Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-26-10 Packet
Page 1 of 4 Milton City Hall City Council Chambers 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite E Milton, GA 30004 Persons needing special accommodations in order to participate in any City meeting should call 678-242-2500. CITY OF MILTON, GEORGIA Joe Lockwood, Mayor CITY COUNCIL Karen Thurman Julie Zahner Bailey Bill Lusk Burt Hewitt Joe Longoria Alan Tart Monday, April 26, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Agenda 6:00 PM INVOCATION – Micah Rastelli, Vision Baptist Church 1) CALL TO ORDER 2) ROLL CALL 3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by the Mayor) 4) APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Add or remove items from the agenda) (Agenda Item No. 10-1109) 5) PUBLIC COMMENT 6) CONSENT AGENDA 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) MILTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA APRIL 26, 2010 – 6:00 PM Page 2 of 4 Milton City Hall City Council Chambers 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite E Milton, GA 30004 Persons needing special accommodations in order to participate in any City meeting should call 678-242-2500. 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-CD01. (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) 7) REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. A Proclamation Recognizing May Is Older Americans Month. (Presented by Mayor Joe Lockwood) 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) 8) FIRST PRESENTATION (none) 9) PUBLIC HEARINGS (none) 10) ZONING AGENDA 1. 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) MILTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA APRIL 26, 2010 – 6:00 PM Page 3 of 4 Milton City Hall City Council Chambers 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite E Milton, GA 30004 Persons needing special accommodations in order to participate in any City meeting should call 678-242-2500. 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) 3. U09-05 – 13302 New Providence 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. 10-1098) (First Presentation on April 12, 2010) (Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) 11) 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) 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) 12) NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of a Resolution to Adopt the City of Milton Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual. (Agenda Item No. 10-1117) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 13) MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 14) STAFF REPORTS MILTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA APRIL 26, 2010 – 6:00 PM Page 4 of 4 Milton City Hall City Council Chambers 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite E Milton, GA 30004 Persons needing special accommodations in order to participate in any City meeting should call 678-242-2500. 15) EXECUTIVE SESSION (If needed) (Agenda Item No. 10-1118) 16) ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 10-1119) The minutes will be Provided electronically City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway Suite 107G Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Stacey Inglis, Finance Director Date: May 3, 2010 City Council Meeting Agenda Item: Financial Status Report for Period 6 – March 2010 OVERVIEW and FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS: General Fund Revenues continue to be skewed higher than the normal anticipation for this period in the fiscal year at 141.8%. As mentioned in previous financial reports, these excess funds will replenish the depleted FY 2009 fund balance. The first public hearing for the budget amendment will be presented during the May 3 council meeting. This amendment will capture the additional property tax revenues received for the prior year due to the late tax billing. Total expenditures to-date are $8,456,037 and are 10.8% less than expected for this period of the fiscal year. Capital Project Fund Expenditures within this fund continue to occur on a project-by-project basis. With a total project expenditure budget of $6,334,903, capital expenditures-to-date total $879,831. FINANCIAL OPERATIONS: Tree Replacement Fund: Balance: $12,800 Sidewalk Replacement Fund: Balance: $70,558 City of Milton STATEMENT OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES General Fund For the Period Ending March 2010 Actual Budgeted Variance over/(under)Actual Budgeted Variance over/(under) Property Tax 9,177,549 192,234 0 192,234 7,968,369 1,240,000 6,728,369 Motor Vehicle Tax 500,000 38,991 41,667 (2,675)190,270 208,333 (18,063) Intangible Tax 190,000 10,643 15,833 (5,191)66,032 79,167 (13,135) Real Estate Transfer Tax 35,000 2,393 2,917 (524)16,131 14,583 1,548 Franchise Fees 1,700,000 61,177 425,000 (363,823)569,670 637,500 (67,830) Local Option Sales Tax 3,400,000 310,600 283,333 27,266 1,550,095 1,416,667 133,428 Alcohol Beverage Excise Tax 254,000 20,165 21,167 (1,002)110,528 105,833 4,695 Business & Occupation Tax 575,000 367,866 86,250 281,616 510,004 517,500 (7,496) Insurance Premium Tax 850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Financial Institution Tax 23,000 16,565 18,400 (1,835)21,073 23,000 (1,927) Penalties & Interest 53,000 8,366 0 8,366 78,426 51,000 27,426 Alcohol Beverage Licenses 122,000 1,300 0 1,300 128,700 122,000 6,700 Other Non-Business Permits/Licenses 11,710 1,346 923 423 9,189 7,820 1,369 Zoning & Land Disturbance Permits 32,500 125 2,708 (2,583)9,067 16,250 (7,183) Building Permits 50,000 6,607 4,167 2,440 27,591 25,000 2,591 Intergovernmental Revenue 0 0 0 0 40,348 0 40,348 Other Charges for Service 326,160 65,370 22,555 42,815 153,453 149,308 4,144 Municipal Court Fines 452,500 90,124 37,708 52,415 260,011 226,250 33,761 Interest Earnings 20,000 2,607 1,667 940 10,471 10,000 471 Contributions & Donations 0 0 0 0 2,370 0 2,370 Other Revenue 37,802 6,124 0 6,124 6,761 0 6,761 Other Financing Sources 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue 17,817,221 1,202,602 964,295 238,307 11,728,560 4,850,212 6,878,348 Actual Budgeted Variance over/(under)Actual Budgeted Variance over/(under) Mayor and Council 157,189 13,458 12,505 953 63,289 69,195 (5,905) Clerk of the Council 572,785 (3,584)107,496 (111,080)247,390 302,476 (55,086) City Manager 395,023 29,483 32,128 (2,645)130,424 194,587 (64,163) Finance 1,029,285 58,112 93,463 (35,351)449,360 515,268 (65,907) Legal 200,000 0 16,667 (16,667)62,711 50,000 12,711 Information Technology 1,073,453 54,525 88,422 (33,897)580,560 534,477 46,084 Human Resources 334,251 22,387 25,111 (2,724)105,019 157,226 (52,207) Risk Management 195,252 81,623 91,376 (9,753)84,666 97,626 (12,960) General Government Buildings 482,415 (200,327)40,201 (240,528)0 241,208 (241,208) Public Information & Marketing 493,811 12,986 41,096 (28,110)175,300 246,576 (71,276) Municipal Court 244,982 23,373 19,010 4,364 114,305 122,491 (8,186) Police 2,583,623 328,581 201,877 126,704 1,224,424 1,289,312 (64,888) Fire 4,189,001 533,639 326,351 207,288 2,012,842 2,089,501 (76,658) EMS Operations 132,250 11,021 11,021 (0)66,125 66,125 (0) Public Works 2,025,376 192,256 168,776 23,480 920,372 1,012,509 (92,137) Parks & Recreation 140,339 17,323 10,905 6,418 56,322 70,170 (13,847) Community Development 1,379,700 81,530 114,650 (33,120)530,192 687,900 (157,708) Debt Service - Capital Lease Payment 709,395 0 709,395 (709,395)716,541 709,395 7,146 Operating Transfers to Other Funds 1,316,236 0 0 0 0 0 0 Operating Reserve 163,630 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 17,817,996 1,256,386 2,110,450 (854,064)7,539,841 8,456,037 (916,196) Net Income/(Loss)(53,784)4,188,718 Current Month Year-to-Date Annual BudgetRevenue Operating Expenditures Annual Budget Current Month Year-to-Date 4/16/2010 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Contributions & Donations 5,000$ -$ 3,700$ (1,300)$ Interest Revenues - - - - Holiday Card Sales - - - - T-shirt Sales - - - - Mayor's Run - - 2,367 2,367 Total revenues 5,000$ -$ 6,067$ 1,067$ EXPENDITURES Current: Special Events 45,000$ 939$ 27,503$ 17,497$ Total Expenditures 45,000$ 939$ 27,503$ 17,497$ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in from Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 40,000$ 3,287$ 17,009$ (22,991)$ Total other financing sources and uses 40,000$ 3,287$ 17,009$ (22,991)$ Net change in fund balances -$ (4,427)$ Fund balances - beginning 3,356 20,253 Fund balances - ending 3,356$ 15,826$ City of Milton Special Events Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended March 31, 2010 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Cash Confiscations $ - $ - $ - $ - Interest Revenues - 7 43 43 Total revenues $ - $ 7 $ 43 $ 43 EXPENDITURES Current: Police $ - $ 1,846 $ 4,487 $ (4,487) Total Expenditures $ - $ 1,846 $ 4,487 $ (4,487) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in from General Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - Total other financing sources and uses $ - $ - $ - $ - Net change in fund balances $ - $ (4,444) Fund balances - beginning - 43,810 Fund balances - ending $ - $ 39,366 City of Milton Confiscated Assets Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended March 31, 2010 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Wireless 911 Fees 570,000$ 38,618$ 280,399$ (289,601)$ Total revenues 570,000$ 38,618$ 280,399$ (289,601)$ EXPENDITURES Current: Public Safety 554,000$ 1,765$ 321,120$ 232,880$ Total Expenditures 554,000$ 1,765$ 321,120$ 232,880$ OTHER FINANCING USES Unallocated 16,000$ -$ -$ (16,000)$ Total other financing sources and uses 16,000$ -$ -$ (16,000)$ Net change in fund balances -$ (40,721)$ Fund balances - beginning - 175,972 Fund balances - ending -$ 135,251$ City of Milton E-911 Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended March 31, 2010 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental Revenues SAFER Grant 85,934$ -$ 26,146$ (59,788)$ Crabapple Festival Grant - - 1,016 1,016 Total revenues 85,934$ -$ 27,161$ (58,773)$ EXPENDITURES Current: Public Safety 118,530$ -$ 32,682$ 85,848$ Community Development 20,000 - - (20,000) Total Expenditures 138,530$ -$ 32,682$ 65,848$ Excess of revenues over expenditures (52,596) - (5,521) 47,075 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in from General Fund 52,596$ -$ 6,536$ (46,060)$ Total other financing sources and uses 52,596$ -$ 6,536$ (46,060)$ Net change in fund balances - 1,015 Fund balances - beginning 2,670 3,164 Fund balances - ending 2,670$ 4,179$ City of Milton Operating Grant Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended March 31, 2010 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Taxes Hotel/Motel Taxes 47,000$ 3,211$ 16,933$ (30,067)$ Total revenues 47,000$ 3,211$ 16,933$ (30,067)$ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers out to General Fund (7,000)$ -$ -$ 7,000$ Transfers out to Special Events Fund (40,000) (3,211) (16,933) 23,067 Total other financing sources and uses (47,000)$ (3,211)$ (16,933)$ 30,067$ Net change in fund balances - - Fund balances - beginning - - Fund balances - ending -$ -$ City of Milton Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended March 31, 2010 Final Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Charges for Service Infrastructure Maintenance Fee 65,000$ 177$ 17,590$ (47,410)$ Landfill Host Fees 185,000 35,050 71,453 (113,547) Tree Recompense 12,800 - - (12,800) Interest Revenue 2,000 - - (2,000) Sidewalk Replacement Account 70,558 - - (70,558) Total revenues 335,358$ 35,227$ 89,044$ (246,314)$ EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay City Council 9,466$ 2,209$ 2,231$ 7,235$ General Admin - - 12,800 (12,800) IT 35,000 - 31,325 3,675 Police 128,852 61,923 82,423 46,429 Fire 182,479 - - 182,479 Public Works 4,491,632 114,375 428,985 4,062,647 Parks & Recreation 1,198,514 10,710 10,710 1,187,804 Community Development 288,960 - 11,358 277,603 Total Capital Outlay 6,334,903$ 189,217$ 579,831$ 5,755,072$ Excess of revenues over expenditures (5,999,545) (153,991) (490,788) (6,001,386) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in from General Fund 1,068,400$ -$ -$ (1,068,400)$ Lease Proceeds - - 20,500 20,500 Budgeted Fund Balance 4,931,145 - - (4,931,145) Total other financing sources and uses 5,999,545 - 20,500 (5,979,045) Net change in fund balances - (470,288) Fund balances - beginning 4,900,109 4,900,109 Fund balances - ending 4,900,109$ 4,429,821$ City of Milton Capital Project Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended March 31, 2010 Original Budgeted Amounts Current Period Actuals Year-to-Date Actuals Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental Revenues Transportation Master Plan 348,048$ -$ 121,741$ (226,307)$ GDOT HPP Funds - - 4,145 4,145 Bathroom Renovation - - - - Interest Revenues - - - - Contributions & Donations - - - Total revenues 348,048$ -$ 125,886$ (222,162)$ EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay Public Works 1,828,578$ 17,380$ 115,899$ 1,712,679$ Total Capital Outlay 1,828,578$ 17,380$ 115,899$ 1,712,679$ Excess of revenues over expenditures (1,480,530) (17,380) 9,987 1,490,517 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in from General Fund 178,240$ -$ -$ (178,240)$ Budgeted Fund Balance 1,302,290 - - (1,302,290)$ Total other financing sources and uses 1,480,530$ -$ -$ (1,480,530)$ Net change in fund balances - 9,987 Fund balances - beginning 804,804 804,804 Fund balances - ending 804,804$ 814,791$ City of Milton Capital Grant Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual For the Period Ended March 31, 2010 City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Carter Lucas, PE – Public Works Director Date: Submitted on April 14, 2010 for the April 26, 2010 Council Meeting Agenda Item: Approval of a Contract with URS to Provide Preliminary Engineering Design and Geotechnical Services for the Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Project Background The City has an on call services contract with URS that is subject to the terms and conditions of the original AGREEMENT (RFQ #08-001) entered between the parties. This task order has been issued to provide preliminary engineering and geotechnical services in support of the Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement project. Discussion Staff is recommending approval of a contract in an amount not to exceed $46,718 for this phase of engineering for the Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement project. Legal Review Jarrard & Davis – March 31, 2010. Attachments 1. Task Order #3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH URS CORPORATION (RFQ #08-001) TASK ORDER 10-URS-03 DATED March 30, 2010 Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement This TASK ORDER between the parties is entered into pursuant to the above referenced AGREEMENT (RFQ #08-001), incorporated herein by reference, and shall serve as authorization by the City of Milton (referred to herein as “City”) to URS Corporation (referred to herein alternately as “Consultant” and “URS”) to perform the services described herein pursuant to the terms and conditions, mutual covenants and promises provided herein and in the AGREEMENT (RFQ #08- 001). Now therefore, the parties agree as follows: Introduction: The scope of service for Task Order # 3 is to develop a concept plan and a hydrologic/hydraulic study report for replacing the existing bridge located on Cogburn Road in the City of Milton, GA. The project is part of an on-call professional engineering and planning services contract. URS received a Notice of Award on August 27th, 2008. The total amount of the proposed fee for this task order is $46,718 including subconsultant fees and other direct costs necessary to produce the deliverable documents described below. Location of PROJECT: The existing bridge is located on Cogburn Road (CR 37) between North Park to the north and