use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility at 2880 Mountain Rd. based upon the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 20 of 65
and information in the record, the community development file, the public hearing, including
comments for the record this evening, information provided by Georgia Tax and Regulatory
Solutions LLC., comments and recommendations from citizens and affected constituents, and the
criteria and guidelines in the Milton zoning code, I move that this facility use permit 009-03 be
denied for the following, no exhausted set of reasons.
1. Due to failure by the applicant to submit a certified statement that the structure will meet
the applicable design standards for wind loads as required by section 19.4.7 of the Milton
zoning code and as the applicant was further instructed at the planning commission. The
applicant was advised at the planning commission hearing to have such data submitted to
the City by April 9, 2010. As of today's date, the application has not submitted such
required data.
2. The proposed tower is inconsistent with the adjacent land use as a single family residence
on large agricultural parcels and incompatible based on the location of the tower to
adjacent residential structures.
3. The proposed cell tower is inconsistent with the surrounding scale, transition of densities,
and does not protect the existing rural character of Milton.
son
4. For all of those reasons supporting denial set forth in the March 22, 2010 Georgia Tax
ohm and Regulatory Solutions LLC., letter to the City of Milton, planning of the development
division, which is incorporated by reference into this motion and attached as Exhibit 5.
5. As well as the multitude of other reasons stated here this evening, by those citizens
impacted as well as those would be similarly impacted. I further request that this motion
be placed into the record of tonight's meeting. This is my motion on April 26, 2010.
Councilmember Thurman:
I would like to second that motion.
Mayor Lockwood:
I have a motion for denial by Councilmember Bailey and a second from Councilmember Lusk.
Vote: The motion to deny passed unanimously 7-0.
2. U09-04 —14495 Hopewell Road by T -Mobile South, LLC to obtain a use permit on AG -
1 (Agricultural) zoned property for a 150 foot tall monopole cell tower with an additional
4 foot lightning rod for a total of 154 feet (Article 19.4.7).
(Agenda Item No. 10-1097)
(First Presentation on April 12, 2010)
(Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 21 of 65
Lynn Tully, Community Development Director:
Similarly to the last report, the subject site includes approximately 26 acres of agriculturally
zoned land and is located on the Southside of Hopewell Rd. The property is developed with a
single family residence and seven gables horse farm. It is located within the agricultural four
street and mining land use designation 20-25 plan which was in place at the time of the
applicants request. Again, staff has made comments on the required conditions for which the
City Councilmembers to hear this request. They are as follows: Whether the proposed use is
consistent with the comprehensive land use plan and/or economical development revitalization
plans adopted by the Mayor and City Council. Staff has found that the proposed tower is
inconsistent with the intent and following policies of the focus Milton 20-25 plan. First is to
encourage development consistent with the surrounding scale, transition of densities, and uses
and comprehensive plan policies were appropriate. The second is in protection of the existing
rural character of Northwest Fulton. In addition, consideration of compatibility with land uses
and zoning districts in the vicinity for the property for which the use permit is proposed. Staff
has found that the proposed 150 foot monopole with a 4 foot lightning rod is inconsistence with
the adjacent land uses of single family residences of large agricultural parcels and associated
agricultural uses such as barns and riding rings. Further, whether the proposed use may violate
any local state and/or federal statues or ordinances or regulations governing land development.
This proposal does not violate in our opinion any state or federal ordinances or local ordinances
governing land development. Whether the proposal will have any effect on traffic flow,
vehicular, or pedestrian circulation along adjoining streets. It is not anticipated to impact any
traffic flow on the adjoining streets. The location and number of off street parking spaces is
anticipated that there is no additional parking impact due to the large size of the parcel and the
location of the least area away from Hopewell Rd. and behind the existing barns. To consider
the amount and location of open space, the parcel does include approximately 26 acres and does
provide a large area of open space outside of the least area as proposed. Protective screening, the
staff does recommend that the applicant provide an additional 20ft landscape strip in lieu of the
required landscape strip planted to buffer standards to provide additional screening of the tower
and associated facilities. This has been reflected in the recommended conditions. Hours and
manner of operation, staff has further recommended in the conditions that the site maintenance
be completed between the hours of 8:30am and 5:30pm Monday — Friday except in cases of
emergency. Regarding streetscape lighting, no streetscape lighting is proposed, however, a
security light is proposed on the plan and would be utilized for maintenance only. It is noted that
the applicant understands that this has to comply with the Northwest overlay district and/or night
sky ordinance standards. Ingress and egress to the property is from an existing driveway off of
Hopewell Rd. and therefore no additional requirements are made in regards to egress and ingress.
Staff has completed the site plan analysis. The appropriate of the meetings have been conducted
including a design review board meeting as well as public participation plan and report. Staff
has recommended denial of this request in that the proposed cell tower is inconsistent with the
adjacent land uses of single family residences on large agricultural parcels and is incompatible
based on the location of the tower to adjacent residential structures. In addition, the cell tower is
inconsistent with the surrounding scale, transition of densities, and does not protect the rural
character of Milton. Again, therefore Staff does recommend denial. At the planning
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 22 of 65
OF.
commission March 23, 2010 meeting the planning commission also recommended denial
unanimously and Mr. David Gilley of Georgia Tax and Regulatory Solutions did present his
findings in regards to the cell tower as a consultant for the City. The planning commission
discussion did include the following issues that the applicant will verify of sealed engineered
drawings were submitted for this specific application user U09-04 that the applicant verified that
the property owner does reside on the property. That a specific number of co -locators can be
installed on the tower be identified and they discussed questions regarding the appraisal
performed by Greystone Evaluation Services. I would ask that you note the planning
commission again did request items be submitted by the applicant for the city council while by
the April 9, 2010 deadline close of business that day. Those items were specifically submittal of
revised site plans and engineered drawings which have been submitted which changed the
marker on the plans from preliminary not for construction to actual signed and stamped
engineered drawings, however, no wind load or structural design for wind loads has been
received by the staff. That closes my presentation; again Mr. Mucha is here for GTRS to present
his findings for the consultant on behalf of the City.
Carlos Mucha, 3500 Lennox Rd. Suite 760 Atlanta, GA:
I am Carlos Mucha with Georgia Tax and Regulatory Solutions. I would like to read into the
record our March 22, 2010 report.
Application for Use Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 14495 Hopewell
Road, Milton, GA, Milton, GA 30004.
We have reviewed the application as requested. The application was submitted
before the new telecommunications ordinance was adopted. As a result, this analysis is
conducted in accordance with the following sections of the Milton Zoning Ordinance
provided by your office: Section 19.2.4, Use Permit Considerations (as amended
02/07/96); Section 19.2.5, Additional Restrictions; and Section 19.4.7, Antenna Tower to
Exceed District Height (as amended 05/17/06). Accordingly, we offer the following
review and recommendation.
Section 19.2.4 Analysis
Section 19.2.4 provides criteria for the review of use permits. The first inquiry is
whether the proposed Facility is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and/or Economic Development Revitalization plans adopted by the Board of
Commissioners. The Comprehensive Plan does not directly address recommended
locations of telecommunications towers. However, it does recommend that the City
provide adequate services for its citizens, which would include providing adequate
coverage for emergency 911 calls. The Applicant states that providing emergency 911
coverage is a justification for the tower at this location. The Property is zoned
Agricultural, which is compatible with the Property's land use designation of
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 23 of 65
ON" Agricultural. Telecommunications towers are a permitted use in the Agricultural zoning
district designation.
A thorough review of both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) registration databases indicate that there are
several towers within two miles of the proposed location. According to the information
and network coverage maps provided, the Applicant already has antennas at these
locations. In spite of that fact, according to the propagation maps, the radio frequency
engineers' report, and our own analysis, it does appear that coverage is lacking for this
geographic service area. A signal strength of -86 dBm will provide reliable in -vehicle
coverage for individuals travelling through the area. T -Mobile's target signal strength is -
76 dBm. This level of signal strength will provide reliable service within residential
buildings. Field tests were performed in the subject area and a coverage level of -76dBm
was not achieved throughout the vicinity. In addition, a coverage gap exists in some
areas. Therefore, the Applicant has demonstrated that there is poor coverage in this
geographic service area.
The proposed location for the tower has no existing tree coverage to provide
natural screening for the tower or its accessory structures. The Applicant proposes to
•FM place a 154 -foot tower on the Property. Applicant has provided photos and photo
simulations from a balloon test that show the tower will be clearly visible from nearby
abot properties and public rights-of-way (See in particular, photo -simulations marked 2 and
5). This could have an adverse impact on adjacent and neighboring properties.
Therefore, the use proposed by the Applicant is not compatible with the rural character,
land use and zoning districts in the vicinity of the Property.
However, the Applicant indicates it identified several possible alternate locations
that appear to provide much better screening by utilizing the existing tree coverage.
These properties are all located on Cogburn Road. At least three are densely wooded and
would provide natural screening. The Applicant's own radio frequency engineer
approved two of these locations as capable of providing the desired coverage. In
addition, the Cogburn Road locations are closer to the areas where the coverage gaps
exist. If the Applicant places the tower at the proposed location, poor coverage will still
exist in some areas to the east of the tower. Further, a tower at the proposed location will
overlap with coverage at the Applicant's future site location marked 9AT3118 on its
coverage map. Hence this future location site is also questionable.
The proposed use appears to be in compliance with local, state and federal law
related to communication tower use. However, a more thorough review will need to be
conducted at the time a building permit is issued to ensure the proposal meets all building
code requirements. The application includes stamped engineering drawings from Walker
Engineering. However, the notes indicate Walker Engineering accepts no responsibility
'�""� for the suitability of the tower to accept proposed loads. Section 19.4.7 requires
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 24 of 65
applications for a telecommunication facility to include a certification from a registered
engineer that the structure will meet the applicable design standards for wind loads. The
Applicant did not submit this certification with the application. As a condition for the use
permit, Applicant should be required to submit construction drawings signed and sealed
by a licensed structural engineer with its building permit application.
The cell tower and associated structures are by nature unmanned and only require
occasional maintenance trips to the facility. Due to the lack of vehicular traffic on a daily
basis the new cell tower will not impose any negative impacts on traffic flow nor
vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the immediate area. In addition, the need for parking
spaces will be minimal. One or two spaces are more than adequate and space is provided
on the outside of the perimeter fencing for vehicles to park while visiting the facility.
This particular facility will encompass a 2,500 square foot lease area. The
remainder of the open space on the Property will be grassed. Adequate protective
screening will be provided at the base of the tower. The Applicant will construct a six (6)
foot high fence around the new facility along with nineteen (19) Leyland cypress trees.
The new cell tower is an unmanned facility and will only require periodical maintenance
trips. As a result, hours and manner of operation should not impact adjacent property
owners. The tower will have no outside lighting on the buildings nor will the new
"own owners.
have lighting. The FAA only requires towers that are 200 feet or higher to be
lighted. A twelve (12) foot wide gravel drive is being provided from Hopewell Road to
Now the new facility that will allow vehicles to travel to and from the site.
Section 19.4.7 Analysis
Sec. 19.4.7 of the code provides additional supplemental requirements for antenna
towers that will exceed the district's height limits. Towers must be set back a distance
equal to one and one-half times the height of the tower adjacent to residential and/or AG-
I zoned property. The proposed height of the tower is 154 feet so the required setback
distance would be a minimum of 231 feet. According to the application documents, the
closest adjacent home is approximately 618 feet to the west and the closest adjacent
property line is approximately 269 feet to the west. The Applicant meets the setback
requirements.
The tower and associated facilities shall be enclosed by a six (6) foot fence and
will be equipped with an appropriate anti -climbing device. A ten (10) foot wide
landscape strip will surround the facility and be located outside the required fence and
nineteen (19) Leyland cypress trees will be planted within the landscape strip.
The tower will not be lighted. The FAA requires towers to be lighted if they are
200 feet in height or more. According to the FCC registration database there are no
existing towers located within one-half mile of the new proposed tower. As a result, the
low proposed tower meets the distance requirements. In addition, as a telecommunication
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 25 of 65
Imm tower not requiring FAA painting or marking it will have a galvanized finish or will be
painted a dull blue, gray, or black finish.
The tower must comply with applicable state and local statutes and ordinances,
including, but not limited to, building and safety codes. As stated earlier, as a condition
for the use permit, Applicant should be required to submit construction drawings signed
and sealed by a licensed structural engineer with its building permit application.
The Applicant has stated that the tower will not be used for advertising purposes
and will not contain any signs for the purpose of advertising. The Applicant has designed
the tower to allow two (2) additional co -locations for other coverage providers without
any increase in height.
Finally, the proposed tower will not be located in 100 -year flood plain or
delineated wetlands per the City of Milton Flood Plain Map dated October 9, 2009.