Glaston Way to the south. The existing single-span bridge is approximately 14’ long and 22’-6” wide, and spans Cooper Sandy Creek. The structure consists of precast concrete slab panels supported on timber pile end bents with timber sheeting. The bridge is located along a bus route in between Saint Francis High School and Cogburn Woods Elementary/Hopewell Middle School. An existing overhead utility line is located to the west of the existing bridge. The bridge is marked deficient by the City of Milton. Sidewalk exists along the west side of Cogburn Road north of Cooper Sandy Creek. Sidewalk also exists along the west side Cogburn Road approximately 950’ south of Cooper Sandy Creek. Description of Services: The scope of work is to prepare a concept layout and a hydrologic/hydraulic study report for the bridge replacement, including scour analyses. It consists of the following phases: Concept, Database Conversion, Hydraulic Report, Geotechnical Investigation and Structure Type Determination. Task 1 – Concept Layout/Public Meeting/Coordination After the initial Notice to Proceed (NTP), URS, or its subconsultant, will perform the following services: A. Concept Plan Development – In order for the public and governmental officials to be able to offer their recommendations and move forward into the design phase, a concept layout will be developed. This plan will be shown on existing survey to be provided by the City of Milton. The layout will include horizontal and vertical geometric determinations, typical section, a cross section run, limits of construction and conceptual right of way impacts. A concept level construction cost estimate will be prepared for the concept layout. This phase of work will also include preparing a concept report. B. Public Information Meeting – URS will prepare handout information and plans for display for a public information meeting. In addition, URS will have the appropriate staff attend the meeting to assist in soliciting the public’s input and answering questions. The City of Milton will provide the meeting location, place the signing for the meeting and advertise to the public. C. Coordination/Meetings – URS shall attend at least one (1) Design Review Board meeting with the City of Milton staff or others to discuss progress, design issues, and preparation for the Public Information Meeting. The City of Milton will provide URS with the Utility companies that have existing utilities within the project limits. URS will submit existing drawings to up to 4 utility companies to mark up locations of existing utilities. Deliverables 1. Concept report 2. Concept layout 3. Concept cost estimate 4. All meeting minutes 5. Submittals to 4 Utility companies 6. Traffic count report (one traffic tube count will be provided for the project) Task 2- Database Conversion The topographic survey will be furnished by the City of Milton to URS. URS will conduct a site visit to visually field verify the survey. URS will convert the survey into CAICE. The City of Milton will provide URS the following information: 1. Topographic survey file (including 3d break lines and contours) 2. Utility file (water line with daylight elevation around creek) 3. Current and future conditions flood models (HEC-RAS files) dated 9/25/09. 4. DTM – 3 point profile of existing driveway and top/bottom of slope 5. Property file (included closed boundaries or property acreage) 6. Utility Owner Names, Contacts and Addresses Task 3 - Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering Services – The proposed hydrologic/hydraulic services for the project will be performed in accordance with Georgia Department of Transportation (“GDOT”) design requirements and criteria. For this task order, URS will perform concept level hydraulic/hydrologic studies using the model data furnished by the City of Milton. No coordination with FEMA will be provided at this time. URS will create three hydraulic models to reflect the following conditions: a) natural (unobstructed) base conditions, b) existing conditions, and c) the proposed structure conditions. The stream hydraulics will be studied with the aid of a one-dimensional model built using HEC-RAS. The decision on the type of replacement structure will be based on the structure’s required opening to allow the design year storm to pass with no overtopping from the 100 year event storm. URS will conduct scour analyses for the proposed bridge using procedures described in standard Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) technical publications, including: HEC-18, Evaluating Scour At Bridges; HEC-20, Stream Stability at Highway Structures; and HEC-23, Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures Experience, Selection, and Design Guidance. Calculations will be performed for the 10-year, 50-year, 100-year, and 500 year design storm flood events and will be the basis for the hydraulic design of the replacement structure as well as for the anticipated scour profiles. Deliverables 1. Concept level hydraulic report in general conformance with GDOT guidelines. Task 4 – Geotechnical Investigation – This service will be provided by Willmer Engineering, Inc. (“Willmer”), one of URS’ subconsultants. For the existing bridge two borings are proposed for the site investigation. The borings will be drilled on either side of the current structure. Boring depths are estimated to be 40 feet below existing grade or shallower in the event auger refusal is encountered before planned boring termination depth. Lab testing is expected to consist of soil classification tests (gradation and moisture content). A GDOT format BFI/culvert report will be prepared. At a selected location, the asphalt pavement will be cored and the pavement section materials measured (asphalt and any encountered aggregate base). At the level of the soil subgrade, a portable dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) will be used to evaluate the in-situ CBR of the subgrade soil to a depth of 2 feet below the subgrade. A sample of the subgrade soil at the pavement core location will be recovered by hand auger for soil classification testing. It is assumed that the City of Milton will allow the site investigation to be performed during weekends. A traffic control subcontractor will be used to perform traffic control with flagmen to close one traffic lane at a time to allow the drill rig to set up partially in the road to drill the borings in the road shoulder and to allow for pavement coring. Deliverables 1. A GDOT format BFI or culvert report Task 5 – Structure Type Determination – Using the results of the hydraulic studies and geotechnical investigation, URS will determine the type of replacement structure best suited for the project location. URS anticipates that a precast concrete, three-sided (bottomless) culvert or a CMP arch-type culvert will provide sufficient hydraulic opening and will be well-suited for this project. URS will also evaluate a conventional single-span bridge as the subsurface geotechnical data furnished by Willmer could influence the type of replacement structure. The goal is to provide the most cost-effective replacement structure from the standpoint of hydraulic capacity, geotechnical conditions, ease (and speed) of construction, impacts to the surrounding property owners, future maintenance and safety. In addition, the replacement structure must fit aesthetically into the rural character of the area. Deliverables 1. A Technical Memo with the recommendations for the Structure Type. EXCLUSIONS The following items are not included in the scope of services. If required, additional fees will be negotiated: 1. Coordination with FEMA, GDOT or FHWA 2. Environmental Screening/Coordination and Permitting 3. Bridge and Roadway design and plan preparation 4. Phase II environmental studies Schedule Notice to Proceed: April 5, 2010 Kick Off Meeting: April 5, 2010 (Includes Hydro, Concept Layout, Geotech) City of Milton to provide Utility Owner Names: April 7, 2010 1st Utility Submission: April 8, 2010 Concept Alternatives Team Meeting: April 29, 2010 Design Review Board Meeting: May 4-5, 2010 Finalize Hydro, Preferred Concept and Geotech: May 11, 2010 Public Meeting: May 12 or 13, 2010 Finalize Concept Report: May 18, 2010 Submit Final Concept Report: May 21, 2010 Fee This task order is part of an on-call professional engineering and planning services contract. The maximum total fee for this Task Order 09-URS-03 shall not exceed $46,718 including direct costs. URS will not invoice in excess of the maximum proposed total amount of $46,718 without the prior written approval of the City of Milton. Design Specifications and Guidelines The CONSULTANT shall coordinate the proposed services with any proposed construction plans and within the project limits. This TASK ORDER is subject to the terms and conditions of the original AGREEMENT (RFQ #08-001) entered between the parties. General Scope of Service: The WORK under this TASK ORDER is to be commenced upon CONSULTANT’S receipt from the City of a written “Notice to Proceed” (NTP) for each phase. The WORK will be completed within 60 calendar days after Notice to Proceed. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a schedule showing milestone completion dates based on completing the WORK within 60 calendar days (hereinafter referred to as the “Schedule for Completion”), excluding City review time. The Schedule for Completion will be revised to reflect the actual NTP date and will be updated as required throughout the project’s duration. Every 30 days commencing with the execution of this TASK ORDER, the CONSULTANT shall submit to the City a written report which shall include, but not be limited to, a narrative describing actual work accomplished during the reporting period, a description of problem areas, current and anticipated delaying factors and their impact, explanations of corrective actions taken or planned, and any newly planned activities or changes in sequence (hereinafter referred to as “Narrative Report”). No invoice for payment shall be submitted and no payment whatsoever will be made to the CONSULTANT until the Schedule for Completion, and the completion of Narrative Reports are updated and submitted to the City. In no event shall payment be made by the City to the CONSULTANT more often than once every 30 days. The CONSULTANT shall coordinate and attend periodic meetings with the CITY regarding the status of the TASK ORDER. The CONSULTANT shall submit to the City transmittals of all correspondence, telephone conversations, and minutes of project meetings. The fee shall be paid as provided in the AGREEMENT; however, CONSULTANT agrees that fees are earned pursuant to the WORK performed, which in no event shall exceed the amount set forth in the attached Fee Schedule. Attachments: Attachment A – Fee Schedule CITY OF MILTON: CONSULTANT: By: __________________________ By: ________________________________ Title:_________________________ Title:_______________________________ Name:________________________ Name:______________________________ Date: ________________________ Date: ______________________________ Reviewed as to form and content: Paul Higbee – Jarrard & Davis 3/31/10 Attachment A – Fee Schedule City of Milton, GA BUDGET ESTIMATE 3/31/2010 On Call Engineering Services Task #3 Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and Hydro 400 Northpark Town Center 1000 Abernathy Road, NE, Suite 900 Atlanta, GA 30328 Budget Estimate City of Milton, GA Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and Hydro Date: 3/31/2010 On Call Engineering Services URS Corp and Sub Consultants Phase:TOTAL COST Est Hours Cost ($) Totals Roadway Design 98 $12,516 $12,516 Database Coordination 16 $1,717 $1,717 Geotecnical Investigation (Willmer) 62 $11,235 $11,235 Hydro Analysis 80 $10,427 $10,427 Structural Type Determination 76 $10,823 $10,823 Subtotal 332 $46,718.00 $46,718 Total $46,718 Contract Rate Multiplier 1.00 Total with Multiplier $46,718 Total Estimated Cost $46,718 Maximum Amount of Contract Proposal $46,718 ESTIMATED COST Budget Estimate City of Milton, GA Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and HydroDate: 3/31/2010 On Call Engineering Services URS Corporation (Roadway Design) Phase:Roadway Plans Direct Labor Cost Personnel Est Hours Rate/Hr Cost ($) Totals Principal-in-Charge 0 $227.70 $0 $0 Project Manager 11 $175.65 $1,932 QA/QC 2 $180.68 $361 Senior Engineer 28 $149.49 $4,186 Engineer 41 $109.64 $4,495 CADD Technician 14 $90.15 $1,262 Admin 2 $57.52 $115 Subtotal 98 $12,351.00 $12,351 Total Direct Labor $12,351 Contract Rate Multiplier 1.00 Total Direct Labor Plus Overhead $12,351 Other Direct Costs Mail / Fedex / Courier 6 @ $10.000 $60 Reproduction $50 Supplies $20 Phone $0 Travel 60 @ $0.585 $35 Sub consultants $0.000 $0 Total Direct Costs $165 Total Estimated Cost $12,516 Maximum Amount of Contract Proposal $12,516 Manhour EstimateCity of Milton, GADate:Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and HydroOn Call Engineering Services URS Corporation (Roadway Design)Phase:Roadway PlansTask Item/ Task DescriptionPrincipal-in-ChargeProject ManagerQA/QC Senior EngineerEngineerCADD TechnicianAdminTotal% of TotalProject Management426 6.12%Develop concept alternatives1 4 16 425 25.51%Coordinate with Hydro Report1 12 2.04%Develop Road and Bridge Profile1 23 3.06%Develop typical sections1 45 5.10%Run preliminary cross sections on alternatives44 4.08%Develop Staging and Maintenance of Traffic Plans Road11 1.02%Develop Cost Estimates4 4First Utility Submittal (4 utilities owners)2Finalize Road and Bridge Layouts1 1 8 414 14.29%Constructability Review11 1.02%Attend and Address Comments Design Review Board Mtg3 7 414 14.29%Prepare and Submit Concept Report1 4 8Totals 0 11 2 28 41 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 76.53%03/31/10 Budget Estimate City of Milton, GA Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and Hydro Date: 3/31/2010 On Call Engineering Services URS Phase:Database Coordination Direct Labor Cost Personnel Est Hours Rate/Hr Cost ($) Totals Principal-In-Charge 0 $227.70 $0 Project Manager 0 $175.65 $0 QA/QC 0 $180.68 $0 Senior Engineer 2 $149.49 $299 Engineer 8 $109.64 $877 CADD Technician 6 $90.15 $541 Admin 0 $57.52 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal 16 $1,717.00 $1,717 Total Direct Labor $1,717 Contract Rate Multiplier 1.00 Total Direct Labor Plus Overhead $1,717 Other Direct Costs Mail / Fedex / Courier 0 @ $20.000 $0 Reproduction $0 Supplies $0 Phone $0 Travel 0 @ $0.585 $0 Sub consultants Total Direct Costs $0 Total Estimated Cost $1,717 Maximum Amount of Contract Proposal $1,717 Manhour EstimateCity of Milton, GADate:Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and HydroOn Call Engineering Services URSPhase:Database CoordinationTask Item/ Task DescriptionPrincipal-in-ChargeProject ManagerQA/QC Senior EngineerEngineerCADD TechnicianAdminTotal% of TotalVerify Survey0 0.00%0 0.00%1Site Visit and field verification0 224 25.00%Database Conversion0 0.00%0 0.00%2Set up microstation database66 37.50%3Set up CAiCE Database'66 37.50%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%Totals 0 0 0 2 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 100.00%03/31/10 Budget Estimate City of Milton, GA Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and HydroDate: 3/31/2010 On Call Engineering Services Willmer Engineering (Geotechnical) Phase:Geotechnical and Soil Investigation Direct Labor Cost Personnel Est Hours Rate/Hr Cost ($) Totals Principal In Charge 3 $277.15 $831 Project Manager 9 $188.68 $1,698 Project Engineer 17 $99.48 $1,691 Staff Engineer 23 $79.95 $1,839 Tech Report Spec. 5 $77.12 $386 CADD Operator 5 $51.73 $259 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal 62 $6,704.00 $6,704 Total Direct Labor $6,704 Contract Rate Multiplier 1.00 Total Direct Labor Plus Overhead $6,704 Other Direct Costs Mail / Fedex / Courier 0 @ $20.000 $0 Reproduction $0 Supplies $0 Phone $0 Travel 200 @ $0.585 $117 Sub consultants FIELD and LABORATORY $4,414 Total Direct Costs $4,531 Total Estimated Cost $11,235 Maximum Amount of Contract Proposal $11,235 Manhour EstimateCity of Milton, GADate:Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and HydroOn Call Engineering Services Willmer Engineering (Geotechnical)Phase:Geotechnical and Soil InvestigationTask Item/ Task DescriptionPrincipal in ChargeDepartment HeadProject ManagerProject EngineerStaff EngineerDesignerCADD OperatorCo-OpTech Report Spec.ResearcherProfessional EcologistProfessional HistorianProfessional ArchaeologistNEPA SpecialistSenior Computer GraphicsComputer GraphicsTotal% of TotalGENERAL00.00%1PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INVOICING, SCHEDULING & COORDINATING SUBCONTRACTOR ACTIVITIES1 2 14 6.45%2PROJECT TEAM MEETINGS & CONSULTATION1 1 13 4.84%0 0.00%FIELD & OFFICE0 0.00%1UTILITY LOCATE & GAINING SITE ACCESS / PROPERTY OWNER CONTACT22 3.23%2BORING LAYOUT (FIELD)22 3.23%3SOIL LOGGING / CLASSIFICATION & DRILL CREW SUPERVISION88 12.90%4GROUNDWATER READINGS0 0.00%50 0.00%6BORING BACKFILL0 0 0.00%7TRAVEL TO & FROM SITE FOR PERSONNEL 22 3.23%8SAMPLE TRANSPORT TO LABORATORY (unless concurrent with weekly travel to & from site)0 0.00%9LABORATORY ASSIGNMENT & BORING LOG REVIEW1 23 4.84%10BORING LOG & PLAN PREPARATION6 39 14.52%11ENGINEERING ANALYSIS & DESIGN2 46 9.68%12PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT0 0.00%13REPORT PREPARATION1 2 8 2 215 24.19%14DRAFT REPORT PUBLISHING22 3.23%15REPORT REVISIONS1 12 3.23%16COMPILE FINAL REPORT213 4.84%17QA/QC11 1.61%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%Totals 3 0 9 17 23 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 100.00%03/31/10 Budget Estimate City of Milton, GA Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and HydroDate: 3/31/2010 On Call Engineering Services URS Corporation (Hydro Analysis) Phase:Hydro Report Direct Labor Cost Personnel Est Hours Rate/Hr Cost ($) Totals Project Manager 0 $175.65 $0 Senior Engineer 26 $149.49 $3,887 Engineer 54 $109.64 $5,921 CADD Technician 0 $90.15 $0 Admin 0 $57.52 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal 80 $9,808.00 $9,808 Total Direct Labor $9,808 Contract Rate Multiplier 1.00 Total Direct Labor Plus Overhead $9,808 Other Direct Costs Mail / Fedex / Courier 3 @ $20.000 $60 Reproduction $0 Supplies (County GIS Data and Travel) $500 Phone $0 Travel 100 @ $0.585 $59 Sub consultants Total Direct Costs $619 Total Estimated Cost $10,427 Maximum Amount of Contract Proposal $10,427 Manhour EstimateCity of Milton, GADate:Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and HydroOn Call Engineering Services URS Corporation (Hydro Analysis)Phase:Hydro ReportTaskItem/ Task DescriptionProject ManagerSenior EngineerEngineerCADD TechnicianAdminTotal% of Total0 0.00%Hydraulic Analysis0 0.00%1 Site Visit2 24 5.00%2 Project Coordination44 5.00%Modeling Tasks0 0.00%1 Data collection2 46 7.50%2 Hydrology: Calculations2 68 10.00%3 Hydrology: USGS coordination - Data4 48 10.00%4 Hydraulic model : Natural Conditions2 46 7.50%5 Hydraulic model : Existing Conditions2 810 11.88%6Hydraulic model : Proposed Conditions2 88 10.00%7 Hydraulic model : Calibration1 45 6.25%8 Hydraulic scour calculation1 45 6.25%9 Rip rap Calculations1 23 3.75%10 Report Preparation4 812 15.00%0 0.00%FEMA Tasks0 0.00%1 FEMA Model Retrieval0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%Totals 0 26 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 100.00%03/31/10 Budget Estimate City of Milton, GA Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and Hydro Date: 3/31/2010 On Call Engineering Services URS Corporation (Structural) Phase:Structural Determination Direct Labor Cost Personnel Est Hours Rate/Hr Cost ($) Totals Project Manager 16 $175.65 $2,810 Senior Engineer 36 $149.49 $5,382 Engineer 24 $109.64 $2,631 CADD Technician 0 $90.15 $0 Admin 0 $57.52 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal 76 $10,823.00 $10,823 Total Direct Labor $10,823 Contract Rate Multiplier 1.00 Total Direct Labor Plus Overhead $10,823 Other Direct Costs Mail / Fedex / Courier @ $20.000 $0 Reproduction $0 Supplies (County GIS Data and Travel)$0 Phone $0 Travel @ $0.585 $0 Sub consultants Total Direct Costs $0 Total Estimated Cost $10,823 Maximum Amount of Contract Proposal $10,823 Manhour EstimateCity of Milton, GADate:Cogburn Road Bridge Replacement Concept and HydroOn Call Engineering Services URS Corporation (Structural)Phase:Structural DeterminationTask Item/ Task DescriptionProject ManagerSenior EngineerEngineerCADD TechnicianAdminTotal% of Total0 0.00%0 0.00%Bridge Design0 0.00%0 0.00%Alternative Bridge Concepts/Costs, incl. Recommendation8 32 2464 84.21%Review geotechnical data/prepare prelim. Layout4 48 10.53%Final plan preparation, quantities, estimates, bid package0 0.00%Meetings44 5.26%Shop drawing Review0 0.00%0 0.00%Totals 16 36 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 100.00%03/31/10 City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Lynn Tully, AICP, Community Development Director Date: Submitted on April 14, 2010 for the April 26, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Item: Approval of a contract for the State Route 9 Design Guidelines Landscape and Streetscape RFP#10-CD01 City Manager’s Office Recommendation Approval. Discussion State Route 9 has been identified as an area needing immediate attention for master planning, design guidelines and beautification initiatives. As an addendum to that effort the Hwy. 9 Committee has requested additional help from qualified landscape architects/planners specializing in streetscapes and landscape projects. Following a comprehensive request for proposals Urban Collage presented a s the stand out candidate. Pursuant to that process and in concert with their submitted proposal we are requesting approval of the attached contract. Funding and Fiscal Impact In compliance with the city’s purchasing policy City Staff put out a Request for Proposals from qualified firms. We received 9 proposals and sealed bids. Following review of the bid documents, three proposals were requested to present in oral interviews. Of these three the top candidate was Urban Collage at $15,200. The contract has been approved by the legal department. Concurrent Review Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager City of Milton a PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is effective as of this day of �. , CITY OF MILTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Geor ia, acting by authority, the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton ("City"), and Urban Corporation, ("Consultant"). collectively referred to as the "Parties". WITNESSETH THAT: 2010, by and between the and through its governing Collage, Inc. a Georgia WHEREAS, the City desires to retain Consultant to provide certain services generally described as FY10 State Route 9 Design Guideline Landscape and Streetscape RFP# 10-CD01 (the "Work"); and WHEREAS, the City finds that specialized knowledge, skills, and training are necessary to perform the Work contemplated under this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has represented that it is qualified by training and experience to perform the Work; and WHEREAS, the Consultant desires to perform the Work under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the public interest will be served by this Agreement; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND TERMINATION DATE A. Proiect Description FYI State Route 9 Design Guideline Landscape and Streetscape RFP# 14-CDa1 B. The Work The Work to be completed under this Agreement (the "Work") consists of Exhibit A and the Consultants response (Exhibit B part 1 and part 2). In the event of a conflict among the teens of this Agreement, Exhibit A and Exhibit B, the term that is most advantageous to the City shall govern. C. Schedule, Completion Date, and Term of Agreement Consultant warrants and represents that it will perform its services in a prompt and timely manner, which shall not impose delays on the progress of the Work. This Agreement shall commence as of the date first written above, and the Work shall be completed on or before ninety days (90) from execution of contract. II. WORK CHANGES A. The City reserves the right to order changes in the Work to be performed under this Agreement by altering, adding to, or deducting from the Work. All such changes shall be incorporated in written change orders executed by the Consultant and the City. Such change orders shall specify the changes ordered and any necessary adjustment of compensation and completion time. If the Parties cannot reach an agreement on the terms for performing the changed work within a reasonable time to avoid delay or other unfavorable impacts as determined by the City in its sole discretion, the City shall have the right to determine reasonable terms and the Consultant shall proceed with the changed work. B. Any work added to the scope of this Agreement by a change order shall be executed under all the applicable conditions of this Agreement. No claim for additional compensation or extension of time shall be recognized, unless contained in a written change order duly executed on behalf of the City and the Consultant. C. The City Manager has authority to execute without further action of the City of Milton Mayor and Council, any number of change orders so long as their total effect does not materially alter the terms of this Agreement or materially increase the total amount to be paid under this Agreement, as set forth in Section III(B) below. Any such change orders materially altering the terms of this Agreement or increasing the total amount to be paid under this Agreement in excess of $25,000 must be approved by resolution of the City of Milton Mayor and Council. III. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT A. City agrees to pay the Consultant for the services performed and costs incurred by Consultant upon certification by the City that the services were actually performed and costs actually incurred in accordance with the Agreement. Compensation for services performed and reimbursement for costs incurred shall be paid to the Consultant upon receipt and approval by the City of invoices setting forth in detail the services performed and costs incurred. Invoices shall be submitted on a monthly basis, and such invoices shall reflect charges incurred versus charges budgeted. Any material deviations in tests or inspections performed, times or locations required to complete such tests or inspections and like deviations from the Work described in this Agreement shall be clearly communicated to the City before charges are incurred and shall be handle through change orders as described in Section II above. The City shall pay the Consultant within thirty (30) days after approval of the invoice by City staff. B. The total amount paid under this Agreement as compensation for services performed and reimbursement for costs incurred shall not, in any case, exceed $15,200, except as outlined in Section I1(C) above. The compensation for services performed shall be based upon a flat fee. C. Reimbursement for costs incurred shall be limited as follows. Long distance telephone and telecommunications, facsimile transmission, normal postage and express mail charges, photocopying time shall be at cost. Supplies and outside services, transportation, lodging, meals and authorized subcontracts shall be at cost plus no more than a 10% administrative burden. Automobile mileage shall be no more than the current deductible rate set by the Internal Revenue Service. IV. COVENANTS OF CONSULTANT A. Expertise of Consultant Consultant accepts the relationship of trust and confidence established between it and the City, recognizing that the City's intention and purpose in entering into this Agreement is to engage an entity with the requisite capacity, experience, and professional skill and judgment to provide the services in pursuit of the timely and competent completion of the Work undertaken by Consultant under this Agreement. B. Budgetary Limitations Consultant agrees and acknowledges that budgetary limitations are not a justification for breach of sound principals of Consultant's profession and industry. Consultant shall take no calculated risk in the performance of the Work. Specifically, Consultant agrees that, in the event it cannot perform the Work within the budgetary limitations established without disregarding sound principals of Consultant's profession and industry, Consultant will give written notice immediately to the City. C. City's Reliance on the Work The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City does not undertake to approve or pass upon matters of expertise of the Consultant and that; therefore, the City bears no responsibility for Consultant's services performed under this Agreement. The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the acceptance of designs, plans, and specifications by the City is limited to the function of determining whether there has been compliance with what is required to be produced under this Agreement. The City will not, and need not, inquire into adequacy, fitness, suitability or correctness of Consultant's performance. Consultant further agrees that no approval of designs, plans, or specifications by any person, body or agency shall relieve Consultant of the responsibility for adequacy, fitness, suitability, and correctness of Consultant's professional and industry standards or for performing services under this Agreement in accordance with sound and accepted professional and industry principals. D. Consultant's Reliance of Submissions by the City Consultant must have timely information and input from the City in order to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant is entitled to rely upon information provided by the City, but Consultant shall be required to provide immediate written notice to the City if Consultant knows or reasonably should know that any information provided by the City is erroneous, inconsistent, or otherwise problematic. E. Consultants Representative Eric Bosman shall be authorized to act on Consultant's behalf with respect to the Work as Consultant's designated representative. F. Assignment of Agreement The Consultant covenants and agrees not to assign or transfer any interest in, nor delegate any duties of this Agreement, without the prior express written consent of the City. As to any approved subcontractors, the Consultant shall be solely responsible for reimbursing them and the City shall have no obligation to them. G. Responsibility of Consultant and „Indemnification of Citv The Consultant covenants and agrees to take and assume all responsibility for the services rendered in connection with this Agreement. The Consultant shall bear all losses and damages directly or indirectly resulting to it on account of the performance or character of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, boards, commissions, elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, liability, judgments, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to, attorney's fees, which may be the result of willful, negligent or tortious conduct arising out of the Work, performance of contracted services, or operations by the Consultant, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by the Consultant or subcontractor or anyone for whose acts the Consultant or subcontractor may be liable, regardless of whether or not the offending act is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity which would otherwise exist as to any party or person described in this provision. In any and all claims against the City or any of its agents or employees, by any employee of the Consultant, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by the Consultant or subcontractor or anyone for whose acts the Consultant or subcontractor may be liable, the