Recommendation
Our analysis indicates that wireless coverage does not meet the level desired by
the Applicant and there are areas with gaps in coverage. A review of the topography and
natural vegetation of nearby properties indicates that there are properties that would
provide better screening of the tower and therefore minimize its adverse aesthetic impact.
Applicant's own RF Engineer has already approved these sites as capable of providing
the Applicant's coverage needs. In addition, the alternate sites are located closer to the
areas where the coverage gaps exist and would provide more consistent coverage at the
desired coverage level. Accordingly, we recommend that this Application be denied.
Signed by David R. Gilley also of Georgia
Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC
Shawn Blassingill, 205 Wild Flower Ln., Canton, GA:
Good evening Mayor and Council. Again, I will not go through every particular part of this
application as it has been well stated in our submittal as well as by a third party report by GTRS.
Again, this is another agricultural zone parcel AG -1 which meets the City of Milton ordinance.
This is 26.4 acres, a much larger parcel than the previous one which allows us greater ability to
move that proposed facility around to screen it from the surrounding neighborhoods. Again, that
meets the ordinance. The nearest residential structure is 354 feet and it meets the ordinances as
far as the set back requirements. Nearest right-of-way is 409 feet which meets the ordinance.
Nearest property line is 269 feet. The house on that property is 618 feet from the structure.
Again, it meets the ordinance. This is another application where we are going to use the existing
now gravel drive to access our proposed facility which is little to no disturbance at all. This is another
great factor that benefits the City of Milton. There are no specimen trees in our proposed lease
am area which is another issue that we won't be doing any disturbance. I'm sure the arborist will be
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 26 of 65
OEM glad to hear that. Again, on this one we are going to revise our drawings to reflex a black vinyl
fence instead of a chain link with the barbed wire to give it a more esthetic appeal and our
landscaping is going to be revised to meet the Northwest overlay requirements of additional
species. There are a couple of things that I would like to point out in our third party report.
They mentioned that there were a couple of other parcels that would provide better screening.
Again, we agree. We approached all of those properties. When we receive a search area, we
approach every parcel in that search area. Again, along the guidelines of existing structures that
we can co -locate on, existing buildings that we can place antennas on, industrial and commercial
areas, and then into residential. With all of that being said, we still must meet the City
ordinance. The fact that we did not have structure to co -locate on or a building to go on, or
anything else that we can construct on without constructing a new facility, we still met the City
of Milton ordinance. I would also like to point out that our last application which was a subject
about the structure with the wind load not being provided and I touched on that a bit last time. I
would like to point out a little more about that. The reason why we have that process is it's not
just for the wireless and it's not just T -Mobile. It is pretty much overall in construction why you
do your wind loading, structure loading, your GO's after your zoning. Usually when we go
through this process, whether it is to plan a commission for the design review board or the Mayor
and Council here. There may be some requests for changes. We may get approval with
conditions. They may say move it 50 feet to the East to get better away from a right-of-way or
property line. They may ask us to go with a different type of structure such as a monopine that
has been suggested. Anytime a change like that occurs, those soils that we got done, the tower
foundation that we got done which is in terms of the lease of the structure, would all have to be
mom revised. That is the reason that we do not do those ahead of time. It is done on purpose at the
end of the zoning so that you can do it correctly based on the conditions and recommendations of
the jurisdiction. Again, this is a brand new proposed facility. Of course we are going to have it
stamped and sealed when an engineer with a structure wind load to not only withstand T -
Mobile's loading, but any future co -locators. This is another application where we have sped
that process up ahead of time. We have had our GOs of soil testing done. We have had our final
tower foundation report and we have ordered that structural. I did make a note of the planning
commission's recommendation to have submitted by tonight. There wasn't enough time to get
all of that done. To get the soils done, that takes a couple of weeks. To get the tower foundation
it takes a couple of weeks. Then we have a week or so for the structural. It may come in
tomorrow when I leave here but may be a little too late. But I would like to point that out that
it's standard. That's what we get done. All of those requirements are usually part of the building
permit submittal. We would definitely have all of those requirements in hand submitted to the
city of Milton prior to the building permit application so I would like to ask that you would
approve that if that is your only concern about structural wind loading because that will be
provided before we submit before any building permit application. With all of that being said,
this is a 150 foot monopole that we are proposing with a 50 by 50 area. Again, it meets the City
of Milton's code requirements of height limitations. We really are seeking approval here
because we feel that we have a great application and we want to address the concerns and the
"^ needs of our customers. I will save the remainder of my time for rebuttal.
am Ronald Bogino,14495 Hopewell Rd., Milton, GA:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 27 of 65
mum Hello Mr. Mayor and City Council. I am the property owner that T -Mobile has mad application
to. When we stated this, I didn't know that I was going to get into all of this. T -Mobile
approached me, assured me that I came under every ordinance and laws, rules, and regulations
and I entertained the idea because Seven Gables is a very visible farm. There is a high traffic
volume, it is a beautiful place and I want to keep the farm. My taxes have gone from very
affordable to very unaffordable. I have taken borders; I have raised alpacas, goats, whatever we
can do to keep the farm. I really want to keep my farm. Most of the neighborhood appreciates
it, they drive in with their kids and their grandkids and they pet the animals. We always
accommodate them. We do school groups and church groups and old age groups and we don't
charge anybody for anything. It's a real asset to the Hopewell Community. It really is. I would
like to keep it a farm but with the revenues. It's all about Money they said, well it's true. T -
Mobile had offered me a certain amount to lease a piece of property and this would enable me to
perhaps pay my taxes and insurance on the property. Most people I talk to, I know they
organized the opposition. I haven't organized anything, I'm just going to stand on what I think
are my property rights and the value to the community. Most of my neighbors, if you gave them
the choice of seeing Seven Gables Farm with a tower on it, it's still a farm, and it's a rural
looking farm like Milton. If you gave them a choice of whether they would like another
subdivision or a farm with a tower on it, they would say it's still a farm. I think the folks that
have spoke are in minority. I honestly believe that. Other than that, I would just like you to give
own me the same consideration as you give every other property owner. Petitions have been signed,
some of them have been signed from out of state, but I don't know what all of that is about but if
the people concerned would just simply come and voice their concerns, I think we wouldn't have
this problem. I like Seven Gables kept a farm and not another subdivision. One other thing,
when I did operate a farm and developers came in and put subdivisions, I don't recall this. I
don't remember getting a letter from the City saying would I object to another subdivision
coming in. All I remember is its their property, their rights, their right to build a home, their
right to make a living at a farm. Please consider everything and particularly my rights. Thank
you and I like everyone here by the way.
Dorothy Grayson, 13266 Marrywood Dr., Milton, GA:
Good evening. I am a recent resident of Milton. I have lived in the Atlanta, Georgia area for the
last 35 years. I have retired from IBM, retired from UPS and I have a wonderful home. I am
delighted to have an opportunity to address you. Technology is one of those things that drives us
all insane as it encroaches upon our communities and all of that and I look forward to serving the
community of Milton since I am now retired after about 50 years of corporate America. I think
that what we are listing to here is something is almost incredible. There is a technology
encroachment. And what we have to deal with is how we live with it. I moved from the
Dunwoody area and I remember on the 400 interstate looking at this thing that looked like a pine
tree that was in fact a cell phone tower. It took me probably about a year to realize that it had
been decorated as such. I think there is an opportunity here for us to compromise. I am a T -
Mobile subscriber, I have been an AT&T subscriber and as I look at this I think we need to look
.o. at the realization that technology has become an important part of our community. What I
implore T -Mobile and AT&T and anyone else, is to make it less obnoxious to our communities.
am Lets learn how to develop and realize that that little pine tree is okay and let's hang it out on 400
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 28 of 65
rwr because I didn't realize for about two years that that's what it was. I have dropped calls from T -
Mobile, so I know that we have an issue in this area, that is not foreign to me. We have to learn
to incorporate but without intruding so I implore T -Mobile and anyone else to do just that.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
Interim City Gordon:
In opposition, we have Kay Norvell.
Kay Norvell, 2305 Saddle Springs Dr., Milton, GA:
Before my time starts, I would like to ask for the extended time so that we don't have to disrupt
the next speaker. My neighborhood adjoins Seven Gables Farm, the location of this tower
application. While in the short term there are certainly more issues of more critical nature facing
every community, few will have more of a long term permanent impact and effect on the nature
and character of a community than the construction of a wireless telecommunication towers.
The effects of your decisions tonight regarding these facilities will have to be lived with for
decades, and the question is, is the nature, character, and safety of this community worth
protecting? I think it is and I think that many residents of Milton do as well. I submitted to you
over 250 signatures on a petition in opposition to these towers stating that the tower will damage
the character of the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood and affect the property
values in Milton. On this one map, it doesn't show up that well, but in red is highlighting all of
the neighborhoods that signed the petition which you can tell is probably over half of the entire
community of Milton. These weren't even people that were necessarily going to be affected or
even could see the tower; they just do not want this affecting their community that they love.
Some of the items that you need to reflex on when considering this petition. First, the proposed
structure will stand over 60 feet above surrounding trees. The tower will be placed in an open
pasture with minimal trees adjacent to it. There will be no way to hide or disguise the size of this
tower. This first picture here was taken from T -Mobile's website. I didn't conjure it up. It is
taken from their website and that is what you will see as you round the corner at that Farm. I
think it's quite ugly. I do not think that it blends in with the existing character of Milton. I
would just like to answer Mr. Bogino; I think that all of us on the petition would rather see a
subdivision go in than a tower. A subdivision would increase our property values, a tower will
not. This is a commercial structure. There are no commercial structures in our area. In fact, the
Mayor and City Council denied a request for a use permit for a landscaping business located on
Hopewell Rd. on December 13, 2007. The residents in this area bought their homes because of
the residential and/or rural view that Milton has to offer. The tower will diminish this type of
view. These are pictures both taken during the balloon test. The one on the right is the actual
balloon and I superimposed a tower on the top of it. This picture was taken from my front yard.
The horse in the foreground is mine and the house is actually the same house that T -Mobile has
put their simulated tower and you can tell that my tower sticks quite a bit more than theirs did.
So I think we need to determine who has the correct picture there. This is a picture taken on the
day of the Balloon Test and I think you will see the difference between the one on the left and
�••. the one on the right, and I don't know about you, but I would rather but the house with the
picture on the left. I think it would be worth more. The towers are out of character with the
�r.r existing community. The home surrounding the side are mostly single story and two story
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 29 of 65
.-•
a" homes. The tower would be five times the size of these homes. Second, when the city approves
the comprehensive plan for 2025, the section designating Hopewell Rd. as a scenic highway
corridor will no longer be valid. The plan states that the scenic corridors, the three north south
road quarters are identified as scenic corridors. Birmingham highway, Freemanville Rd., and
Hopewell Rd. Scenic corridors are needed to maintain the attractive appearances along the rural
pastoral segments of these roadways. A galloping horse provides the primary logo image for the
city and horses and four board fences have been adopted as part of this city's imagery.
Protecting the aesthetics and feel of these equestrian areas should be made a priority in trying to
preserve the character, history, and creative feel for the City of Milton for future inhabitants. I
don't think that 15 story commercial cell tower on a horse farm is what Milton has in mind for
protecting the aesthetics and character for future inhabitants. How can a scenic corridor maintain
an attractive pastoral appearance when the road curves and the driver are abruptly confronted
with a 15 story cell tower in an otherwise beautiful rural setting. Thirdly, the federal
communications act of 1996 only requires that cell services is available to a community. It does
not specify that services available from every character or enhance service for a particular
carrier. We need 911 services from any of the carriers, not just T -Mobile and we receive that
now. Fourthly, T -Mobile needs to prove there is a significant gap of coverage in this area. It has
been held that the TCA does not guarantee wireless service providers coverage free from small
dead spots. If other providers are able to cover the gap, there is no gap in coverage. I have
.... conducted my own studies using my own T -Mobile phone which my husband has T -Mobile
service. I have driven extensively throughout the Milton area concentrating all along Hopewell,
Cogburn Rd., through numerous neighborhoods, off of these two roads, surround areas that
would be affected by the new tower. These calls were made at different times of the day inside
and outside of the car as well as inside and outside of homes. I had no dropped calls and good
reception. I depend on my cell phone and so does my husband for our primary service. We no
longer have a land line. We're not worried that we are not going to be able to place a 911 call.