indemnification obligation set forth in this provision shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for the Consultant or any subcontractor under workers' or workmen's compensation acts, disability benefit acts or other employee benefit acts. This obligation to indemnify and defend the City, its members, officers, agents, employees and volunteers shall survive termination of this Agreement. H. Independent Contractor Consultant hereby covenants and declares that it is engaged in an independent business and agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor and not as the agent or employee of the City. The Consultant agrees to be solely responsible for its own matters relating to the time and place the services are performed; the instrumentalities, tools, supplies and/or materials necessary to complete the services; hiring of Consultants, agents or employees to complete the services; and the payment of employees, including compliance with Social Security, withholding and all other regulations governing such matters. The Consultant agrees to be solely responsible for its own acts and those of its subordinates, employees, and subcontractors during the life of this Agreement. Any provisions of this Agreement that may appear to give the City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the services to be performed by Consultant or to exercise a measure of control over such services will be deemed to mean that Consultant shall follow the directions of the City with regard to the results of such services only. 1. Insurance (1) Requirements: The Consultant shall have and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement, insurance insuring against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. All policies shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in writing by the City Manager. (2) Minimum Limits of Insurance: Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (a) Comprehensive General Liability of $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily and personal injury, sickness, disease or death, injury to or destruction of property. including loss of use resulting there from. (b) Comprehensive Automobile Liability (owned, non -owned, hired) of $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily and personal injury, sickness, disease or death. injury to or destruction of property, including loss of use resulting therefrom. (c) Professional Liability of $1,000,000 limit for claims arising out of professional services caused by the Consultant's errors, omissions, or negligent acts. (d) Workers' Compensation limits as required by the State of Georgia and employers Liability limits of $1,0001000 per accident. (3) Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions: (4) Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. Other Insurance Provisions: The policy is to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (a) General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverage. (i) The City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, leased, or used by the Consultant; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officials, employees, agents or volunteers. (ii) The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary noncontributing insurance as respects to any other insurance or self-insurance available to the City, its officials, employees, agents or volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (iii) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officials, employees, agents or volunteers. (iv) Coverage shall state that the Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (v) Coverage shall be provided on a "pay on behalf' basis, with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion. (vi) The insurer agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City. (vii) All endorsements to policies shall be executed by an authorized representative of the insurer. (b) Workers' Compensation Coverage. The insurer will agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City. (c) All Coverages. (i) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail. return receipt requested, has been given to the City. (ii) Policies shall have concurrent starting and ending dates. (5) Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with an A.M. Bests' rating of no less than A: VII. (6) Verification of Coverage: Consultant shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and endorsements to the policies evidencing coverage required by this clause prior to the start of work. The certificates of insurance and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificate of insurance and endorsements shall be on a form utilized by Consultant's insurer in its normal course of business and shall be received and approved by the City prior to execution of this Agreement by the City. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. The Consultant shall provide proof that any expiring coverage has been renewed or replaced at least two (2) weeks prior to the expiration of the coverage. (7) Subcontractors: Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated in this Agreement, including but not limited to naming the parties as additional insured. (8) Claims -Made Policies: Consultant shall extend any claims -made insurance policy for at least six (6) years after termination or final payment under the Agreement, whichever is later. (g) City as Additional Insured and Loss Pa ee: The City shall be named as an additional insured and loss payee on all policies required by this Agreement. J. Employment of Unauthorized Aliens Prohibited It is the policy of City that unauthorized aliens shall not be employed to perform work on City contracts involving the physical performance of services. Therefore, the City shall not enter into a contract for the physical performance of services within the State of Georgia, unless the Contractor shall provide evidence on City -provided forms, attached hereto as Exhibits "E" and "F" that it and Contractor's subcontractors have within the previous twelve (12) month period conducted a verification of the social security numbers of all employees who will perform work on the City contract to ensure that no unauthorized aliens will be employed. The City Manager or his/her designee shall be authorized to conduct an inspection of the Contractor's and Contractor's subcontractors' verification process to determine that the verification was correct and complete. The Contractor and Contractor's subcontractors shall retain all documents and records of its verification process for a period of three (3) years following completion of the contract. This requirement shall apply to all contracts for the physical performance of services where more than three (3) persons are employed on the City contract. The City Manager or his/her designee shall further be authorized to conduct periodic inspections to ensure that no City Contractor or Contractor's subcontractors employ unauthorized aliens on City contracts. By entering into a contract with the City, the Contractor and Contractor's subcontractors agree to cooperate with any such investigation by making its records and personnel available upon reasonable notice for inspection and questioning. Where a Contractor or Contractor's subcontractors are found to have employed an unauthorized alien, the City Manager or his/her designee may order the Contractor to terminate or require its subcontractor to terminate that person's employment immediately and to report same to the Department of Homeland Security. The Contractor's . failure to terminate the employee, or otherwise cooperate with the investigation may be sanctioned by termination of the contract, and the Contractor shall be liable for all damages and delays occasioned by the City thereby. Compliance with the requirements of 0.C.G.A. § 13-10-91 and Rule 300-10-1-.02 is mandatory. Contractor's compliance with the requirements of Q.C.G.A. § 13-10-91 and Rule 300-10-1-.02 shall be attested by the execution of the contractor's affidavit attached as Exhibit "E." The above requirements shall be in addition to the requirements of State and federal law, and shall be construed to be in conformity with those laws. K. Records, Reports and Audits (1) Records: (a) Records shall be established and maintained by the Consultant in accordance with requirements prescribed by the City with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. Except as otherwise authorized, such records shall be maintained for a period of three years from the date that final payment is made under this Agreement. Furthermore, records that are the subject of audit findings shall be retained for three years or until such audit findings have been resolved, whichever is later. (b) All costs shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts, or vouchers, or other official documentation evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges. All checks, payrolls, invoices, contracts, vouchers, orders or other accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to this Agreement shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. (2) Reports and Information: Upon request, the Consultant shall furnish to the City any and all statements, records, reports, data and information related to matters covered by this Agreement in the form requested by the City. (3) Audits and Inspections: At any time during normal business hours and as often as the City may deem necessary, there shall be made available to the City for examination all records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. The Consultant will permit the City to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to audit all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and or data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. L. Conflicts of Interest Consultant agrees that it shall not engage in any activity or conduct that would result in a violation of the City of Milton Code of Ethics. M. Confidentiality Consultant acknowledges that it may receive confidential information of the City and that it will protect the confidentiality of any such confidential information and will require any of its subcontractors, consultants, and/or staff to likewise protect such confidential information. The Consultant agrees that confidential information it receives or such reports, information, opinions or conclusions that Consultant creates under this Agreement shall not be made available to, or discussed with, any individual or organization, including the news media, without prior written approval of the City. The Consultant shall exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the unauthorized disclosure and use of City information whether specifically deemed confidential or not. N. Compliance with Laws Regulating Illegal Aliens The United States Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), P.L. 99- 603, which required the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (now the Department of Homeland Security) to establish a system for verifying the immigration status of non -citizen applicants for, and recipients of, certain types of federally funded benefits, and to make the system available to Federal, State, and local benefit -issuing agencies and institutions that administer such benefits. The Consultant covenants and declares that it is enrolled in the Basic Employment Verification Pilot Program, and that it has verified the employment eligibility of all its employees utilizing such program. Consultant shall likewise require all subcontractors or sub -consultants to verify the employment eligibility of all their respective employees utilizing the Basic Employment Verification Pilot Program. Consultant shall provide documentation prior to commencing work under this Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City, affirming the Consultant's compliance with this Section. 0. Licenses, Certifications and Permits The Consultant covenants and declares that it has obtained all diplomas, certificates, licenses, permits or the like required of the Consultant by any and all national, state, regional, City, local boards, agencies, commissions, committees or other regulatory bodies in order to perform the services contracted for under this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily expected of competent professionals. P. Key Personnel All of the individuals identified in Exhibit "C" are necessary for the successful prosecution of the Work due to their unique expertise and depth and breadth of experience. There shall be no change in Consultant's Project Manager or members of the project team, as listed in Exhibit "C", without written approval of the City. Consultant recognizes that the composition of this team was instrumental in the City's decision to award the work to Consultant and that compelling reasons for substituting these individuals must be demonstrated for the City's consent to be granted. Any substitutes shall be persons of comparable or superior expertise and experience. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall constitute a material breach of Consultant's obligations under this Agreement and shall be grounds for termination. Consultant shall not subcontract with any third party for the performance of any portion of the Work without the prior written consent of the City. Consultant shall be solely responsible for any such subcontractors in terms of performance and compensation. Q. Authority to Contract The Consultant covenants and declares that it has obtained all necessary approvals of its board of directors, stockholders, general partners, limited partners or similar authorities to simultaneously execute and bind Consultant to the terms of this Agreement, if applicable. R. Ownership of Work All reports, designs, drawings, plans, specifications, schedules, work product and other materials prepared or in the process of being prepared for the services to be performed by the Consultant ("materials") shall be the property of the City and the City shall be entitled to full access and copies of all such materials. Any such materials remaining in the hands of the Consultant or subcontractor upon completion or termination of the work shall be delivered immediately to the City. The Consultant assumes all risk of loss, damage or destruction of or to such materials. If any materials are lost, damaged or destroyed before final delivery to the City, the Consultant shall replace them at its own expense. Any and all copyrightable subject matter in all materials is hereby assigned to the City and the Consultant agrees to execute any additional documents that may be necessary to evidence such assignment. Consultant shall retain the intellectual property rights of any furnished materials for marketing purposes. In the event The City or any other party or assignee shall make substantive changes to any of the content of the materials, the materials shall no longer be represented as the work of Consultant. V. COVENANTS OF THE CITY A. Right of Entry The City shall provide for right of entry for Consultant and all necessary equipment to the City of Milton, in order for Consultant to complete the Work. B. City's Representative Michele McIntosh -Ross shall be authorized to act on the City's behalf with respect to the Work as the City's designated representative. VI. TERMINATION A. The City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason whatsoever by providing written notice thereof at least five (5) calendar days in advance of the termination date. The Consultant shall have no right to terminate this Agreement prior to completion of the Work, except in the event of the City's failure to pay the Consultant within thirty (30) days of Consultant providing the City with notice of a delinquent payment and an opportunity to cure. B. Upon termination, City shall provide for payment to the Consultant for services rendered and expenses incurred prior to the termination date. C. Upon termination, the Consultant shall: (1) promptly discontinue all services affected, unless the notice directs otherwise; and (2) promptly deliver to the City all data, drawings, reports, summaries, and such other information and materials as may have been generated or used by the Consultant in performing this Agreement, whether completed or in process, in the form specified by the City. D. The rights and remedies of the City and the Consultant provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided under this Agreement or at law or in equity. VII. NO PERSONAL LIABILITY No member, official or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant or any successor in interest in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or successor or on any obligation under the terms of this Agreement. Likewise, Consultant's performance of services under this Agreement shall not subject Consultant's individual employees, officers or directors to any personal liability. The Parties agree that their sole and exclusive remedy, claim, demand or suit shall be directed and/or asserted only against Consultant or the City, respectively, and not against any employee, officer, director, or elected or appointed official. VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement between the Parties and supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. No other agreement, statement or promise relating to the subject matter of this Agreement not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document signed by representatives of both Parties with appropriate authorization. IX. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS Subject to the provision of this Agreement regarding assignment, this Agreement shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the respective Parties. X. APPLICABLE LAW If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the rules, regulations, statutes and laws of the State of Georgia will control. XI. CAPTIONS AND SEVERABILITY The caption or headnote on articles or sections of this Agreement are intended for convenience and reference purposes only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent thereof, or of this Agreement nor in any way affect this Agreement. Should any article(s) or section(s), or any part thereof, later be deemed unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the offending portion of the Agreement should be severed and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent possible. XII. BUSINESS LICENSE Prior to commencement of the services to be provided hereunder. Consultant, if appropriate, shall apply to the City for a business license, pay the applicable business license fee, and maintain said business license during the term of this Agreement. XIII. NOTICES A. Communications Relating to Daily Activities All communications relating to the day-to-day activities of the Work shall be exchanged between Michele McIntosh -Ross for the City and Matt Cherry for the Consultant. B. Official Notices All other notices, writings or correspondence as required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received, and shall be effective, when: (1) personally delivered, or (2) on the third day after the postmark date when mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or (3) upon actual delivery when sent via national overnight commercial carrier to the Parties at the addresses given below, unless a substitute address shall first be furnished to the other Parties by written notice in accordance herewith: NOTICE TO THE CITY shall be sent to: City Manager City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107f Milton, Georgia 30004 NOTICE TO THE CONSULTANT shall be sent to: Robert J. Begle Vice President Urban Collage, Inc. 121 Luckie Street, Suite #200 Atlanta, GA 30303 XIV. WAIVER OF AGREEMENT The City's failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement or the waiver in a particular instance shall not be construed as a general waiver of any future breach or default. XV. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to be a waiver of the City's sovereign immunity or any individual's qualified good faith or official immunities. XVI. FORCE MAJEURE Neither the City nor Consultant shall be liable for their respective non -negligent or non -willful failure to perform or shall be deemed in default with respect to the failure to perform (or cure a failure to perform) any of their respective duties or obligations under this Agreement or for any delay in such performance due to: (a) any cause beyond their respective reasonable control; (b) any act of God; (c) any change in applicable governmental rules or regulations rendering the performance of any portion of this Agreement legally impossible; (d) earthquake, fire, explosion or flood; (e) strike or labor dispute, excluding strikes or labor disputes by employees and/or agents of CONSULTANT; (f) delay or failure to act by any governmental or military authority; or (g) any war, hostility, embargo, sabotage, civil disturbance, riot, insurrection or invasion. In such event, the time for performance shall be extended by an amount of time equal to the period of delay caused by such acts and all other obligations shall remain intact. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City and the Consultant have executed this Agreement effective as of the date the City Manager executes this Agreement on behalf of the City. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] Approved as to form: City Attorney SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED in the presence of: wztrress Notary Public [NOTARY SEAL] My Commission Expires: /o/g/y CITY OF MILTON CONSULTANT: Robe egle, Vice President Attest: Robert Begle, etary [AFFIX CORPORATE SEAL] By: pe- I-Ock &OQ17 Its: SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED Witness Notary Pu r �,,►�'y a M� �a [NOTARY SEAL] 00T4, "'•r My Commission Expires: _ +�tk. TO 4WAj-1 _ ► _ Exhibit A ... ._...... CITY OF MILTON re ity of Milton REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL k!S (THIS IS NOT AN ORDER) RFP Number: RFP Title: 10-CD01 FY10 State Route 9 Design Guideline Landscape and Streetscape. RFP Due Date and Time: Rick Pearce January 25"',2010 2:00pm-local time January 5th, 2010 ISSUING DEPARTMENT INFORMATION Procurement Office Contact: Issue Date: Rick Pearce January 5th, 2010 City of Milton Phone: 678-242-2500 13000 Deerfield Pkwy, Suite 107G Fax: 678-242-2499 Milton, Ga. 30004 Website: www.cityofmiltonga.us INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS Return Proposal to: Mark Face of Envelope/Package: City of Milton Bid Number: 10-CDO1 Attn: Rick Pearce, Purchasing Office Name of Company or Firm 13000 Deerfield Pkwy Suite 107G Milton, Ga. 30004 Special Instructions: Deadline for Written Questions JannarY 13'h, 2009 (07 5:OOPM Email(preferred) questions to Rick Pearce at rick.nearcercityofmiltonea.us or Fax questions Attn: Rick Pearce at 678-242-2499 THE FOLLOWING OFFERORS MUST COMPLETE Offeror Name/Address: Authorized Offeror Signatory: (Please print name and sign in ink Offeror FAX Number: Offeror Prone Number: - Offeror Federal I.D. Number: Offeror E-mail Address: OFFERORS MUST RETURN THIS COVER SHEET WITH RFP RESPONSE TABLE OF CONTENTS Offeror's RFP Checklist................................................................................................................. DisclosureForm.............................................................................................................................. Proposalletter ................................................................................................................................. Scheduleof Events.......................................................................................................................... Section 1: Project Overview and Instructions............................................................................ Section 2: RFP Standard Information........................................................................................ Section 3: Scope of Project........................................................................................................... Section 4: Offeror Qualifications................................................................................................. Section5: Cost Proposal............................................................................................................... Section 5: Evaluation Criteria...................................................................................................... Section 7: Standard Contract Information................................................................................. Appendix A: Standard Contract................................•............................................................... Appendix B: Submittal Requirements Summary...................................................................... PG. 19 �^9' r crty 0 Miiwn OFFEROR'S RFP CHECKLIST The 10 Most Critical Things to Keep in Mind When Responding to an RFP for the City of Milton 1. Read the entire document. Note critical items such as: mandatory requirements; supplies/services required; submittal dates, number of copies required for submittal; funding amount and source; contract requirements (i.e., contract performance security, insurance requirements, performance and/or reporting requirements, etc.). 2. Note the procurement of'ficer's name, address, phone numbers and e-mail address. This is the only person you are allowed to communicate with regarding the RFP and is ail excellent source of information for any questions you may have. 3. Attend the pre -proposal conference if one is offered. These conferences provide an opportunity to ask clarifying questions, obtain a better understanding of the project, or to notify the City of any ambiguities, inconsistencies, or errors in the RFA. 4. Take advantage of the "question and answer" period. Submit your questions to the procurement officer by the due date listed in the Schedule of Events and view the answers given in the formal "addenda" issued for the RFP. All addenda issued for an RFP are posted on the City's website and will include all questions asked and answered concerning the RFP. 5. Follow the format required in the RFP when preparing your response. Provide point -by -point responses to all sections in a clear and concise manner. 6. Provide complete answers/descriptions. Read and answer all questions and requirements. Don't assume the City or evaluation committee will know what your company capabilities are or what items/services you can provide, even if you have previously contracted with the City. The proposals are evaluated based solely on the information and materials provided in your response. 7. Use the forms provided, i.e., cover page, sample budget form, certification forms, etc. 8. Check the City website for RFP addenda. Before submitting your response, check the City website at http://www.c iofmilton a.us/ to see whether any addenda were issued for the RFP. If so, you must submit a signed cover sheet for each addendum issued along with your RFP response. 9. Review and read the RFP document again to make sure that you have addressed all requirements. Your original response and the requested copies must be identical and be complete. The copies are provided to the evaluation committee members and will be used to score your response. lb. Submit your response on time. Note all the dates and times listed in the Schedule of Events and within the document, and be sure to submit all required items on time. Late proposal responses are never accepted. This checklist is provided for assistance only and should not be submitted with Offeror's Response] PG. 20 Ci[, V. ?,.lion City of Milton CITY OF MILTON DISCLOSURE FORM MUST BE RETURNED WITH BID This form is for disclosure of campaign contributions and family member relations with City of Milton off cials/employees. Please complete this form and return as part of your RFP package when it is submitted. Name of Offeror Name and the official position of the Milton Official to whom the campaign contribution was made (Please use a separate form for each official to whom a contribution has been made in the past two (2) years.) List the dollar amount/value and description of each campaign contribution made over the past two (2) years by the Applicant/Opponent to the narned Milton Official. AmountNalue Description Please list any family member that is currently (or has been employed within the last 12 months) by the City of Milton and your relation: PG. 21 'ccir of eaimn City of Milton City of Milton FYI 0 State Route 9 Design Guideline Landscape and Streetscape Addendum RFP# 10-CDO1 PROPOSAL LETTER (Bidder to sign and return with proposal) We propose to furnish and deliver any and al of the deliverables and services named in the Request for Proposal (RFP) regarding the City of Milton FY 10 State Route 9 Design Guideline Landscape and Streetscape Addendum. It is understood and agreed that we have read the City's specifications shown or referenced in the RFP and that this proposal is made in accordance with the provisions of such specifications. By our written signature on this proposal, we guarantee and certify that all items included meet or exceed any and all such City specifications. We further agree, if awarded a contract, to deliver goods and services which meet or exceed the specifications. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, waive technicalities, and informalities, and to make an award in the best interest of the city. PROPOSAL SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION I certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, or person Submitting a proposal for the same materials, supplies, equipment, or services and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I understand collusive bidding is a violation of State and Federal Law and can result in fines, prison sentences, and civil damage awards. I agree to abide by all conditions of the proposal and certify that 1 am authorized to sign for my company. I further certify that the provisions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Sections 45-10-20 et. seq. have not been violated and will not be violated in any respect. Authorized Signature Print/Type Name Print/Type Company Name Here Date PG. 22 " COY 0 MIMl SCHEDULE OF EVENTS EVENT DATE RFP Issue Date................................................................................................. January fits", 2010 Deadline for Receipt of Written Questions .................................................. January 13"', 2010 Posting of Written Answers by City to Websites. . n ua ry 19th, 2010 RFP Response Due Date (2:00pm local time) ..............................................January 25°d, 2010 Estimated Date for Oral Presentations ......................................... Week of February Ist, 2009 Estimated Date for RFP Award .................................................... Week of February 15th 2009 PG. 23 scar m Wmn SECTION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW AND INSTRUCTIONS 1.0 BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF INTENT The City of Milton is a new City, established in 2006. The citizens of Milton have always been proud of their community's unique character that is distinct from that of the surrounding communities. Since incorporation, residents are eager to distinguish their community as the City of Milton, unique for its rural equestrian character and vision. Vision Statement: Milton is a distinctive Community embracing small-town life and heritage while preserving and enhancing our rural character. Mission Statement: the City of Milton is committed to maintaining the unique quality of life for our constituents while efficiently delivering essential services to residents and businesses in a community interactive environment. Through the comprehensive planning process, S.R. 9 was identified as the area needing; the most immediate attention for master planning, design guidelines, and beautification initiatives. Since State Route 9 is the gateway to the City from Forsyth County and from Alpharetta, it is particularly important to the community that this area represents the tastes of its residents. The State Route 9 Design Guidelines Committee was formed to develop design guidelines to append to the State Route 9 Overlay Ordinance to ensure a consistent design aesthetic throughout the overlay district. These design guidelines will be a major component in creating the sense of place and brand for the City of Milton that the community desires. The City of Milton, (hereinafter referred to as "the City") invites you to submit a proposal for a state route 9 design guideline landscape and streetscape addendum. A more complete description of the services sought for this project is provided in Section 3, Scope of Project. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must comply with the instructions and procedures contained herein. 1.1 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT From the date this Request for Proposal (RFP) is issued until an offeror is selected and the selection is announced by the procurement office, offerors are not allowed to communicate with any City staff or elected officials regarding this procurement, except at the direction of Rick Pearce. Any unauthorized contact may disqualify the offeror from further consideration. Contact information for the single point of contact is as follows: Procurement Office: Rick Pearce Address: 1300 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, GA 30004 Telephone Number: 678-242-2511 Fax Number: 678-242-2499 E-mail Address: rick.pearce@cityofmiltonga.us 1.2_ REQUIRED REVIEW 1.2.1 Review RFP. Offerors should carefully review the instructions; mandatory requirements, specifications, standard tenns and conditions, and standard contract set out in this RFP and promptly notify the procurement office identified above via e-mail of any ambiguity, inconsistency, unduly restrictive specifications, or error which they discover PG. 24 r. '.City of UN- upon examination of this RFP. 1.2.2 Form of Questions. Offerors with questions or requiring clarification or interpretation of any section within this RFP must address these questions in writing via fax or e-mail (preferred) to the procurement office referenced above on or before Janua 13`" 2010. Each question must provide clear reference to the section, page, and item in question. Questions received after the deadline may not be considered. 1.2.3 City's Answers. The City will provide an official written answer to all questions on or about January 19`", 2010. The City's response will be by formal written addendum. Any other form of interpretation, correction, or change to this RFP will not be binding upon the City. Any formal written addendum will be posted alongside the posting of the RFP at http://w-w=w.cityofmiltonga.us. Offerors must sign and return any addendum with their RFP response. 1.2.4 Standard Contract. By submitting a response to this RFP, offeror agrees to acceptance of the City's standard contract. Much of the language included in the standard contract reflects requirements of state law. Requests for exceptions to the standard contract terms, or any added provisions must be submitted to the procurement office referenced above by the date for receipt of written/e-mailed questions or with the offeror's RFP response and must be accompanied by an explanation of why the exception is being taken and what specific effect it will have on the offeror's ability to respond to the RFP or perform the contract. The City reserves the right to address non -material, minor, insubstantial requests for exceptions with the highest scoring offeror during contract negotiation. Any material, substantive, important exceptions requested and granted to the standard terms and conditions and standard contract language will be addressed in any formal written addendum issued for this RFP and will apply to all offerors submitting a response to this RFP. 1.2.5 Mandatory Requirements. To be eligible for consideration, an offeror must meet the intent of all mandatory requirements. The City will determine whether an offeror's RFP response complies with the intent of the requirements. RFP responses that do not meet the full intent of all requirements listed in this RFP may be subject to point reductions during the evaluation process or may be deemed non-responsive. 1.3 PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE None 1.4 SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL 1.4.1 OLrganization of Pro osal. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL The offeror shall provide one original (1) and four (4) hard copies of their proposal, plus one CD, which shall be prepared in the following manner: Format of Proposal The proposal should be a maximum of twenty 20 single sided pages (ten pages if double -sided). A one page cover sheet is optional and is not included in the 20 page maximum. Minimum of 11 point font Stapled or spiral -bound; no binders Sections of Proposal r PG. 25 t Uly of fdllmn (� 9yS ■ City of Milton request for proposal cover sheet (page 1 of this document). Not part of the 20 page limit. + Cost of the Consultant's work to the City of Milton. {See cost evaluation section 5},This is itic Itided in the 20 page limit. • Section 1: Description of Firm's Experience with Similar Projects- The size and overall experience of the offeror with similar projects should be described; Include references. ■ Section I1: Organizational Staffing, Staff Bios and Resumes of Key Staff- Identify Lead Consultant/Project Manager and describe their specific experience, related to this RFA. Also, include all key staff that will be assisting on this project including an organizational chart of how the staff falls in the organization's hierarchy. Section III: Scope of Service A. Meeting # 1 with State Route 9 Design Guidelines Committee. Describe your proposed methods to accomplish this task, and your experience in similar projects B. Meeting # 2 with State Route 9 Design Guidelines Committee .Describe your proposed methods to accomplish this task, and your experience in similar projects C. Meeting # 3 City Council work session. Describe your experience with oral and visual presentations and addressing Councils. Section IV: Work Plan- Describe in detail the work plan calendar for the project which meets the stated deadlines of the City. The entire task indicated in the Scope of Work shall be completed no later than 60 days from the date of the notice to proceed. A. For each deliverable, describe the scope, duration or milestone date and delivery criteria; and B. Describe understanding and commitment for three meetings and proposed dates in conjunction with the overall work plan calendar; and • Section V: Final Comments- Describe why your firm is best suited for this project, and any unique attributes and talents your firm can bring to bear to best accomplish the project for the City of Milton. • Proposal letter form(not part of the 20 page limit) ■ Disclosure Form( not part of the 20 page limit) Offerors must organize their proposal into sections that follow the format of section 1.4.1 1.4.2 Failure to Comply with Instructions. Offerors failing to comply with these instructions may be subject to point deductions. The City may also choose to not evaluate, may deem non-responsive, and/or may disqualify from further consideration any proposals that do not follow this RFP format, are difficult to understand, are difficult to read, or are missing any requested information_ 1.4.3 Deadline for Receipt of Proposals. Proposals must he received at the receptionist's desk prior to 2:00 local time, January 25"`, 20111. Facsimile or emailed res oases to requests or Proposals are not acce table. 1.4.4 Late Proposals_ Regardless of cause, late proposals wifl not be accepted and will autonratically he disqualified from further consideration. It shall be the offeror's sole risk to assure delivery to the receptionist's desk at the designated office by the designated time. Late proposals will not be opened and may be returned to the offeror at the expense of the offeror or destroyed if requested. PG. 26 ., AV aF Mftn 1.5 OFFEROR'S CERTIFICATION 1_5.1 Understandine of Specifications and Requirements. By submitting a response to this RFP, offeror agrees to an understanding of and compliance with the specifications and requirements described in this RFP. 1.5.2 Offer in Effect for 120 Days. A proposal may not be modified, withdrawn or canceled by the offeror for a 120 -day period following the deadline for proposal submission as defined in the Schedule of Events, or receipt of best and final offer, if required, and offeror so agrees in submitting the proposal. 1.6 COST OF PREPARING A PROPOSAL 1.6.1_ City Not Responsible for Preparation Costs. The costs for developing and delivering responses to this RFA and any subsequent presentations of the proposal as requested by the City are entirely the responsibility of the offeror. The City is not liable for any expense incurred by the offeror in the preparation and presentation of their proposal. 1.6.2 All Timel Submitted Materials Become Ci , Properly. All materials submitted in response to this RFP become the property of the City of M i ]ton and are to be appended to any formal documentation, which would further define or expand any contractual relationship between the City and offeror resulting from this RFP process. r PG. 27 CRY of Mftr SECTION 2: RFP STANDARD INFORMATION 2.4 AUTHORITY This RFP is issued under the authority of the City of Milton. The RFP process is a procurement option allowing the award to be based on stated evaluation criteria. The RFP states the relative importance of all evaluation criteria. No other evaluation criteria, other than as outlined in the RFP, will be used. 2.1 OFFEROR COMPETITION The City encourages free and open competition among offerors. Whenever possible, the City will design specifications, proposal requests, and conditions to accomplish this objective, consistent with the necessity to satisfy the City's need to procure technically sound, cost-effective services and supplies. 2.2 RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS AND PUBLIC INSPECTION 2.2.1 Public Information. All information received in response to this RFP, including copyrighted material, is deemed public information and will be made available for public viewing and copying after the time for receipt of proposals has passed, and the award has been made, with the following four exceptions: (1) bona fide trade secrets meeting confidentiality requirements that have been properly marked, separated, and documented; (2) matters involving individual safety as determined by the City of Milton; (3) any company financial information requested by the City of Milton to determine vendor responsibility, unless prior written consent has been given by the offeror; and (4) other constitutional protections. 2.2.2 Procurement Officer Review of Proposals. Upon opening the proposals received in response to this RFP, the procurement office will review the proposals and separate out any information that meets the referenced exceptions in Section 2.2.1 above, providing the following conditions have been met: Confidential information is clearly marked and separated from the rest of the proposal. The proposal does not contain confidential material in the cost or price section. An affidavit from an offeror's legal counsel attesting to and explaining the validity of the trade secret claim is attached to each proposal containing trade secrets. Counsel must use the City of Milton "Affidavit for Trade Secret/Private Information" forms in requesting information remain confidential. This affidavit form is available by contacting the Department of Finance, Procurement/Purchasing Team (678) 297-6060. Information separated out under this process will be available for review only by the procurement office, the evaluation committee members, and limited other designees. Offerors must be prepared to pay all legal costs and fees associated with defending a claim for confidentiality in the event of a "right to know" (open records) request from another party. 2.3 CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS 2.3.1 Initial Classification of Proposals as Responsive or Nonresponsive. All proposals will initially be classified as either "responsive" or "nonresponsive". Proposals may be found nonresponsive any time during the evaluation process or contract negotiation if any of the required information is not provided; the submitted price is found to be excessive or inadequate as measured by criteria stated in the RFP, or the proposal is not within the plans and PG. 28 "� ! Cily M hkl[an specifications described and required in the RFP. If a proposal is found to be nonresponsive, it will not be considered further. 2.3.2 Determination „of Responsibility. The procurement office will determine whether an offeror has met the standards of responsibility. Such a determination may be made at any time during the evaluation process and through contract negotiation if information surfaces that would result in a determination of nonresponsive _2.3.3 Evaluation of Proposals. The evaluation committee will evaluate the remaining proposals and recommend whether to award the contract to the highest scoring offeror or, if necessary, to seek discussion/negotiation or a best and final offer in order to determine the highest scoring offeror. All responsive proposals will be evaluated based on stated evaluation criteria. In scoring against stated criteria, the City may consider such factors as accepted industry standards and a comparative evaluation of all other qualified RFP responses in terms of differing price, quality, and contractual factors. These scores will be used to detennine the most advantageous offering to the City. 2_3.4 Completeness of Proposals. Selection and award will be based on the offeror's proposal and other items outlined in this RFP. Submitted responses may not include references to information located elsewhere, such as Internet websites or libraries, unless specifically requested. Information or materials presented by offerors outside the formal response or subsequent discussion/negotiation or "best and final offer," if requested, will not be considered, will have no bearing on any award, and may result in the offeror being disqualified from further consideration. 2.3.5 Achieve Passing Score. NIA 2_3.6 Opportunity for Discussion/Negotiation and/or Oral Presentation/Product Demonstration. After receipt of all proposals and prior to the determination of the award, the City may initiate discussions with one or more offerors should clarification or negotiation be necessary. Offerors may also be required to make an oral presentation and/or product demonstration to clarify their RFP response or to further define their offer. In either case, offerors should be prepared to send qualified personnel to Milton, Georgia to discuss technical and contractual aspects of the proposal. Oral presentations and product demonstrations, if requested, shall be at the offeror's expense. 2.3.7 Best and Final Offer. The "Best and Final Offer" is an option available to the City under the RFP process which perm its the City to request a "best and final offer"' from one or more offerors if additional information is required to make a final decision. Offerors may be contacted asking that they submit their "best and final offer," which must include any and all discussed and/or negotiated changes. The City reserves the right to request a "best and final offer" for this RFP, if any, based on price/cost alone. 2.3.8 Evaluation Committee Recommendation for Contract Award. The evaluation committee will provide a written recommendation for contract award. 