We have excellent service where we live. Again, no need for a new tower. My husband has said
that his cell service has actually improved over the past 6 months with T -Mobile. Imagine that. I
do not believe that there is a significant gap in service. I think that an actual person with a T -
Mobile service in the area documenting no dropped calls is more relevant than a study on paper
that may be skewed to misrepresent for a tower. I also have sent emails that were sent to the
council from our area support excellent service from Verizon, AT&T, and even T -Mobile
services so no need for a new tower. I have done my homework. I happen to have researched
the addresses that T -Mobile that submitted emails in support of the tower. The pink pins on the
map here highlight the emails in support of the T -Mobile tower. As you can tell, the majority of
them are in Alpharetta. The gentleman who spoke in favor of the tower saying that he had no
cell service actually lives across the street from where we are sitting right now. He would get no
benefit from the tower that is supposed to be put up here. They also live adjacent to the purple
pins. Those are existing T -Mobile towers and they live right next to them and still don't get
service. So I am thinking that if they put a tower here and say we didn't even have good service,
how would we be guaranteed that we would have good service? These people don't even get
*o* good service and they live right next to the towers. The importance of this, is if this is the only
support that they have for the towers and the people don't even live close to where this tower is
going to go, then there is no documentation needing for a new tower. Whom should you listen
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 30 of 65
rr.r to? The Homes that would be affected by the towers and say they would have excellent service
or those who are complaining about poor service and don't even live next to where the tower
would go? Lastly, T -Mobile has requested a -76. I am not an expert, but I have asked experts
and I have done research and I discovered what an applicant may want is not what is necessarily
needed for coverage and a -76 is usually used for urban areas. I don't think that Milton is an
urban area and requesting this level of coverage skews the results and shows a need when a need
does not exist. In summary, I don't know about you, but at the end of the day I want to sit
outside, relax, and rejuvenate from the day's activities. This place for me is my home and the
outdoor space surrounding me. I moved specifically to Milton from living close to Hwy. 92 in
Roswell to have the opportunity to enjoy a peaceful pastoral setting with the views unobstructed
by a 15 story commercial tower. We need to keep our residential areas as they are free from
commercial interference. A community should be protected from unnecessary visually obtrusive
facilities that can change the nature and character of our community permanently. I think that
we would all agree that our homes are our biggest investments. We want to protect that
investment. The residents in Milton are not against progress in the wireless industry. I believe
that we have shown a need that does not exist for such intrusions as a 154 foot cell tower. T -
Mobile has not shown that there is a significant gap in service. The proposed cell towers are
inconsistent with the adjacent land uses of single family residences. The loss supports local
municipalities in their effort to protect their citizens against these intrusions. A cell tower and
view from a residential area would negatively affect property values. The Councilmembers were
elected on the platform of preserving this acceptation. We are asking the city council to deny
this petition.
Mayor Lockwood:
Would the council like to make a motion to allow five more minutes on each side?
MOTION AND VOTE:
Motion by Councilmember Tart, second by Councilmember Bailey to extend the time on both
parties for an additional five minutes.
Art Worley, 130 Crabapple Way, Milton, GA:
I lived in Sunny Brooke farms for 18 years. I have lived here for 27 years. I am a realtor as well
as a resident. I am speaking as a professional. If this goes through, your values will drop. I
have done this for 31 years as far as selling homes and no one has ever come to me and said I
want to buy a house next to a retention pond, water tower, and now a cell tower. No one comes.
That is really a no brainer. My problem now as a realtor is when someone comes for me to sell
their home and it has a cell tower or water tower or something next to them. I moved here from
Buckhead when my children were 1 and 3. 27 years later and I'm still here. We love Milton for
its rural character and we want to preserve it. We all voted for you when you campaigned.
Recently or 4 or 5 years ago and whole premise was to preserve the residential equestrian rural
character of Milton. And we ask you tonight to maintain that by denying this vote. Some stats
OWN that I want to conclude with is that the applicant gave us some information about some of the
subdivisions where it did not decrease their value and I strongly disagree from that. One
subdivision specifically that I mention is called Southfield. That is on Hopewell Road, about a
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 31 of 65
Aww"
NNW mile north of Downtown Alpharetta. As you leave downtown Alpharetta and go north on
Hopewell and go about a half a mile north of the Library. Southfield is on your right and it's
tucked in the back. There is a cell tower there and I have a history of the sold properties there in
the last three years. In the last three years 11 homes have sold there. Specifically in the last
year, one home was on the market and it never sold. It is called an expired, a loser. It never
sold. During that same time when that that house was on the market and it expired, three homes
in the same subdivision sold. So that cell tower that was right behind the expired home was a
negative. I think it's going to be a negative to any home that is impacted. How much does it
decrease the value? No one really knows, but it's not positive. When they made their speech
earlier and said they found seven home occupants, there is a reason why they weren't home
owners. Some of those were rentals because the sellers probably could not sell them. We won't
really know, but that is my first suspicion when there is a nice house in the rural area and there is
no homeowner. If there is a renter that is because the seller probably had a challenging time
selling that home. Ill end with that, but I would like for this to be denied. I am sorry. It is a
beautiful property, I lived in Sunny Brooke Farms for 18 years in three different properties and
we loved your farm and we still do. Sorry, I have to reject this. Thank you.
James Pace, 2320 Saddle Springs Dr., Milton, GA:
I live adjacent to the property where the tower will be located. A general comment, a quick
Google search indicated cell tower ranges were typically 5 to 25 miles in hilly areas, and 30-45
�. miles in flat areas. In suburban areas, the amount of usage can dictate the range and that can be
as short as two miles. I would propose that the City enacted a Moratorium on construction of
i... new towers to allow zoning rule changes to only allow towers on public, commercial, or
industrial land. Ordinance should also mandate that new towers are not built until it is
demonstrated that no existing towers or structures such as water towers.....there are presently 27
towers within a 4 mile radius from the intersection of Hopewell and Cogbum. The application
indicated a search area radius of 1842 feet which proves that if you make a search area small
enough you won't find a tower in which to co -locate. For our future I would propose that if
anyone has any problems with cell reception, boosters are available for 129 dollars on the
internet and finally I would say that these towers will become obsolete and no one knows, but the
cost for the tower removal should be provided to the City of Milton by the cell tower owner to
protect the taxpayer from future removal cost.
Mayor Lockwood:
Is there anyone else that would like to speak?
Interim City Clerk Gordon:
We have two more cards. One is Joan Borzilleri. She would not like to speak but she lives at 540
Kings County Court in Milton, GA. That is all we have.
Mayor Lockwood:
*o" Anyone in support has an additional five minutes to speak.
fta Harris Simpson, 2368 Academy Ct., Atlanta, GA:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 32 of 65
I have been to a good number of these meetings over the last 15 years and value is almost always
an issue. I don't know that in all of the time that I have done this work I have ever had the
occasion to meet another appraiser who comes to a meeting with real data and real research to
show for the opposition that these towers impact value. I have always heard people speak about
it, but I have not seen anyone really produce real data. Sometimes there is hearsay data or there
is piecemeal data but appraisers aren't allowed to speak to the issue of value without doing
research to support it. I tell my wife this. She is married to me so don't to talk to people about
property values because it may get me in trouble too. You just don't do it. I think it's
unfortunate that people are scared by the notion of a tower. Candidly, it is just a utility pole that
is replacing telephone lines and I think it's unfortunate that the people get scared by
exaggerations about property values when the research I have done over the years has come out
the same. Even when I don't think it's going to come out the same. I have actually driven into
situations and looked at towers that are much more offensive than the ones you are looking at
tonight and thought to myself that this is going to be the one that is going to impact property
values. And I have had people just like this say to me, we couldn't stop it. It got built and it was
out of our control and we are upset and we just wanted for the inevitable to happen but then it
didn't happen. Where they literally built a tower next to a subdivision that was under
construction. Half sold out, they finished the subdivision, and then sold the other half of the
houses and they all sold for the same price, they all appreciated over the next 5 years, and people
OWN that I interviewed that bought homes in there, I would say tell me about this tower. I'm not
kidding when I had two people in a row ask me, "what tower?" The literally hadn't noticed this
thing next to their subdivision. That is not true for everybody, but it has happened and it has
happened in my research. I am not apprehensive about my conclusion on this and the data of
course is in the record for you to see, but I would like to just point out that there is always
opposing opinions about that value and about the impact of these towers but there is rarely any
real data or research or an analysis to support those opinions. Thanks.
Dorothy Grayson, 13266 Marrywood Dr., Milton, GA:
I would like to speak one more time and while I understand how T -Mobile wants to place the
tower, I will suggest to you once and for a all that it does have impact to property values very
much as electrical lines and all of those kinds of things. So what I think what we need to be
trying to understand here and in the emphasis that we need to deal with electronics and
technology and all we need to do, is you have to come up with a way to minimize the impact to
our communities and putting these 150 foot towers up that are these huge steal monuments, that
does not represent what we need. So, once again, while we may have a few blank spots when I
go to Canada, when I go wherever, it is not reason enough for us to allow the unimpeded
construction of huge towers without looking as the esthetics if our communities and I think that
is most critical to us. I love technology and I think it's most important and I want to be able to
connect wherever I can. It is still a very significant issue to our property owners as much as we
don't want those electrical power lines....
OPM Mayor Lockwood:
I am sorry to interrupt, can I clarify, are you speaking in support or opposition?
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 33 of 65
err.. Dorothy Grayson:
I am speaking in opposition right now because I don't believe in unimpeded.... You know I love
to have the kind of arena where we all come together but when we can't I have to be on behalf of
the homeowners and what's good for our community....
Mayor Lockwood:
With all due respect this is actually the applicant's time for approval....
Dorothy Grayson:
That's wonderful for the applicant but I'm speaking in opposition right now and I appreciate that
and thank you very much because when you get to 65 years of age you can speak on behalf of
whatever you want but right now I have heard all that I want to hear in terms of building these
towers and all of that and impeding our ... and I've taken some homeowners position. Thank you.
Mayor Lockwood:
For the record, we are going to be adding time back to the support side.
City Manager Lagerbloom:
You have 2 minutes and 42 seconds Mayor.
WWR Ms. Marquise Lewis:
I wanted to address some of the issues that were raised regarding the signal levels in the area and
' they require signal levels and I wanted to reemphasize that we do agree with the GTRS
affirmation that -76 is the appropriate in building coverage level to use in this situation. One of
the constituents in the area mentioned that -72 was an urban so I want to reemphasize that -76 is
the appropriate coverage level that we used to design for a suburban area. We have different
levels that we use for urban that are appropriate and that is a -72 but that is not what we design
for here. So we are designing for -76 and just like the GTRS study said, there are areas and
pockets where residents will be able to get coverage in their home, but also as that study stated
there are areas where there are gaps in coverage and a gap in coverage when you're trying to
move from point A to point B is very important from a customer standpoint. So if you're driving
in the car on your phone, you need to be able to drive from your origin to your destination. We
have gaps in coverage on major thoroughfares and that interruption is very disturbing to a
customer and if you're trying to make a 911 call and the call drops then that is a very significant
occurrence. So that is something that we are trying to prevent with this design. Someone also
mentioned the ability for a cell tower to reach out or propagate for 25 miles and when you have a
half watt cell phone that is also trying to communicate with that tower, there is a limitation to
that and you're not going to be able to send a signal from a half watt cell phone to a tower that is
25 miles away so that is irrelevant as far as a tower being able to propagate for 25 miles because
a cell phone cannot. We are limited within a very small radius and that is how we design our
system. Finally, I think that the signal booster argument was brought up again and I just wanted
W to reemphasize that if you're boosting the signal, you're boosting everything within that band. If
the signal is so low that its static and you hear noise, then you're also going to boost that noise
a" and you're not going to be able to get a signal that is able to be decoded by your phone or you're
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 34 of 65
%NO. not going to be able to get quality audio and carry on a conversation and carry on a conversation
with someone on the other end of the line. Those are the things that I wanted to point out and
want to turn it over to anyone else.
Mayor Lockwood:
At this point, I would like to close this public hearing on this case and open it up to any questions
or comments from council or from staff.
Councilmember Longoria:
Ms. Lewis, I have a couple of questions really quickly for you. A couple of our residents or
citizens brought up the idea that AT&T and Verizon don't seem to be having the same kinds of
problems that T -Mobile is claiming here and having gotten a science degree out of college I
know enough about this to be dangerous but could you clarify for me that the frequency that T -
Mobile uses is a different frequency from the other carries for obvious reasons, you guys don't
share frequencies or spectrums or anything like that, is that correct?
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
Correct. Every carrier licenses its own private frequency ban from the FCC. Carriers like
AT&T and Verizon do have access to lower frequencies which propagate at further distances.
So at any given point given the radiation from the same tower, it's going to have a stronger point
to point value so there is a possibility in some cases that they will be able to provide coverage or
stronger coverage in areas where T -Mobile's coverage may not be as strong, for example we
have PCS frequencies throughout our system and those are 1900 megahertz frequencies that I am
referring to so the loss of those frequencies is going to be at a higher rate so that is true.
Councilmember Longoria:
So just because you may be getting AT&T service has no bearing on whether or not you can get
T -Mobile?