2.3.9 Request for Documents Notice. Upon concurrence with the evaluation committee's recommendation for contract award, the procurement officer may issue a "Request for Documents Notice" to the highest scoring offeror to obtain the required insurance docwnents, contract performance security, and any other necessary documents. Receipt of the "Request for Documents Notice" does not constitute a contract and no work may begin until a contract signed by all parties is in place. 2.3.10 Contract Negotiation. The procurement officer and/or city department representatives may begin contract negotiation with the responsive and responsible offeror whose proposal achieves the highest score and is, therefore, the most advantageous to the City. If contract negotiation is unsuccessful or the highest scoring offeror fails to provide necessary documents or information in a timely manner, or fails to negotiate in good faith, the City may terminate negotiations and begin negotiations with the next highest scoring offeror. PG. 29 �'� ? Clty o� Mlpon 2.3.11 Contract Award. Contract award, if any, will be made to the highest scoring offeror who provides all required documents and successfully completes contract negotiation. 2.4 RIGHTS RESERVED While the City has every intention to award a contract as a result of this RFP, issuance of the RFP in no way constitutes a commitment by the City of Milton to award and execute a contract. Upon a determination such actions would be in its best interest, the City, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to: • cancel or terminate this RPP; • reject any or all proposals received in response to this RFP; • waive any undesirable, inconsequential, or inconsistent provisions of this RFP which would not have significant impact on any proposal; • not award if it is in the best interest of the City not to proceed with contract execution; or • If awarded, terminate any contract if the City determines adequate funds are not available. PG. 34 city o' wlo SECTION 3: SCOPE OF PROJECT Provided by the City of M ilton The City of Milton will provide the following information and documents to the successful consultant: • State Route 9 Overlay ordinance ■ Draft State Route 9 Design Guidelines • State Route 9 Visual Survey Results • Deerfield Overlay ■ Milton Trail Plan • Transportation Master Plan Meeting# 1_with State Route 9 Design Guidelines Committee At the first meeting you will include a presentation showing examples of possible landscape and streetscape designs for S.R_ 9 Overlay District with attention to the GA Department of Transportation's (GDOT) TOPPs 6755-9, Landscaping on D.O.T. Right of Way policy. The purpose is to give the committee members feasible design options for all the various mile pots and speed sections along S.R. 9 as well as the other local streets throughout the Overlay District. Resulting from Meeting # 1 with the S.R. 9 Design Guideline Committee, an electronic draft of the landscape and streetscape design ideas must be emailed or sent to the Community Development Director for review in advance of Meeting #2 (see project status requirements below). Meeting 422 with State Route 9 Design Guidelines Committee At the second meeting you will show recommendations based on the first meeting's feedback. This will be considered the first draft of the landscape and streetscape document. Any recommended changes will be incorporated within 2 weeks and emailed back to the community development director as the final draft. Resulting from Meeting # 2 with the S.R. 9 Design Guideline Committee, an electronic and printed copy of the final draft landscape and streetscape design document must be emailed and sent to the Community Development Director for review in advance of Meeting #3 (see project status requirements below). Meeting # 3 City Council work session presentation At the council work session, you will address the city council members with an overview of the work completed on behalf of the S.R. 9 Design Guideline Committee. A visual presentation such as a power point presentation and or demonstration boards should be used as required to aid in the presentation to the council. Be prepared to field questions. Resulting from Meeting # 3 City Council work session, an electronic and printed copy of the final landscape and streetscape document which incorporates any changes to the document that have been approved by the S.R. 9 Design Guideline Committee must be emailed and sent to the Community Development Director. (see project status requirements below). ADDITIONAL PROJECT DELIVERABLES PG. 31 City of Milbn The final deliverable will be a landscape and streetscape design guideline document, which includes but not limited to themeing, cross-section drawings, maps, details such as textures, plant materials, lighting, posts, fencing, street furniture such as benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, bus shelters etcetera with attention to residential streets, commercial parkways, local roads, and pedestrian facilities. The deliverable would become part of the State Route 4 Design Guidelines document. The successful consultant shall deliver the final document no later than sixty (60) days after award of bid and notice to proceed. Project Status/ Oversight and Staffing The consultant will report project status and other information to the Community Development Director or designee at specific intervals as follows: • No more than 5 business days after Meeting #1, to discuss and review the status of the draft landscape and streetscape document and schedule a delivery date for the draft document. • No more than 5 business days after Meeting # 2, to discuss and review the recommended changes to the draft landscape and streetscape document before finalizing, and to schedule a delivery date for the document. • By the Thursday before Meeting #3 council work session; to review discussion points for the council work session and schedule the delivery of the visual presentation. • No more than 3 business days after Meeting #3 council work session, discuss and review the recommended changes since the council work session and schedule the final delivery of the document. • The successful consultant shall deliver the final document no later than sixty (60) days after award of bid and notice to proceed. PG. 32 SECTION 4: OFFEROR QUALIFICATIONS 4.0 CITY'S RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE The City may make such investigations as deemed necessary to determine the ability of the offeror to provide the supplies and/or perform the services specified. PG. 33 �^�iµtrr or M�aen SECTION 5: COST PROPOSAL yCity of Milton �f MUST BE RETURNED WITH BID Cost Evaluation 35% of total score Return this section with the RFP The offerors cost proposal shall be a fixed price/ lump sum amount and signed by and authorized a gent of the company. This includes all deliverables in Section 3. Meeting # 1: S.R. 9 Design Guidelines Committee plus Draft Document Leel of Effort (Hours) Rate per hour Total Cost (Meeting #I plus draft document) $ Meeting # 2: S.R. 9 Design Guidelines Committee plus Draft Document Level of Effort (Hours) Rate per hour Total cost (Meeting 42 plus draft document) $ Meeting # 3: City Council work session Presentation plus Final Document Level of Effort (Hours) Rate per hour Total cost (Meeting #3 plus Final Document) $ Misc costs $ Grand Total $ r. PG. 34 ( city & Millon Rate per hour for additional meetings if needed (not part of evaluation) Authorized Signature Print/Type Name Print/Type Company Name Here. Date SECTION 6: EVALUATION CRITERIA 6.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA The evaluation committee will review aqd evaluate the offers according to the foIlowing- criteria: Technical! Evaluation (55% of total score) We are basing our technical evaluation on: Approach (enhancement or qualitative changes to scope based on prior experience) Prior relevant experience and references Completeness of data requested Quality and detail of schedule, to meet completion timeline Cost Evaluation 35% of total score): Fixed Price Presentation Evaluation 00% of total score) Based on technical and cost evaluation, the City will ask the top three offerors to make a short presentation. The requirements for the presentation will be determined later. n PG. 35 •'"" Gty of Millan SECTION 7: STANDARD CONTRACT INFORMATION 7.1 STANDARD CONTRACT The City's standard contract is attached to this document as Appendix A. Offerors should notify the City of any terms within the standard contract that either preclude them from responding to the RFP or add unnecessary cost. This notification must be made by the deadline for receipt of written'e-mailed questions or with the offeror -s RFP response. Any requests for material, substantive, important exceptions to the standard contract will be addressed in any formal written addendum issued by the procurement officer in charge of the solicitation. The City reserves the right to address any non -material, minor, insubstantial exceptions to the standard contract with the highest scoring offeror at the time of contract negotiation. 7.2 ADDITIONAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND TERMS This RFP and any addenda, the offeror's RFP response, including any amendments, a best and final offer, any clarification question responses, and any negotiations shall be included in any resulting contract. The City's standard contract, attached as Appendix A, contains the contract terms and conditions which will form the basis of any contract negotiated between the City and the highest scoring offeror. The contract language contained in Appendix A does not define the total extent of the contract language that may be negotiated. In the event of a dispute as to the duties and responsibilities of the parties under this contract, the contract, along with any attachments prepared by the City, will govern in the same order of precedence as listed in the contract. 7.5 SUBCONTRACTORS The highest scoring offeror will be the prime contractor if a contract is awarded and shall be responsible, in total, for all work of any subcontractors. All subcontractors, if any, must be listed in the proposal. The City reserves the right to approve all subcontractors. The Contractor shall be responsible to the City for the acts and omissions of all subcontractors or agents and of persons directly or indirectly employed by such subcontractors, and for the acts and omissions of persons employed directly by the Contractor, Further, nothing contained within this document or any contract documents created as a result of any contract awards derived from this RFP shall create any contractual relationships between any subcontractor and the City. 7.5 GENERAL INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS See Section IV (I) of the contract in Appendix A. 7.7 COMPLIANCE WITH WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT The Contractor is required to supply the City of Milton with proof of compliance with the Workers' Compensation Act while performing work for the City. Neither the Contractor nor its employees are employees of the City. The proof of insurancelexemption must be received by the City of Milton within 10 working days of the Request for Documents Notice and must be kept current for the entire term of the contract. PG. 36 CONTRACTS WILL NOT BE ISSUED TO VENDORS WHO FAIL TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME FRAME. 7.8 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The Contractor must, in performance of work under this contract, frilly comply with all applicable federal, state. or local laws, rules and regulations, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1994, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Any subletting or subcontracting by the Contractor subjects subcontractors to the same provision. The Contractor agrees that the hiring of persons to perform the contract will be made on the basis of merit and qualifications and there will be no discrimination based upon race, color, religion, creed, political ideas, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, or national origin by the persons performing the contract, 7.11 CONTRACT TERMINATION See section VI of the contract in Appendix A. PG. 37 �'"� car m ramn Exhibit S(Part 1) Original response urban _FYI 0 State Route 9 Design Guide A PG. 38 c ., �l'�CKY & Mllmn liv ,il"':.�, I CITY OF MILTON city Of Milton REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL THIS IS NOT AN ORDER .—.K.. — ................... RFP Number: RFP Title: 10-CD01 FY10 State Route 9 Design Guideline Landscape and Streetscape. RFP Due Date and Time: January 25 in 2010 2:00pm local time ISSUING DEPARTMENT INFORMATION Procurement Office Contact: Issue Date: dick Pearce I January 6th, 2010 City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Pkwy, Suite 107G Milton, Ga. 30004 Phone: 678-242-2508 Fax: 678-242-2499 Website: www.cityofmiltonga,us INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS Return Proposal to: Mark Face of Envelope/Package: City of Milton Bid Number: 10-CDo1 Attn: Rick Pearce, Purchasing Office Name of Company or Firm 13000 Deerfield Pkwy Suite 1076 Milton, Ga. 30004 Special Instructions: Deadline for Written Questions January 13th- 2009 @ 5:00PM Email(preferred) questions to Rick Pearce at rick.taearceecilyofniatonga.us or Fax questions Attn: Rick Pearce at 678-242-2499 OFFERORS MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING Offeror Name/Address: Offeror Signatory: Urban Collage, inc, 121 Luckie Street NW, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 yAulhor'd gle, Principal Please riot name and si n in lrrkOfferor AX Number: Phone Number: 404-86-0277 404586-0079 Offeror Federal I.D. Number: Offeror E-mail Address: 58-2282042 bbegle@urbancollage.com OFFERORS MUST RETURN THIS COVER SHEET WITH RFP RESPONSE FY10 State Route 9 Design Guidellnes Landscupe rind Stre'etscape Proposal Submitted to the Glfy of Milton SECTION 5: COST PROPOSAL City of Milton MUST BE RETURNED WITH BID Cost Evaluation 35% of total score Return this section with the RFP The offerors cost proposal shall be a fixed price/ lump sum amount and signed by and authorized agent of the company. This includes all deliverables in Section 3. Meeting # t: S. R. 9 Design Guidelines Committee plus Draft Document Level of Effort _. Q (Hours) Hate per hour 140.00 Total Cost (Meeting #t plus draft document) $.... -___ 6,0DO a Meeting # 2: S.R. 9 Design Guidelines Committee plus Draft Document Level of Effort 60^___ (Hours) Rate per hour 10000 ___ Total cost (Meeting #2 plus draft document) $ 6,000.00 Meeting # 3, City Council work session Presentation plus Final Document Level of Effort _..40 (Hours) Rate per hour 1001), Total cost (Meeting #3 plus Final document) $__ 4.000.00 Misc costs $ 0 Grand Total $ 16,000.00 Rate per hour for additional meetings it needed (not part of evaluation) 1o0.oa Authorized Signature Date January 21. 2010 Print/Type Name. Robert . egle, Pdncipai Print/Type Company Narhe Here Urban Collage, Inc. FYI State Route 9 Design Gutdetines Lrxndscope and Streetscape Proposal Submitted to the City of MTiton 1 In 1997, the Midtown Alliance embarked upon Blueprint Midtown, a comprehensive and proactive planning/visioning exercise for Midtown, a critical and diverse section of downtown Atlanta. Having established a vision for a diverse, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly urban district; Urban Collage continues to assist the Midtown Alliance in implementing the vision. To help guide ongoing and rapidly accelerating development in the area, Urban Collage provided assistance in preparing the Blueprint Midtown Design Standards. The illustrated standards seek to create an attractive and functional public environment, protect historic resources and establish architectural guidelines for site planning, building design, signage and parking. The Design Guidelines formed the basis for creation of the Midtown Special Public Interest District (SPI), a new zoning ordinance for Midtown adopted by the City of Atlanta in December of 2001. A concurrent and related work effort in Midtown is directed at enhancing the public environment through new open spaces, plazas, and streetscapes. Urban Collage continues to assist the Midtown Alliance as the program planner for the Public Improvement Program, The Blueprint Midtown Implementation Plan was the winner of the 2008 Georgia Planning Association's Outstanding Implementation Plan. midlovm proposed situ ��s sp+�g sirw,l*Bol � -. �aw,hYeepce nlp , _. � ..........