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
Absolutely not. I am here because I am trying to provide T -Mobile service to the customers, not
AT&T service.
Councilmember Longoria:
Okay, I just wanted to be clear on that, thank you Ms. Lewis.
Councilmember Tart:
I have two questions. As far as gaps in coverage, are you stating in your report that T -Mobile
has gaps in coverage or that the signal isn't as strong as you would like it to be for T -Mobile.
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
When I refer to a gap in coverage, I am referring to an area where a customer can either not
make or maintain a call in that area, so yes I am referring to gaps in coverage at any given time.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 35 of 65
There may be a signal level, it just may be too low to carry a call. There is signal, but it is not
adequate signal to have a conversation.
Councilmember Tart:
Can you verify if other cell phone providers have coverage in that area that you want to have this
cell tower?
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
I cannot. I can only speak for T -Mobile.
Councilmember Lusk:
Ms. Lewis, I would like to carry it one step further. You mentioned gaps in service and you also
have testimonial from some of your subscribers or several of your subscribers that claim that
they do have gaps in service or dropped calls. Have you actually surveyed subscribers in that
propagation area that are having those problems or deficiencies? I have seen the presentation
board and the folks in Saddle Springs that indicate most of the emails that have come in that's in
support of this cell tower are residents outside of this area, can you speak to that?
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
PMR Absolutely, T -Mobile has a continuous feedback system from its subscribers. Even if there is not
necessarily an active survey the way that we derive or we arrive at areas where we want to
two improve our coverage or add a wireless facility is based on a large part on customer feedback.
So, we track customer complaints, trouble tickets, and sometimes it's going to come from
residents in that area. So when a customer calls in and says they're having trouble getting
coverage, I just dropped a call, they may want a credit or something but we track all of that. So
we are able to look at all of that and map that based on where that subscriber lives or also where
they are calling in the complaint from. So sometimes it may be from T -Mobile subscribers that
are driving through the area and they are having trouble on some of the major thoroughfares or
carrying calls in their vehicles but we have had enough feedback from our customers to know
that there is a significant customer demand for better coverage in that area and it would come
from both residents and people who drive though the area. So absolutely, we have plenty of
feedback to substantiate that in that actually was the emphasis for the design of this facility.
Councilmember Lusk:
Of all of those emails that have come through in support, how many of those are represented by
the actual complaints that you have gotten?
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
Let me make sure that I understand your question, are you asking have those particular people
called and complained to T -Mobile?
mom Councilmember Lusk:
I'm not sure how many emails in support, I haven't seen where those emails originated from that
VMW are in the propagation area that you're talking about.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 36 of 65
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
I'm not sure either, I didn't map those out. I do know from our experience and from dealing
with customers and customer complaints, if a customer calls and complains even if he is outside
of that particular search area, a customer generally calls and complains about a general area. So
we know that there is a large area of deficiency in Milton so I can't tell you exactly where each
one of those customers resides or where they fall on that map, but I can tell you that if they walk
outside of their home and they drive down the street through any of these areas where we have
designed a facility, and they drop a call that is going to affect their perception of the area so they
may go home and make a call and say hey I'm having trouble in the area and it doesn't
necessarily always mean that they are having trouble at their home, a customer will call in and
say hey, every time I drive around the corner to the Wal-Mart I get trouble. So it's not always
originating from their home, it's just a lot of times its representative of their perception of the
general area that they're living and working in.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Just an extension of Councilmember Lusk's question, because I think that I may still be a little
bit unclear, just as a matter of record, did T -Mobile submit any formal reports regarding
significant gaps and did you delineate between the significant gaps as related to vehicular
activity in cellular coverage and/or the coverage that's tied specifically to a resident of the area
either as Councilmember Lusk noted in the propagation area or for any of those who may have
submitted a complaint that is a subset of what you indicating as a significant gap?
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
Well we didn't submit specific customer complaints; I do know that, that's actually information
that would put us at a competitive disadvantage, so we generally don't make specific customer
complaints public. We did submit the required documents and that is an Affidavit explaining the
need and also the coverage maps that show the need in the area and also the improvement in the
area that we would get if we were to have the wireless facility. So as far as vehicular traffic, I'm
not sure we submitted that, I don't think we did, but that's public information and I don't think
that was required either as part of the application.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Okay I would like to go just beyond that which might have been required but as evidence to
support the claim that there might be a gap so I'm just wondering if that had been submitted.
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
Well our coverage maps and our belief are substantiation that there is a gap because they are
derived from an industry accepted tools similar to the one that your consultant firm has used as
well, so that is the industry standard in showing coverage levels from a wireless facility. We did
submit those and we felt like those substantiated the need adequately.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 37 of 65
Just to clarify, Community Development Director Mrs. Tully, do we have anything that was
submitted that would lineate between call issues as people drive through versus as evidence from
T -Mobile.
Motion: Councilmember Alan Tart moved to deny Agenda Item No. 10-1097 based upon
information in the record, the Community Development file, and the public hearings,
information provided by Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, L.L.C., and comments for the
record this evening from citizens and affected constituents, and the criteria and guidelines in the
Milton zoning code. I move that this Facility Use Permit, U09-04 be DENIED for the following,
non- exhausted set of reasons:
1. Due to failure by the applicant to submit a certified statement that the structure will meet
the applicable design standards for wind loads as required by section 19.4.7 of the Milton
zoning code and as the applicant was further instructed at the planning commission. The
applicant was advised at the planning commission hearing to have such data submitted to
the City by April 9, 2010. As of today's date, the application has not submitted such
required data.
2. The proposed tower is inconsistent with the adjacent land use as a single family residence
on large agricultural parcels and incompatible based on the location of the tower to
som adjacent residential structures.
ift" 3. The proposed cell tower is inconsistent with the surrounding scale, transition of densities,
and does not protect the existing rural character of Milton.
4. For all of those reasons supporting denial set forth in the March 22, 2010 Georgia Tax
and Regulatory Solutions LLC., letter to the City of Milton, planning of the development
division, which is incorporated by reference into this motion and attached as Exhibit A.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion to deny passed
unanimously (7-0).
3. U09-05 — 13302 New Providence Road by T -Mobile South. LLC to obtain a use permit
on AG -I (Agricultural) zoned property for a 150 foot tall monopole cell tower with an
additional 4 foot lightning rod for a total of 154 feet (Article 19.4.7).
(Agenda Item No. 1.0-1098)
(First Presentation on April 12, 2010)
(Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director)
Community Development Director, Lynn Tully:
This is by far the largest site in our zoning hearings tonight, it is a 51.59 acre track of
..e agriculturally zoned land. It is located on the Southwest side of New Providence Rd. The
subject site is developed by a single family residence and a 100ft wide power easement owned
o" by Oglethorpe Power. It is located within the residential one unit or less per acre land use
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 38 of 65
.r designation on the focus Fulton 20/25 comprehensive plan which is in place at the time of the
applicant submittal. In considering this permit, the council is to include the following
considerations that staff has further commented on those. The first whether the proposed use is
consistent with the comprehensive land use plan and/or economic development revitalization
plan adopted by the Mayor and City Council. It is staff's opinion that the proposed monopole
cell tower is inconsistent with the intent of following policies for the Focus Fulton 20/25
Comprehensive Plan. To encourage development consistent with the surrounding scale,
transition of densities, and uses and comprehensive plan policies were appropriate and the
protection of the existing rural character of Northwest Fulton. In addition, considering
compatibility with land uses and zoning districts in the vicinity of the property for which the
permit is proposed. The proposed 150 foot monopole cell tower with a 4 foot lighting rod is
inconsistent with the adjacent land uses of single family residences of large agricultural parcels
and associated agricultural uses such as barns and riding rings. In addition, whether the
proposed use may violate local, state, and/or federal statues or ordinances regarding the
regulation in governing of land development. It is staff's opinion that this proposal and permit is
requested does not violate local, state, and or federal ordinances or regulations governing land
development. Whether the proposed use will have an effect on the traffic flow, vehicular, and
pedestrian circulation adjoining on adjoining streets. Staff is under the opinion that this will not
impact the traffic flow on any adjoining streets. Again, parking will not be an impact based on
won the surrounding area due to the large size of the parcel and the location of the area away from
New Providence Road and located in the middle of the parcel. It regards to open space, the
parcel is approximately 51 acres which does provide a large area of open space outside of the
` least area. Referencing protective screening, staff does recommend that the applicant provide a
20 foot landscape strip in lieu of the required 10 foot landscape strip planted to buffer standard to
provide additional screening of the tower and associated facilities. This has been reflected in the
recommended conditions. Regarding hour and manner of operation, again in the recommended
conditions site maintenance is to be completed between the hours of 8:30am and 5:30pm
Monday through Friday except for in cases of emergency. In regards to streetscape lighting, the
applicant has not indicated any streetscape lighting, however, there is a security light shown on
the plans that is to be utilized for maintenance of the area only and must comply with the
Northwest overlay district and/or night sky ordinance. Ingress and egress to the property as
proposed to be accessed from the existing driveway off of New Providence Road. Staff has
provided a site plan analysis and the appropriate public meetings have been conducted including
the design review board meeting and public participation plans and reports. Staff's
recommendation is for DENIAL of U09-05. In staff's opinion, the proposed cell tower is
inconsistent with the adjacent land uses of single family residences on large agricultural parcels
and incompatible based on the location of the tower to adjacent residential structures. In
addition, the proposed cell tower is inconsistent with the surrounding scale, transition of
densities, and does not protect the existing rural character of Milton and therefore staff does
recommend DENIAL. On March 23, 2010 the planning commission did hold a hearing and
make a recommendation of DENIAL unanimously to the City Council regarding this request.
*■* Mr. David R. Gilley of Georgia Tax and Regulatory Solutions did present his findings included
in those findings is the following that the application be approved with the following conditions:
0
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 39 of 65
1. That the applicant submits a certification from a registered engineer that the structure will
meet the applicable design standards for wind loads and construction drawings signed
and sealed by a licensed structural engineer with its building permit application.
2. Tower will be built as a stealth design and shall be a maximum height of 100 feet.
The planning commission did include discussion regarding the following issues:
1. The possibility of lowering the height of the tower. The applicant did not agree to lower
the height of the tower until a radiofrequency study is conducted at the height.
2. The height of the adjacent power lines which are approximately 60-70 feet high. The
applicant did state that at that height, the tower would not be high enough for co -location
with the power poles within the easement.
3. There was discussion of stealth structures and if they were available for the site. The
applicant did state that it would depend upon the needed height for access and for the
trees surrounding.
4. Discussion was concluded regarding a property value study using properties that were
sold several years ago.
5. The planning commission did request documentation of discussions with Georgia Power
regarding the potential for co -location on existing utility poles. I would like to ask that
the council consider the following that the planning commission did request additional
information regarding the wind loads and structure by a structural engineer by April 9th at
the close of the business for submission to the Milton City Council. That material has not
been submitted as of this date.
Carlos Mucha, 3500 Lennox Rd. Suite 760 Atlanta, GA:
I am Carlos Mucha with Georgia Tax and Regulatory Solutions. I would like to read into the
record our March 22, 2010 report.
Application for Use Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 2880 Mountain Road,
Milton, GA, Milton, GA 30004.
We have reviewed the application as requested. The application was submitted
before the new telecommunications ordinance was adopted. As a result, this analysis is
conducted in accordance with the following sections of the Milton Zoning Ordinance
provided by your office: Section 19.2.4, Use Permit Considerations (as amended
02/07/96); Section 19.2.5, Additional Restrictions; and Section 19.4.7, Antenna Tower to
ow" Exceed District Height (as amended 05/17/06). Accordingly, we offer the following
review and recommendation.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 40 of 65
Section 19.2.4 Analysis
Section 19.2.4 provides criteria for the review of use permits. The first inquiry is
whether the proposed Facility is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and/or Economic Development Revitalization plans adopted by the Board of
Commissioners. The Comprehensive Plan does not directly address recommended
locations of telecommunications towers. However, it does recommend that the City
provide adequate services for its citizens, which would include providing adequate
coverage for emergency 911 calls. The Applicant states that providing emergency 911
coverage is a justification for the tower at this location. The Property is zoned
Agricultural, which is compatible with the Property's land use designation of one (1) unit
per acre. Telecommunications towers are a permitted use in the Agricultural zoning
district designation.
A thorough review of both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) registration databases indicate that there are
several towers within two miles of the proposed location. According to the information
and network coverage maps provided, the Applicant already has antennas at these
locations. In spite of that fact, according to the propagation maps, the radio frequency
engineers' report, and our own analysis, it does appear that coverage is lacking for this
geographic service area. A signal strength of -86 dBm will provide reliable in -vehicle
coverage for individuals travelling through the area. T -Mobile's target signal strength is -
Now 76 dBm. This level of signal strength will provide reliable service within residential
buildings. Field tests were performed in the subject area and a coverage level of -76dBm
was not achieved throughout the vicinity. Therefore, the Applicant has demonstrated that
there is poor coverage in this geographic service area.
The Property is a wooded lot that will provide some natural screening for the
tower's accessory structures. In addition, the trees should provide some screening of the
tower itself. The Applicant proposes to use an existing driveway as access, which will
further minimize the amount of trees that would need to be cut down to accommodate the
proposed tower.
However, the Applicant indicates it identified several possible alternate locations.
One property is located to the east of Hopewell Road and is referred to as the Chary
Property in the application. This property is part of an existing golf course and is large
enough to enable a tower to be placed further from neighboring residential properties and
roadways. In addition, the existing tree coverage would appear to provide better
screening. The Applicant states that the Chary property was targeted but that the general
manager of the course would not discuss the possibility of placing a wireless facility on
the parcel. Therefore, the use proposed by the Applicant is more compatible with the
land use and zoning district on the Chary Property than the proposed Property.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 41 of 65
The Applicant proposes to place a 149 -foot tower on the Property. A tower of
this height will clearly be visible from nearby properties and public rights-of-way, as it
will extend at least sixty feet above the existing tree line. Applicant has provided photos
and photo simulations from a balloon test that show the tower will be clearly visible
above the tree line (See photo -simulations marked Photo Sim Supplemental 1, 2, and 3).
This could have an adverse impact on adjacent and neighboring properties. Therefore,
the height proposed by the Applicant is not compatible with the land use and zoning
districts in the vicinity of the Property. We recommend that the height be reduced to a
maximum of 100 feet and that the tower be disguised as a pine tree or provide another
stealth design to minimize its visual impact. Based on the radio frequency analysis, a
reduction in height will not prohibit cell coverage in the area. Near the proposed tower
site, the Applicant can already provide "on street" coverage in some areas and "in -vehicle
coverage" in others. Although a reduction in height may not provide the signal strength
desired by the Applicant, it will greatly improve coverage in the area.
The proposed use appears to be in compliance with local, state and federal law
related to communication tower use. However, a more thorough review will need to be
conducted at the time a building permit is issued to ensure the proposal meets all building
code requirements. The application includes stamped engineering drawings from Walker
Engineering. However, the notes indicate Walker Engineering accepts no responsibility
for the suitability of the tower to accept proposed loads. Section 19.4.7 requires
applications for a telecommunication facility to include a certification from a registered
engineer that the structure will meet the applicable design standards for wind loads. The
Applicant did not submit this certification with the application. As a condition for the use
permit, Applicant should be required to submit construction drawings signed and sealed
by a licensed structural engineer with its building permit application.
The cell tower and associated structures are by nature unmanned and only require
occasional maintenance trips to the facility. Due to the lack of vehicular traffic on a daily
basis the new cell tower will not impose any negative impact on traffic flow nor vehicular
and pedestrian traffic in the immediate area. In addition, the need for parking spaces will
be minimal. One or two spaces are more than adequate and space is provided on the
outside of the perimeter fencing for vehicles to park while visiting the facility.
This particular facility will encompass a 2,025 square foot lease area. An existing
gravel drive will be used for most of the length of the access from Mountain Road. A
new twelve (12) foot wide gravel drive will be constructed for the remainder of the
access. The remainder of the Property is grassed and wooded.
Adequate protective screening will be provided. The Applicant will construct a
,R." six (6) foot high fence around the new facility along with nineteen (19) Leyland cypress
trees. The new cell tower is an unmanned facility and will only require periodical
,.w maintenance trips. As a result, hours and manner of operation should not impact adjacent
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 42 of 65
property owners. The tower will have no outside lighting on the buildings nor will the
new monopole have lighting. The FAA only requires towers that are 200 feet or higher
to be lighted. A twelve (12) foot wide gravel drive is being provided from Mountain
Road to the new facility that will allow vehicles to travel to and from the site.
Section 19.4.7 Analysis
Sec. 19.4.7 of the code provides additional supplemental requirements for antenna
towers that will exceed the district's height limits. Towers must be set back a distance
equal to one and one-half times the height of the tower adjacent to residential and/or AG-
I zoned property. The proposed height of the tower is 149 feet so the required setback
distance would be a minimum of 223.5 feet. According to the application documents (see
construction drawings labeled "Sheet 3 of 3"), the closest adjacent home is approximately
304 feet to the east and the closest adjacent property line is approximately 229 feet to the
northeast.
The tower and associated facilities shall be enclosed by a six (6) foot fence and
will be equipped with an appropriate anti -climbing device. A ten (10) foot wide
landscape strip will surround the facility and be located outside the required fence and
Wom nineteen (19) Leyland cypress trees are being planted within the landscape strip.
The tower will not be lighted. The FAA requires towers to be lighted if they are
200 feet in height or more. According to the FCC registration database there are no
existing towers located within one-half mile of the new proposed tower. As a result, the
proposed tower meets the distance requirements. In addition, as a telecommunication
tower not requiring FAA painting or marking it will have a galvanized finish or will be
painted a dull blue, gray, or black finish.
The tower must comply with applicable state and local statutes and ordinances,
including, but not limited to, building and safety codes. As stated earlier, as a condition
for the use permit, Applicant should be required to submit construction drawings signed
and sealed by a licensed structural engineer with its building permit application.
The Applicant has stated that the tower will not be used for advertising purposes
and will not contain any signs for the purpose of advertising. The Applicant has designed
the tower to allow two (2) additional co -locations for other coverage providers without
any increase in height.
Finally, the proposed tower will not be located in 100 -year flood plain or
delineated wetlands per the City of Milton Flood Plain Map dated October 9, 2009.
Recommendation
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 43 of 65
UK" Our analysis indicates that wireless coverage does not meet the level desired by
the Applicant in this area, but that there is no coverage gap. Therefore the Applicant is
not being prohibited from providing coverage, but desires to improve its level of
coverage. A review of the topography of nearby properties indicates that there are
properties that would provide better screening of the tower and therefore minimize its
adverse aesthetic impact. Accordingly, we recommend that this Application be denied.
Signed by David R. Gilley also of Georgia
Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we have any questions for Carlos Mucha before we open the floor for public comment? I just
have one question. Could you explain why your firm has recommended approval with
conditions on this versus the other two?
Carlos Mucha:
Their best place to put an antenna in this ring is on the existing power lines that are running
through the ring. I talked to the power company. They're not going to allow it. So, at that point,
putting a tower next to the existing pole aesthetically is probably going to be the smallest impact
on the area possible. That's why we recommend we didn't see a better alternative.
Councilmember Thurman:
I have one question and I'm not sure who the question is actually for, either you or staff. Staff
has said that it was incompatible with the adjacent uses specifically saying that it will be believed
to be adjacent from Oglethorpe power easement which is a compatible use. I guess I'm a little
confused because is it incompatible or is it compatible?
Lynn Tully:
From our staffs point of view, it's incompatible with the adjacent uses with regards to the
neighborhood as a whole. Particularly, those adjoining with a large acre agricultural uses. We
do understand that there is a power line easement that runs through this property that does
present a bit of a issue and may raise some questions as far as whether or not it would be
compatible or if that was the only use on the property but because there are the other residential
uses adjoining on the property as well as residential uses on the other adjoining properties, I
think that it is still incompatible in Staff's opinion.
Councilmember Thurman:
Is there any property then that is zoned AG -1 where it is allowed that they would be considered
compatible?
Lynn Tully:
Those areas which again didn't include any residential uses surrounding or on the property.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 44 of 65
Councilmember Thurman:
Well that's AG -1. It's going to be residential use.
Lynn Tully:
In most cases, yes. Unless it were vacant.
Councilmember Lusk:
Mr. Mucha, looking at the site plan and also detailed plans C3.4 were just a detail of the least
area. It appears that the hole is to be located approximately in the center of that lease area 40
feet inside of the fence line. It looks like there is a 10 foot buffer between that fence and
between the easement.
Carlos Mucha:
That is something that I would have to defer to staff.
Councilmember Lusk:
What I'm getting here, and I'm looking at the site plan, is the location of the monopole or
proposed monopole to the existing transmission towers appears it's about 50 feet off of the
easement line and centered between two series of towers out there.
own" Carlos Mucha:
Yes, it is. It's an easement and I believe it is between two existing poles.
Councilmember Lusk:
Did you visit the sites yourself?
Carlos Mucha:
I did.
Councilmember Lusk:
How dense is the wooded area that this is going to be located in?
Carlos Mucha:
Well, that is a good question because I was there in the winter and it was dense but it
wasn't .... I'm sure if I were there now it would be much denser. I mean it is wooded, and it's not
a field and it's definitely a wooded area.
Councilmember Hewitt:
I'm not sure if this is a fair question to ask so if you can't answer it, don't. Do you think your
company's recommendation would have been any different if there weren't those transmission
lines going through it?
Carlos Mucha:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 45 of 65
That is a good hypothetical because probably it very well may be. I would say yes. When you
see a line of poles running through them....
Councilmember Hewitt:
In your opinion, does it lessen the impact of the....
Carlos Mucha:
Absolutely. There is a line of poles running up and down the power easement. I think it does
make a big impact.
Mayor Lockwood:
Can I ask question two, what is a stealth design or a pole versus the power lines, what is the
average person going to see in the difference?
Carlos Mucha:
They're not. Most people won't even notice it. The idea of a stealth pole is that it would look
like a tree. I don't know if they have stealth poles that look like power transformers but the idea
is that people driving by wouldn't know that the cell tower is there.
Mayor Lockwood:
Do we know the height of the utility poles would be there now if the transition lines weren't
there?
Carlos Mucha:
I don't know if it's the lines are at 60 feet. I don't know what the top of the tower is and I don't
have that, I'm sorry.
Councilmember Tart:
I am having a hard time discerning GTRS's recommendation for this application versus the
others and specifically that you guys are recommending approval of this with some conditions. I
do note in your report though that you say in addition, some areas to the east of the proposed site
have gaps in coverage. That is different from the reports from the other two sites. And that there
are some gaps in coverage where the others just didn't reach the right levels that T -Mobile
wanted. My question to you has to do with page two of your report. You are also
recommending that the height be reduced to a maximum of 100 feet and the tower be described
as a pine tree or other stealth design, in keeping with that 100 feet and if we were to reduce it to
100 feet, would that remedy the gaps in coverage to the east of the site that you're talking about?
Carlos Mucha:
Yes. In our opinion it would. Again, I can't speak for T- Mobile, but we looked at by lowering
the height they could still get the coverage needs that they have and it wouldn't be above the tree
line visible from the neighborhood. So it could cover their whole area.
Mayor Lockwood:
ftoo Okay, I want to open this up to public comment in support starting with the applicant.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 46 of 65
Shawn Blassingill, 205 Wild Flower Ln., Canton, GA:
Good evening Mayor and Council. I think that we have heard a lot of things that are in support
of our application here in this particular location. Again, it is another agricultural parcel. This is
the largest one, over 51 acres of land. The main topic of discussion has been the existing power
lines on this one. Those structures are the power company's Oglethorpe Power. It's a 100 foot
wide power easement. The structures are actually owned by Georgia Transmission Corporation.
As was stated by GTRS, they do not allow co -locations on their structures. Our proposed lease
area is near those power lines. It is basically bisects that easement and the power lines are
directly north of our proposed lease area. We felt like this was an advantage for us. When we talk
about the aesthetics of blending into the community, we still pose the same colors of those
existing power poles. Yes, they will be of a little more height but they blend into that particular
area along with the existing trees that would help screen this a little further. This is another one
where we are using an existing gravel access road to go to our proposed area. We will actually
improve that gravel road. It actually has some improvement needs and we will be doing that if
we are approved on this particular application. There are proposed specimen trees on our
proposed lease area and out of all of the other applications, this one has the furthest distance or
separation from residential structures and property lines. We feel that again that we have a great
application here. The discussion of making it a monopine is specifically for this application
doesn't really make sense for us because of the existing power poles. I think that the monopine
would stand out a lot more with the background of the existing power poles. The discussion of
two lowering the height to 100 feet, GTRS gave us a condition of lowering our height, but they have
not given any data to support what type of level of coverage that we would get from that. It is
only about the aesthetics and each application or recommendation or report that they have done
with these applications has stated that we should lower the height without any backup data as to
what kind of coverage would we get? All we hear is that there would be some improvement of
coverage. That may be correct, I could probably put up some 20 feet and get another DB
somewhere but that is not going to help our customers. We are trying to sustain causing this
particular instance. So again we feel like we have a great application. It has also been brought
up that from the staff recommendations in the planning commission's denial that it is not
compatible with the surrounding areas, the surrounding agricultural parcels. This application as
well as the other applications were all agricultural parcels and if it's compatible with an
adjoining agricultural parcel then I have to question why agricultural parcels are even allowing
wireless facilities in the ordinance of the City of Milton. To me that is a direct conflict. Again,
we are asking for approval. Not only because we meet the requirements of the City of Milton
ordinance but we believe that this one is on a very large parcel which helps with screening,
GTRS has stated that there are no other alternatives that will provide better screening for this
even on the previous two applications they recommended parcels that did have better screening
but I did come back and explain and we talked to those property owners and they weren't willing
to lease space. While we all may agree that maybe some of the parcels were better screening, it's
not available to us. So the parcels we have chosen are the best parcels with the best screening
*� because they had landlords that were willing to lease to T -Mobile. Also, again I'm just asking
for approval based on the facts of our application based on these studies particularly of this one
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 47 of 65
ftow and that we have met all of the requirements and I would like to save the rest of the time for
rebuttal and to answer questions.
0
Interim City Clerk:
We do have one person that does not wish to speak, Joan Borzilleri, 540 Kings County Court,
Milton, GA and is in opposition.
We do have an individual that would have liked to speak, Kenneth Hardin, but he is not here at
the moment.
Next we have Charles Feyt.
Charles Feyt, 13510 Providence Lake, Dr., Milton, GA:
Thank you Mr. Mayor and good evening Council. I appreciate the opportunity to talk in
reference to the petition that was filed by Providence Lake Homeowners Association that I am
hoping that the Council all received and read dated April 25th signed by the majority of
Homeowners in Providence Lake. I would like to mirror our agreement without opening
presentation of the very first part of the evening by John Albers who cited several alternative
technologies that are available and will be coming and to be able to provide solutions for
telecommunications providers. Providence Lake is also in a unique situation. We realize that
there are power lines where there has been an area cleared. It is a concern to us particularly if
the consultants are recommending some modified approval if they are unaware of even the
height of the existing power lines. What T -Mobile is proposing puts it at 150 feet over the
existing power lines which were approximately 70 feet. We feel that will have a big impact on
our community which is already suffering from some additional impacts. The location of the
Chadwick Landfill has impacted our property values. The impact of the silt on Providence Lake
that has been coming in from the recent storms of which a large amount of the silt came from the
proposed location property and the silt came into the lake and we are actually having our
engineers look at that impact now. So Providence Lake already has had a couple of negative
impacts on our home values. This would be yet a third significant impact on Providence Lake
and we feel that we have had enough at this point. I think that we have heard quite a lot tonight
that sort of questions the accuracy and the real need and in the real need of T -Mobile's actual
intent here and that to me is one of the most concerning issues that I have heard. We have had
significant challenges with regards to the kind of customer service that they feel is in demand or
needed for Milton. We just haven't heard the evidence stating that fact and having the council
consider a long term impact on a community of this type. So the true intent appears that T -
mobile is to support a business case and building assets of an additional infrastructure for future
sale, not in serving Milton. A very small number of T -Mobile users that from all of the
information and facts that I've heard are not substantiated by people that live within Milton and
near the cell tower that could in theory benefit by implementing another cell tower. There are
alternative technologies that are coming. I think it would be a great liability that we would be
burdened to have this application allowed. Certainly the addition of a 150 foot cell tower will
have a negative impact on our community that has already had several negative impacts on its
home values and I feel it can't handle anything further. To me, this decision should be easy. I
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 48 of 65
ftwo understand that perhaps the council wants to consider T -Mobile. You have had two denials at
this point. But even as staff had found and recommended, this is not inconsistent with their
findings. They have to agree with the staff s findings in this case that it would have negative
impact and is inconsistent and incompatible with the use of the area and the desire that had been
brought up in our petition of potential health impacts that are also still being questioned.
Overseas right now there are multiple law suits regarding medical findings from the impact of
cell towers. It is almost a kin to the beginning of when cigarettes came out and the tobacco
companies denied that there was any impact. We are just behind the curve on this. The rest of
the world is way ahead of this in technology and documenting medical impact that they're
finding in research. With the changes in technology, this kind of addition doesn't serve the very
small amounts of T -Mobile customers that may or may not benefit by this and certainly the
alternatives and the technology that is going to be available to these residents will make this kind
of technology obsolete. Again, most concerning to me is the real intent that T- Mobile has here.
I believe it is more for the corporate interests than any real use or benefit by the citizens of
Milton that are not already being served adequately and don't have even personal or home
remedies to increase self coverage should they elect to stay with T -Mobile. I would ask that the
council not make an exception in this case. That they stay consistent with the previous findings
and decisions that you made, and that single Providence Lake is not an exceptions. It will clearly
have all of the impacts that were stated in the previous presentation. I did want to make sure that
the petition letter was received by Council from Providence Lake.
ow City Attorney Ken Jarrard:
' Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, in respect for the speaker I would ask advise the
Council not to give any consideration to heath affects related to the towers on the basis of this
decision.
Interim City Clerk:
We have Tom Schmidt who tuned in a card in support.
Tom Schmidt, 13302 New providence Rd., Alpharetta, GA:
Mr. Mayor and members of the council, I appreciate the change to talk to you. I wanted to
address the objections to the homeowners association. For one, the siltation problem that he
mentioned is totally unrelated and was six or seven years ago and is not even related remotely to
this site. My biggest thing is the entrance to their subdivision is over a half a mile from the site
downhill. It would be impossible for anyone in that subdivision to see that tower even if it was
170 feet tall. I can't see it from my house from the balloon test and my house certainly is the
closest one to the structure. It is closer than the referenced 300 to the nearest residence and it is
due to topography. There are trees there that are well over 100 feet screening that thing and it
would not be 60 feet over existing tree line especially from the topography where it is located
and I just think that the impact that it will have, I have lived there all of my life. 50+ years and
the impact that that may have is nothing to the affect that building the Providence Lake
subdivision had down there with the traffic and everything else. That affects the rural aesthetics
of the place more than any cell tower could. The fact is, there is only one place that this tower
would be visible from and that is as you go around the road and go under the power poles and
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 49 of 65
rrwo that is pretty obvious by the pictures that they have taken. So, I'm just saying that this one I
believe is an exception. It is also the largest parcel of property of anywhere in the area. It is well
back, well hidden, and it has no affect as you heard on traffic or anything and so I just think that
bringing up stuff like problems of siltation and all of that is petty. There are some people that
just don't want stuff, but they will never see it anyway. That was just my thought.
Shawn Blassingill:
I just wanted to make some closing remarks about some things that have come up. I think what
we have heard tonight is a lot of conjecture. We have heard comments from the fact that T -
Mobile is building for infrastructure and in two years were going to sell. That is news to me. I
would like to see something be followed up with facts. We have to continue with ongoing
business and addressing our customers. I have also heard a lot comments that there is some
technology that is going to come out in the future. No one stated what that technology is and I
guess I am looking for clarification from those in opposition. Is T -Mobile expected to stop
building and addressing customer needs until this so called technology is invented sometime in
the future? I don't think that is the proper course of action to address our customer needs. Along
those lines, we talked about lowering the height, we never did talk about the effects that it would
have on the coverage needs. We have also talked about the intent of T -Mobile in the sense that
we're not really addressing any coverage needs yet the third parties report mentions the coverage
gap on all three applications including this one. I just wanted to add those comments again and
�••. ask the Council and Mayor for approval on this particular application. Thank you.
James Pace, 2320 Saddle Springs, Milton, GA:
Just a few points in clarification, from everything that we have heard for these meetings and
previous meetings I don't believe that T -Mobile has demonstrated with any type of facts that
there is a need for its customers to have more coverage that they currently have. To me, that is
conjecture. The needs that have been identified have been outside and far away from the
proposed cell towers as was pointed out. I refer to the presentation by John Albers at the
opening of the meeting as well as the subsequent presentations as to where the so called demand
is. We don't see a real demand. A compelling demand that would justify this type of an impact
or this type of structure. Secondly, as far as the distance from the tower is concerned, based on
the plats that we were given here that may be further from the entrance of Providence Lake but it
is only about 500 feet from the back of some of the residences properties to this proposed cell
tower. So there is a close proximity and direct impact to the rest of inside Providence Lake as far
as location. It is visible. We were able to see the balloon from the balloon test and again the
height of the tower once significantly above the power lines. Again, we will have a direct impact
of home values of Providence Lake. It is visible and we did hear of alternatives and we don't
believe that T -Mobile's intent nor do I believe that T -Mobile is being represented. I am not sure
how many employees of T -Mobile are here tonight, I do understand that there are some
consultants and some contractors, and engineers employed by T -Mobile. I am not sure what
representation what we actually have from T -Mobile as a company as a responsible corporate
.s.. citizen that really has the interest of the citizens of Milton here tonight.
Shawn Blassingill:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 50 of 65
ftwo I would just like to add additional closing comments about that. Again, there were comments
about alternative technologies. We talked about microcells and we actually had private meetings
with a couple of Councilmembers and discussed those alternative solutions and why they would
not work. Based on topography, if we talk about a DAS system which is a distributing antenna
system that requires a line of site. Not only does it require a line of site, it requires multiple
collocations along the road to get the coverage that we need. That involves us cutting, digging,
and trenching the entire right of way along that path but basically it would not work. I don't
even have to explain that portion because we cannot collocate on the power company's power
poles. That is what would be required. So I just wanted to speak about that. I would like to
assure you that T -Mobile would not be here spending the money to build this particular location
if there wasn't a need for it. We would take our money and go to another area that has a real
need. If there wasn't a need for the coverage or an approved coverage area.
Mayor Lockwood:
If we don't have any more public comment, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open
it up for discussion and comments from staff.
Councilmember Lusk:
Thank you Mr. Mayor. I have a question for Mr. Blassingill. Looking at your site plan again it
mom appears that it is an 80ft by 80ft lease area, is that correct?
Shawn Blassingill:
` I believe the entire lease area is 100ft by 100ft with a loft landscaping and one comment to
address that, we actually decided from the design review board meeting that we were only going
to fence in a landscape of 50ft by 50ft to meet the minimum requirement as not to disturb any
land that we don't have to. And if there were any future co -locators they can bump out that
fence and redo the landscaping.
Councilmember Lusk:
So where is the pole going to be located in that 100ft by 100ft lease area?
Shawn Blassingill:
In the center as depicted on it.
Councilmember Lusk:
Okay, so its 50ft off of one side. What is the set back then between that 100ft lease area and the
Oglethorpe easement?
Shawn Blassingill:
I would have to go back and to look at those drawings. That is correct. It looks like it is
approximately 10 feet and what we are proposing to do is reduce that lease area, the fenced in
area, the 50ft by 50ft away from the power easement side.
Councilmember Lusk:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 51 of 65
rr.�. So where would that place the pole?
Shawn Blassingill:
I cannot speak to that now. We would have to send this back to Walker, our engineering
company for them to do the proper placement once we reduce that.
Councilmember:
So it's still reasonable from what you have submitted here that the pole is going to be in the
center of that 100 by 100 lease area.
Shawn Blassingill:
Correct unless we have to adjust it by reducing it.
Councilmember Lusk:
From this site plan here from your detail from the lease area that this is a 1Oft set back from
Oglethorpe.
Shawn Blassingill:
That may be the landscape buffer, I'm not looking at that particular page.
"Mm
Councilmember Lusk:
Now The Oglethorpe lease is 100ft wide.
Shaw Blassingill:
The Oglethorpe power easement is 100ft.
Councilmember Lusk:
Okay so for the sake of argument, and I haven't looked at it specifically, so we could probably
assume reasonably that the main conductors if there is only one conductor, would be in the
center of that 100ft easement.
Shawn Blassingill:
I'm not sure what you mean by conductors. There are several power poles on that easement.
Councilmember Lusk:
For the sake of argument there is one power line in there and it's in the center of the 100 foot
easement so that the 50 feet inside the easement....
Shawn Blassingill:
Correct. That would be 50 feet in addition to the 10 feet that we are already off of the easement
so it would be a total of about 60 feet.
Councilmember Lusk:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 52 of 65
;o, Well you have another 50 feet to get to the center of the pole. That is 110 feet. My question is
and according to design standards, your fall zones have 1 %2 times height to the pole. Which
would make it 231 feet.
Shawn blassingill:
I have not seen those requirements in the City of Milton ordinance.
Councilmember Lusk:
So we are looking at 110 feet from the center of that pole to the center of the Oglethorpe
easement. The fall zone is 231 feet. So we are about centered in the conductor of the
Oglethorpe where the fall zone extends another 110 feet or 121 feet beyond the center of that
Oglethorpe easement. How do you address that?
Shawn Blassingill:
I am not familiar with any fall zone requirements. I am familiar with the set back requirements
on this one.
Carlos Mucha:
Councilmembers, I think that you are referring to section 19.4.7 tower setback distance equal to
1 '/2 times the height of the tower that is adjacent to residential and or AG -1 zoned property. I
guess the question is, is a power easement considered a property line?
awo Councilmember Lusk:
That is one point. The other point is, is the center of that tower far enough away from the center
of that easement considering there is only one power line in that one easement?
Carlos Mucha:
There is no, that I know, building code requirement. There is no electrical code requirement.
There is no electrical code requirement to have a fall zone away from a high tension power line.
So, I can't speak to how ya'll interpret your zoning code as to whether an adjacent property line,
whether you consider a power easement to be a property line. If it is, then yes there is a setback
issue. If it is a power easement running through an apparent parcel that the fall zone requirement
doesn't impact, then there wouldn't be an issue here.
City Attorney Ken Jarrard:
I typically would not conclude that an easement would constitute or have the same force or effect
on the same property.
Councilmember Lusk:
It would probably be a safety issue then.
"W" Shawn Blassingill:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 53 of 65
goo In that state of what we normally look at, as far as setback requirements, is 1 % times the height
of the structure. What we define as a fall zone is the circumference of the existing and proposed
wireless facility and where it would come down within our lease area.
Councilmember Lusk:
I would be interested to know what Oglethorpe Power would have to say about that or any other
Georgia transmission. If that doesn't work, then this application doesn't work.
Shawn Blassingill:
Just to point out, we do have a structure in a Georgia Transmission Facility compound. So your
concerns about the safety and about it falling onto their structures, they don't have those
concerns. We have a location in Forsyth where we built it in their substation right next to their
existing lines and poles.
Councilmember Thurman:
I just wanted to say is what hopefully is recommended is only a I00ft pole anyways, so 50 feet
plus 50 feet to the thing that would get it....
Councilmember Lusk:
What I was assuming was that there was only one power line in the center of that easement.
Probably two rows of this.
rr.. Mayor Lockwood:
I think that is assuming that a power line is in the fall zone. That may not be in the requirements.
Maybe a structural or property line but I see your point. But technically it may not.
Councilmember Lusk:
Even if 100 feet doesn't meet it, then maybe this application doesn't make sense.
Councilmember Longoria:
What is the structural failure mode on a monopole tower? In other words, and again I have been
doing a little bit of research into this subject because of these hearings, isn't it true that
monopoles are designed to fall down and not fall over.
Shawn Blassingill:
That is correct. I am not a structural engineer, I cannot claim to be, but that is the one thing that I
do know that they are designed to collapse amongst themselves in the area that they are
constructed.
Councilmember Longoria:
Your failure area is actually the lease area on the property?
Shawn Blassingill:
OWN It is the circumference of the actual structure is supposed to be the failure.
0
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 54 of 65
Councilmember Longoria:
So when you say circumference that implies to me a circular area. Your lease area is square, are
you talking about...
Shawn Blassingill:
I am talking about the circumference of the actual wireless facility. The structure is designed to
collapse among the circumference of the monopole.
Mayor Joe Lockwood:
You're not talking about the boundaries of the site, you're talking about the area of the base.
Councilmember Longoria:
Oh I see. Its circular, therefore it's going to go straight down into a circle, okay I got it.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I was struck by the fact that you mentioned that T -Mobile has obviously not considered a 100ft
pole and that you guys are continuing to request a 154 foot pole on this site. Have you done or
conducted any analysis for a pole that is less than 154 feet or specifically have you done any
analysis about the coverage you're trying to accommodate according to your presentation? Have
•. you done any research that would indicate what coverage you would have if this pole was 100
feet?
am
Shawn Blassingill:
Marquise, our RF engineer could answer that better but I will tell you that once we receive a
search area it is based off of their analysis of the coverage gap and what they're trying to
accomplish with the coverage and the signal that it determines what height we need to pursue out
there. So I would have to refer to Marquise Lewis if she has evaluated at a lower height and
what that would give us.
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
Whenever we design a new wireless facility, and this one is no exception, we do submit an
application for the minimum height that we need to achieve our objectives. So what we do is
look at different iterations of height. In most instances, we will start at 100 feet and if that
doesn't work for us, we will go up in 10 foot increments until we get to a point where we can
provide continuous coverage with the sites that are adjacent and fill in whatever holes that we
need. In this particular case, GTRS referred to a coverage gap to the East. In this one, when we
did this design and we arrived at our height, what we wanted to do was provide continuous
coverage at least to the West, which we were just able to do, and even with that there is still
some need to the East of the site. But we are limited by 150 feet by the ordinance here. That is
how we did arrive at that 150 foot antenna height. I know that GTRS said that to go to a 100 feet
*�^■ that would actually resolve the coverage area to the East. We contended that that was not the
case so I'm not sure if you could pose to them the question how they arrived at that or what data
�. or how they arrived at that condition. We do contend that we cannot provide the coverage that
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 55 of 65
Irwr we need or fill in the gaps that we need in this area with a 100 ft tower. So 150 feet is the
minimum that we are allowed and we will just have to take what is out there and what is in
accordance with the ordinance and do the best we can with the customers in this situation.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I guess that punctuates my concern in this instance is that the application that is before is for a
pole that is 154 feet and I believe that that is the application that staff has spoken to that
obviously recommended denial for all of the things that have been numerated here this evening
by Mrs. Tully. Similarly, it is that same application that was reviewed by the planning
commission with that being a pole that was 154 feet and I think that if I'm not mistaken was that
T -Mobile, the applicant, that anything less than that minimum based on their analysis would not
indeed meets the needs that they are indicating that they have. The reason for that is that I would
like to come full circle back to the fact that what is before us this evening is an application for a
154 foot pole which we have heard from staff as well as our planning commission that it is not
consistent with our land use plan. That it inconsistent with the area and it would indeed at 154
feet be significantly be above the wire or the height of the existing transmission pole. Obviously
that is a concern we have heard from the citizens on this application and from others. A concern
I have, Mayor and Councilmembers, is that what we can talk about what alternatives would be,
the application before us is for 154 feet and we just heard from the applicant that they wouldn't
necessarily confer with something that is less and I think that kind of brings us full circle back to
•• our earlier discussion about other technologies that might be out there in short order and I think
that it is on us to evaluate the analysis from our staff based on what is actually before us. So I
�.r just wonder as we go through additional questions from other Councilmembers as to whether or
not a deferral would be in order for T -Mobile to go back and look at a lower height possibly or if
not, it would be for us to really have to consider what is before us which is a pole structure at 154
feet. It seems that what is before us is 154 feet and that is what we need to make a determination
based on what the applicant just indicated that anything less than 154 feet would not meet their
application needs or what they have reported to be their application needs.
Councilmember Thurman:
I would like to find out from staff, is a deferral an option at all here?
City Attorney Jarrard:
I don't believe that it is, I think that we are quickly approaching the decision on this application
so I think we need to make our decision tonight.
Councilmember Thurman:
Also, they have not stated whether or not the 100 feet would do them any good or not, what are
our options here? Do we either have to accept the 154 feet or deny it or can we go with a lesser?
City Attorney Jarrard:
You're always free to approve and have it be something other than what the applicant asked for.
Whether or not that makes them happy or forgoes them in pursuing some other legal remedy for
address, it may not. But we have the right try to match that. To Councilmember Zahner Bailey's
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 56 of 65
■ w point, I understand what you just heard from the applicant. That that would not be appropriate
but that would not be acceptable. What actually happens if for instance the Council were to
approve 100 feet, I suspect that they would go and seriously contemplate this. This does in fact
provide them a sort of coverage that they need and take that into account. Obviously, I don't
think that they would have asked for 154 feet if that's not what they wanted. But I have seen this
in a zoning where someone wants a certain density and you give them a density other than that,
and they live with it. They figure out a way to make it work.
Councilmember Hewitt:
I just wanted to ask the point blank question to the applicant, not knowing if we will or won't,
but would you be willing for us to either consider it a 154 feet or 100 feet or not at all.
Sean Blassingill:
We would like you to consider the application as it stands because as stated before we wouldn't
come in for that height if we didn't need it.
Councilmember Hewitt:
So basically all or nothing?
Sean Blassingill:
WPMI'm not going to say that. We would like to stick with the application. If you come with a
aw condition or something we will evaluate but we would like to stay with what we applied for
because that is what we need.
City Council Jarrard:
Again, I'm not going to try and interpret, but I think it would be hard for us to get someone from
T -Mobile to come up here tonight that they will agree to accept a 100 ft. I think you're going to
have to stick with things considered.
Councilmember Longoria:
Ms. Lewis, sorry to call you back up. When you guys are doing your study, obviously you're not
going out and putting up real towers in the places that you're proposing them so that you can
measure what kind of affect that would have on your coverage. You're doing this on computer
modeling and topographical maps based on the area and things like that, correct? So the
difference between scientific modeling and reality, there is always a difference, right? There are
things that can happen that you didn't necessarily see in the model and it's based on things that
you just couldn't include in the model, right?
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
The discrepancies are actually negligible because the models have been tried and tested over
time. We actually use a combination of computer modeling and field data so we have a
mom computer model that starts with generic parameters but we also have drive data where we have
actually gone out and driven through the area with antennas to measure the signals in those areas
ft" and we come back and we map that with the computer models and we iterate and we make sure
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 57 of 65
r.. that model is actually representative of the area so there is a good confidence that it is
represented.
Councilmember Longoria:
The reason I bring it up is because we have had citizens here tonight saying that their T -Mobile
services is great in areas that you guys think that there might be gaps. So we have to account for
that difference somehow. So I guess my point was that even though you're saying that you have
come in at certain heights and then increase the height in order to get the coverage that you need,
the reality may be just a little bit different then what the model says.
Ms. Marquise Lewis:
Well, the model says that within this area that there is a 98% reliability or 98% confidence that a
customer will be able to make and maintain a call. So that kind of accounts for the fact that there
are going to be pockets within that are where you're going to luck out and you're going to make
a call and you're going to have a nice conversation. But for the most part in those areas where
we are designing these facilities for our customer cannot rely on T -Mobile service to make a call,
a 911 calls, or to do whatever it is that they need to do.
Councilmember Zahner bailey:
mom I would like to follow back up with Mr. Jarrard when you talked about different approaches, it is
reasonable to say that another approach given that we have the applicant who has not assessed
bw the full structure that is less than a 154 feet, in other words that would be at a significantly less
height, I believe I heard that the applicant said that they would prefer us to consider obviously
what is before us. If this were to be denied, what is the time table by which they could reapply
as part of that reapplication process evaluate whether the coverage gap could be addressed with a
lower pole, is it one year?
City Attorney Jarrard:
I think so.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Again, as we as a group evaluate this is that we continue to hear from the applicant that the 154
feet is their application. That was what was heard by staff. It is what was heard by our planning
commission in our professional staff and the planning commission unanimously recommended
denial because they felt that the 154 foot height would be significantly be above transmission
lines, wires, as well as being negatively impacting to those neighbors and community members
that are either New Providence and/or within subdivisions that may not just be at the entrance but
instead back and closer. I am sensitive to the fact that we have gone through these same
considerations about inappropriate land use and inconsistency with our land use policies earlier
this evening and that the 154 foot pole is what continues to be the applicant's request and we
refer to staff that at 154 feet, while we can consider something less, the applicant has said that
mom that is where we cannot provide coverage and at that height that our staff has recommended
denial for all of the reasons that have been stated.
""r
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 58 of 65
who Councilmember Longoria:
I actually had a question for Mr. Schmidt. Obviously your family owns the property. Do you
guys reside on the property right now?
Tom Schmidt:
Yes sir we do.
Councilmember Tart:
I would like to recognize the gentleman, Charles Feyt, and I would like to ask him to come to the
microphone.
Charles Feyt:
My understanding that since the balloon test there has been an additional line that has been added
to the area where the tower is being proposed. So now there is a brand new additional line in this
area that has not been researched as to the owner or if it's Oglethorpe of if there have been some
change to this area. This has occurred now just post the balloon test and I just wanted to bring
that to the council's attention.
Councilmember Lusk:
What do you mean an additional line?
Charles Feyt:
am There is an additional line than the single power line that is on the property when the balloon test
was done. We're not sure if this is Oglethorpe that has erected this line, but there is now an
additional line of some type that was not present when this was drawn or the balloon test was
conducted. So I just wanted to bring that to the council's attention.
Councilmember Zahner bailey:
So for clarification purposes, is the question being if it were someone other than Oglethorpe,
perhaps there would be consideration by that cooperation to collocate within their easement?
Charles Feyt:
Potentially. We don't know the source or how they got permission to do that or even clearly
what the purpose of that new line is but it is on the property now so that brings more questions
for other issues with parcel location.
Councilmember Thurman:
I would like to ask the property owner what he knows about it?
Tom Schmidt:
The easement that Oglethorpe Power has is for a 115KV transmission line that comes through
the property as a condition of their lease, they are allowed to lease other lines to other utility
companies. Georgia power itself does have a distribution line also that comes up in the same
rte. area that is true in fact that will probably be the power tap that T -Mobile will use to power the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 59 of 65
station if they put it up. That was put in and is a function of Oglethorpe Power that they are
allowed to lease on their easement to other companies.
Councilmember Thurman:
I guess we have heard that Oglethorpe will not allow the collocating of this Cell tower on their
lines. I assume that their policy would be if they're not going to allow them on their lines then
they're not going to allow them on someone else's line.
Tom Schmidt:
I would assume that because the Georgia Power line is on their easement.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
I am just curious as to whether or not our community development director has been in any
conversations with Oglethorpe or with Georgia Power that can confirm? Once we start listening
to the words "assume" and were making assumptions. I get a little uncomfortable. I would like
to be able to deal based on fact and data that has been presented to us as a city.
Community Development Director, Lynn Tully:
We have not as a staff been in any sort of communication with Oglethorpe Power and any sort of
Communication with Oglethorpe power or Georgia Power regarding their easement, I know how
our consultant has discussed this with them and they have indicated that they would not allow a
collocation. Whether or not they have any objective to it being adjacent to the easement, I don't
think that they we have questioned specifically.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
If I may just ask you whether or not you also had any conversations with Georgia Power?
Carlos Mucha:
Yes. Georgia Transmission system is a joint venture between several different power companies
between Oglethorpe and Georgia Power. Georgia Transmission system is not allowing
collocations on sort of the joint venture property. Oglethorpe has the ground easement, Georgia
Transmission system has the pole. Georgia Power would, and I have actually spoken to them
specifically about this site and they sort of gave me the heads up on how it works, it's a Georgia
Transmission System pole so there are no collocations on it and just because it is an Oglethorpe
easement, I don't think Georgia Power would be in a position where they could allow
collocations because they don't have any ground rights. I don't think until Georgia Transmission
changes their policy I don't think there is going to be any collocations along this transmission
line.
City Attorney, Ken Jarrard:
Mr. Mayor, I just want to clarify as Mrs. Tully has advised me to this, that you had asked about
resubmitting an application? The year is the typical requirement, however, it is 6 months if it is a
substantial difference between the application that had been submitted and what is submitted
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 60 of 65
later. Now substantial, that could be subject to subject interpretation but I think that if it is a
substantial change then it will be 6 months and not a year.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Would it be fair to say that substantial, based on your interpretation and from Mrs. Tully's, could
include a significant reduction in the height of a pole especially in this scenario where the height
is largely driving the compatibility or lack thereof in this particular evaluation by our staff.
Community Development Director, Lynn Tully:
I would say in referencing that section, significant difference is described as a change in the
zoning district being requested and a change in the density or the use and it does specifically say
height buffers or other methods of screening or other items that were discussed to the public
hearing so I think that we could include any or all of those factors. I would also state that it has
to be a significant difference to your satisfaction to the satisfaction to the Mayor and the City
Council before the reinitiation can occur.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
And as I understand that then based on this input and that is very helpful, is that within 6 months
if it be the pleasure the Mayor or Council if there was a reapplication that is in better keeping
with what the consultant had indicated. It would allow T -Mobile to evaluate that application as
opposed to the differences we have heard this evening since the application before us tonight is
154 feet.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Mayor I would like to make a motion.
Motion: Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey moved to deny Agenda Item No. 10-1098
based upon information in the record, the Community Development file, the public hearings,
information provided by Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, L.L.C., comments for the record
this evening from citizens and affected constituents, and the criteria and guidelines in the Milton
zoning code. I move that this Facility Use Permit, U09-05 be DENIED for the following, non -
exhausted set of reasons:
1. Due to failure by the applicant to submit a certified statement that the structure will meet
the applicable design standards for wind loads as required by section 19.4.7 of the Milton
zoning code and as the applicant was further instructed at the planning commission. The
applicant was advised at the planning commission hearing to have such data submitted to
the City by April 9, 2010. As of today's date, and confirmed by Lynn Tully (Community
Development Director) the application has not submitted such required data.
2. The proposed tower is inconsistent with the adjacent land use as a single family residence
*-� on large agricultural parcels and incompatible based on the location of the tower to
adjacent residential structures in a specifically articulated by our Community
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 61 of 65
Development Staff within the analysis that was attached and provided as a matter of
public record this evening.
3. The proposed cell tower is inconsistent with the surrounding scale, transition of densities,
and does not protect the existing rural character of Milton . Especially given that the
application includes a 154 foot tower which is again inconsistent with all of those policies
that were iterated and reiterated by our staff.
4. For all of those reasons supporting denial set forth in the March 22, 2010 Georgia Tax
and Regulatory Solutions LLC., letter to the City of Milton, planning of the development
division, which is incorporated by reference into this motion and attached as Exhibit A.
Motion Dies: No Second motion.
Councilmember Longoria:
The concern that I have right now is that were talking about a situation where I think the scale
and scope and use and the tower blending into the surroundings is on the border of being
acceptable. I know that staff has listed it as one way and our paid consultant has listed it as
another way and I think that just points out that sort of the challenge with this particular location.
I know the 154 feet is large but I don't think that pushing this off or pushing the applicant off to
have to resubmit or do something else, it just prolongs this whole thing. So I would like to come
to a decision tonight on this and I think as I stated earlier, height seems to be the challenge on all
of these things and if this was a 12 foot tower we wouldn't be having this discussion. So
personally, I think that I would be in favor of adjusting or providing T -Mobile with feedback on
their application to lower the tower height to 100 feet and then put forth an approval on the
application but I wanted to put that out there before I made a motion and see what kind of
discussion can be generated based on that.
Mayor Lockwood:
Well Mr. Longoria, you are certainly welcome to make a motion like that as Ken said and you
have the ability to make a motion or amend it and it becomes up to the applicant to decide. If
anyone else wants to weigh in on that option, feel free.
Councilmember Thurman:
It just seems like none of us like the cell towers but it just seems like if there was going to be a
place that they belong, it would be next to a power easement because I really don't know that
you're going to see a 100 foot tower next to those huge power poles that go all the way down the
road. So it just seems like to me that if there was going to be a place that they would belong, this
is where it would be. 154 feet is going to be a lot taller than the power poles, but a 100 foot one,
I don't think you would even notice it that much with power poles there. And there are lots of
power poles there.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:00pm
Page 62 of 65
.� I do appreciate the difficulty of this situation and that's why in my earlier questions about an
action to the applicant, I am mindful of the response that they had to the 150 foot position that
they might be in but it concerns me that we would proceed with an approval without an
assumption that a 100 feet would get them where they need, because at that point we would have
already made the approval when in fact it's not really the application that is before us which is
why I was contemplating that within six months....;
Councilmember Longoria:
Let me just give you a little bit of feedback on that, Julie because I agree with you 100% because
the reason that I was suggesting that was that it puts the decision in T -Mobile's hands and the
reality with the changes in our cell tower ordinances that came into effect this year and the fact
that we have a moratorium on cell tower applications right now, which means more than likely
going to be further adjustment to those ordinances. I think the reality is the 100 foot limit is
going to be the 100 foot limit, period. So the idea that we give T -Mobile the power to say yes or
no to this I think makes sense because the reality is that is what is going to be available if
anything is available.
Councilmember Thurman:
I agree. I don't think that T -Mobile is going to spend the money once they do the studies if it
doesn't appear that 100 feet is going to work for them. I think that if you give them the 100 feet,
then great. People around will get better service and it won't be seen too much in the middle of
the power poles. If not, then it won't be built.
Councilmember Lusk:
Well what I have read here is Staffs recommendation is that they recommended a lesser height
pole and GTRS has also proposed a 100 foot maximum height of 100 feet. It is not inconsistent
with what we do in regular zoning cases up here to approve an application with conditions and
beat me up if I'm wrong, but I think this is the same situation here. Approving an application but
imposing our own conditions upon us and proposing that we reduce this pole height from 154
feet to 100 feet, I think is probably following the lines of being more acceptable in this situation
since it is in a heavily wooded area, its right next to a transmission easement, and of all of the
three application tonight of any place that they're going to put it, this would be the most likely to
put a pole of that size, especially if it's going to be a pine tree monopole.
Mayor Lockwood:
Joe, I wanted to say this as part of your question on your motion sounds like there may be some
discussion it and may there will be a second on it if you want to propose it and then we can
discuss it.
Motion: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve the application for use permit for a
wireless telecommunications facility based upon information in the record, the Community
w-°% Development file, the public hearings, information provided by Georgia Tax & Regulatory
Solutions, L.L.C., comments for the record this evening from citizens and affected constituents,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 63 of 65
and the criteria and guidelines in the Milton zoning code. I move that this Facility Use Permit,
U09-05 be APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will submit a certification from a registered engineer that the structure will
meet the applicable design standards for wind loads and construction drawings signed
and sealed by a licensed structural engineer with its building permit application.
2. The tower shall be a maximum height of 100 feet.
Second and Friendly Amendment: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion and asked
to add to include the conditions as set forth by staff except for they conflict with your motion
which I think would be the 100 feet rather than the 150 feet and including stealth design.
Second Withdrawn: Councilmember Thurman withdrew her second motion.
Motion: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve the application for use permit for a
wireless telecommunications facility based upon information in the record, the Community
Development file, the public hearings, information provided by Georgia Tax & Regulatory
Solutions, L.L.C., comments for the record this evening from citizens and affected constituents,
and the criteria and guidelines in the Milton zoning code. I move that this Facility Use Permit,
U09-05 be APPROVED with the following conditions:
ftaw 1. Applicant will submit a certification from a registered engineer that the structure will
meet the applicable design standards for wind loads and construction drawings signed
and sealed by a licensed structural engineer with its building permit application.
2. Tower will be built as a stealth design approved by the Community Development
Director and shall be a maximum height of 100 feet.
Add conditions of the community development directors recommended conditions that
were included in their findings.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion to approve and
passed unanimously (7-0).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
1. Approval Of An Ordinance Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of Milton, Georgia, To
Amend The City's Purchasing Policies To Allow For The Option Of Procuring Professional
Services Without Competitive Bidding, And For Other Purposes.
(Discussed at March 8, 2010 Council Work Session)
(First Presentation on April 12, 2010)
(Agenda Item No. 10-1094)
,. (Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager & Ken Jarrard, City Attorney)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 64 of 65
City Attorney, Ken Jarrard:
• Proposed ordinance of purchasing policies to exempt procurement of professional
services.
• Professional services should not be subject to bidding or other competitive requirements.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to approve an Ordinance of the Mayor and
Council of the City of Milton, Georgia, To amend the City's Purchasing Policies To allow For
the Option of Procuring Professional Services Without Competitive bidding, and for other
purposes, Agenda Item number 10-1094. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion.
Discussion of the Motion: Councilmember Lusk stated that he would like to see a specific dollar
limit added to the Ordinance. Mayor Lockwood added adding to contracts by change order.
Councilmember Tart asked Councilmember Lusk what specific contract amount he would like to
add.
Withdrawal of Second: Councilmember Hewitt withdrew his second to the Motion.
Motion Restated: Councilmember Tart moved to approve an Ordinance of the Mayor and
X„„ Council of the City of Milton, Georgia, To amend the City's Purchasing Policies To allow For
the Option of Procuring Professional Services Without Competitive bidding, and for other
fto purposes, with the following condition: that any contract that would exceed $30,000 would be
subject to the competitive bidding process.
Second and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously (7-0).
2. Approval of An Ordinance To Amend Chapter 48, Article IV, Traffic Calming And
Control Of The City Of Milton's Code Of Ordinances.
(First Presentation on April 12, 2010)
(Agenda Item No. 10-1095)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve an Ordinance To Amend
Chapter 48, Article IV, Traffic Calming And Control Of The City Of Milton's Code Of
Ordinances, Agenda Item No. 10-1095 to include the redline changes as presented tonight.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7- 0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of a Resolution to Adopt the City of Milton Traffic Calming Policy and
low." 1.
Manual.
(Agenda Item No. 10-1117)
(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 6:OOpm
Page 65 of 65
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve a Resolution to Adopt the City
of Milton Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual. Councilmember Zahner Bailey
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 7- 0.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (If needed)
(Agenda Item No. 10-1118)
ADJOURNMENT
(Agenda Item No. 10-1119)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 11:19 p.m.
Councilmember Tart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6 – 0.
Date Approved: May 17th, 2010
Sudie AM Gordon, Interim City Clerk
—4
Joe ock 400d,Mayor