�Nu.ELi PHASE ffo 5 ii A2 't Midtown Cityscapes IUk01 nc MIor owns rut URE REFERENCE Midtown Alliance 999 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Shannon Powell VP Planning & Development 444.892.4782 5 hannon @m i dtown ai I iance. org ._............_-.... -....................... -... ... .......................................... ............................................... _ FY 10 State Route 9 Design Guldelines Landscape ones Str,eetseape Proposal SubmitfeL. rift' o. M[Iton 2 SECTION I Project Experience I References rF iH FULTON CID SERVICES -401 xaea� CQ�181jH In 2007, Urban Collage, Inc. was retained by the North Fulton Community Improvement District (CID) to develop an integrated land use and transportation master plan for the GA 400 commercial corridor in North Fulton County. The Conceptual Plan for Blueprint North Fulton outlines strategies for three nodes: North Point Activity Center, Old Milton Parkway and Windward Parkway. The planning process included two public workshops, a consumer research survey, and significant discussion with the district's three municipalities: Alpharetta, Milton and Roswell. The Blueprint's final plan showed a prioritization of transportation and community improvement projects and land use policies that will help create a more balanced, sustainable North Fulton and provide direction for CID initiatives and expenditures over the next seven years. In October 2008, the final plan was unveiled. Urban Collage was subsequently retained to continue to help the CID to coordinate design and planning for key implementation planning projects. I EFERIENC North Fulton CID 11005 Haynes Bridge Road Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30004 Ann Miller Hanlon VP of Transportation, COO 678,397.0566 amiller@gnfcc.com FYI State Route 4 Design Guidelines La"dscape and Streetscape Propoaal Submitted to the City of Milfon 3 Q. -" •. •Are, v � , .......... 3 0 I EFERIENC North Fulton CID 11005 Haynes Bridge Road Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30004 Ann Miller Hanlon VP of Transportation, COO 678,397.0566 amiller@gnfcc.com FYI State Route 4 Design Guidelines La"dscape and Streetscape Propoaal Submitted to the City of Milfon 3 SECTION I Project Experience ' References % _............._.��1S OOKHVEN/PEACHTRELIVAS� CENTERS INITIATIVE PLAN `Aifla ..................._.._........................................_......................._................................... . ............................ ®LCI PLAN ... .................... ........... &vTun HNIMIll In 2005, Urban Collage, Inc. was retained by DeKalb County to create a development plan for the Brookhaven community in North Atlanta, including redevelopment of the Brookhaven/Oglethorpe University MARTA rail station, as part of the Atlanta Regional Commission's Livable Centers Initiative. The plan focused on redevelopment of the 10 -acre MARTA rail station property and the Peachtree Road commercial corridor to create a dynamic, mixed- use center of regional prominence. The village center is intended to become a focal point within the Brookhaven community and DeKalb County, including a mix of multi -tenant office space, retail business and multi -family residential development positioned around a central open space in a denser, pedestrian oriented pattern. Additional redevelopment projects in the area focus on developing a consistent sense of character in Brookhaven, creating a mixed-use environment with a strong sense of place, offering a variety of housing types and price points, creating a dynamic pedestrian environment and improving traffic safety. Subsequently, Urban Collage was retained by Dekalb County to draft a form -based overlay district to implement the plan. The overlay, the first of its kind in the county, was developed with a steering committee of local stakeholders and created form sub -areas, public space standards, urban design standards & provisions for workforce housing. _._.................... .... .......... REFERENCE DeKalb County Economic Development Dept. 150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 320 Decatur, GA 30030 Maria Mullins Director of Economic Development 404.687.2742 mmullins@co.dekalb.ga.us tate Route � Design Loridscupe and Streetscape Proposal Submitter€ tri i c £;.! , o� 4 - ..yvkk.,p.�Cw.�rxwc•�d aax Conan iMekw %V, �e e.wbe Z= _•. .• .• >'.i� >re nde.e4al^a•`o�nio+lm Wvexrcop.•enl v •..-rte..•«... ` w�-•�••W� .xCn� POA � o dc.a men�pe�n�� �. 9.-sc Mx y�-evi ho�rc.riaie Adn woe es�o Sem U: ..Fepr.nv of+aria..: eccc.ar.c� f•.i* la x.�wy a .mn. - _ a,N.mxo.gpxe�dc�c6£.rcn•g:m��inr. _ b 1V ee px. m ne 4ewkx'ie-- £oars.. :CI rYx. x e-cawg. ee+e�c-� 1� S � vim•, m� s�v�c �V ka he e..r . eW.cee.w iil omen. &a4aeovvn�eochkee FCI ko[krefsnk /ion ®LCI PLAN ... .................... ........... &vTun HNIMIll In 2005, Urban Collage, Inc. was retained by DeKalb County to create a development plan for the Brookhaven community in North Atlanta, including redevelopment of the Brookhaven/Oglethorpe University MARTA rail station, as part of the Atlanta Regional Commission's Livable Centers Initiative. The plan focused on redevelopment of the 10 -acre MARTA rail station property and the Peachtree Road commercial corridor to create a dynamic, mixed- use center of regional prominence. The village center is intended to become a focal point within the Brookhaven community and DeKalb County, including a mix of multi -tenant office space, retail business and multi -family residential development positioned around a central open space in a denser, pedestrian oriented pattern. Additional redevelopment projects in the area focus on developing a consistent sense of character in Brookhaven, creating a mixed-use environment with a strong sense of place, offering a variety of housing types and price points, creating a dynamic pedestrian environment and improving traffic safety. Subsequently, Urban Collage was retained by Dekalb County to draft a form -based overlay district to implement the plan. The overlay, the first of its kind in the county, was developed with a steering committee of local stakeholders and created form sub -areas, public space standards, urban design standards & provisions for workforce housing. _._.................... .... .......... REFERENCE DeKalb County Economic Development Dept. 150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 320 Decatur, GA 30030 Maria Mullins Director of Economic Development 404.687.2742 mmullins@co.dekalb.ga.us tate Route � Design Loridscupe and Streetscape Proposal Submitter€ tri i c £;.! , o� 4 SECTION I Project Experience ] References In 2037, the Gwinnett Village Community Improvement District {GVCID) asked Urban Collage to perform a two phased project geared towards revitalizing a pair of active but aging strip retail corridors. The first phase was the creation of a redevelopment plan for the two corridors; Jimmy Carter Boulevard and Buford Highway. The process involved a detailed analysis of several existing plans as well and the very disparate conditions along the two corridors. A steering committee consisting of property owners, business people and adjacent residents helped guide the process, providing input with regards to priorities, goals and vision for future growth. Recognizing the importance of implementation, Urban Collage proceeded directly into the second phase, the crafting of an ordinance and design guidelines that would provide an incentive -based regulatory framework to support the redevelopment plan's direction. Working not only with the client but an additional CID and consultants, complementary documents were drafted to direct the redevelopment of the two corridors. The Mixed -Use Ordinance was written initially as an area -specific overlay, but received such positive feedback from the Gwinnett County Planning Department that it was eventually constructed to supplant the existing mixed-use ordinance. The other half of the equation, the Design Guidelines, were created to give a graphic indication of text of the ordinance and make the code more "user-friendly". The Guidelines also added detail to several aspects of the ordinance, providing quality assurance for streetscapes, road design, and multi -family redevelopment, among others. Both the ordinance and the guidelines were adopted by the county & the city of Norcross in 2008. 7F Fr w IM IREFERENCE j Gwinnett Village 1412 Oakbrook Drive, Suite 181 Norcross GA 30093 Chuck Warbington Executive Director 770.449.$515 chuck@gwinnettvillage.com I €a Stote Route 9 D00C,n Guldelines i.nr,dscape and Streetscape Proposal Sesta matted to the City of MI[ton 6 SECTION I Project Experience __ References PERIMETER COMMUNITY DISTRICTS STRATEGIC C PLANNING 4 GIMPLEMENTATION _ _._............................ ................................................................... [r r - per.. uaexw c$i�aQr RIP, ph M 1- KI a M L] Urban Collage provides strategic planning and implementation services to the Perimeter Community Improvement Districts (PCIDs), which comprise portions of both DeKalb and Fulton Counties. This client relationship is an extension of previous planning work that Urban Collage completed for the PCID as part of a 2001 Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) planning study. That LCI study identified a list of key projects (including intersection enhancements, streetscapes, a wayfinding system, and zoning amendments) that would further the PCID's mission to implement transit -supportive development and maximize existing transportation investments in the area. In the firm's current capacity as "Program Planner" to the PCID, Urban Collage has refined that initial list of projects to create a comprehensive five-year Public Improvements Program. ]REFERENCE I Perimeter Community Improvement Districts 1 Ravinia Drive, Suite 1125 Atlanta, GA 30346 Yvonne Williams Executive Director i 770.390.1780 ywilliams@perimetercid.org tm........... ... -- ......... ......... FY10 State Route 9 Design Guidelines Landscape amd Street scope Proposal Submitted to the City of Milton 6 SECTION I Project Experience I References URBAN & STREETSCAPE RESIGN GUIDELINES & STANDARDS Design Guidelines (LCI Study) City of Holly Springs, GA Developed design guidelines as part of a Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) Studythat included streetscape furniture standards, plant palettes, paving material, 2-D visualizations, streetscape project priority recommendations and cost estimates. Design Guidelines Town Center CID Kennesaw, GA Created urban design guidelines that included plant palettes, paving material, street furniture, placement of streetscape elements, typical sections, hierarchies of streets, and specific designs per street type. Beautification Project Priority StudyTown Center CID Kennesaw, GA Created an inventory of project opportunities, cost estimates, priority list and implementation list. Median and interchange planting designs also included an expansion of the existing the plant palette guidelines. Design Guidelines (LCI Study) City of Lilburn, GA Developed streetscape design guidelines as part of a Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) Study that included streetscape furniture standards, trees and plant palettes, paving material, and 2-D visualizations. Design Guidelines Gwinnett Place CID Duluth, GA Developed urban design guidelines that included plant materials, paving material, street furniture, placement of streetscape elements, typical sections, and design development for specific target areas. The guidelines also provided options to retro -fit certain areas with existing concrete sidewalks if necessary. Design Guidelines Cumberland CID Smyrna, GA Developed design guidelines that included materials, colors, and character of street furniture. Downtown TE Streetscape City of Ball Ground, GA Streetscape Design project that included future streetscape project locations and priorities, and standards for plant palettes, paving materials, and street furniture. Downtown TE Streetscape City of Stone Mountain, GA Streetscape Design project that established standards for plant palettes, paving materials, and street furniture. FY10 State Route 9 Design Guidelines Landscape and Streetscope Proposal Submitted to the City of MYIton SECTION II Organizational Staffing We are urban designers who believe that the physical environment helps shape a community's functional, economic and social well-being. The art = of "collage" is the creative practice of assembling diverse elements into a dynamic composition, often from multiple perspectives, We view communities in the same, organic way - as they change and grow, their built environment �'. reflects the unique circumstances of its politics and place. Our work is varied meq: in scale -from individual Buildings &Sites to the institutional frameworks of ?'° == Campuses & Schools; from focused Neighborhoods & Districts to regional . ; .,...:...:: networks of Corridors & Centers. and even entire Cities & Towns. m'F Since the firm's founding in 1997 in Atlanta, we have completed over 200 projects throughout the Southeast and, as a testament to the determination and passion of our clients, our plans have resulted in thousands of new - housing units, first class schools and institutions, hundreds of acres of new ¢, parks and open spaces, miles of streetscape and bicycle paths and, most FM importantly, the creation of dozens of memorable places. The whole of a vibrant community is often greater than the sum of its parts and therein lies the key to true urban design. Urban Collage, Inc. 121 Luckie Street NW, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30343 404,586.0277 Urban open spaces are vital assets of any healthy and livable city. They are essential to the social fabric of the surrounding community and they play a fundamental role in the larger economic vitality. jB+a's Urban Design Studio understands that successfully designed public spaces can profoundly impact the economic well being of a community. Relying on the principles of "Sustainable Development" and "Smart Growth", our design professionals faring a pragmatic and dynamic approach to the process of designing great spaces that enhance the experience of walking, shopping, working, traveling and living in the city. In our approach to the design of city passageways, streets and boulevards we know that a careful balancing of the needs of the pedestrian and vehicular environments is essential to the proper function and success of any streetscape. In recognition of the importance of urban parks and plazas as gathering places for the enjoyment, recreation, and education of a community, we actively seek solutions that help people to connect with one another and to the natural world_ As part of this effort, the urban planners and landscape architects of jB+a's Urban Design Studio employ considerable expertise in community planning, functional and value analyses, public participation process, design guidelines and development of design concepts through construction. jB+a Urban Design Studio 700 Galleria Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30339 770.803.0900 FYiL? Stet Ye. Route 7 Design Guldeilnes Landscape csnd Streetsc ape. P1 roposaf Subrnitted to the City of Miltvrf a SECTION II Organizational Staffing FF ERIC S. BOSMAN, AICP, Associate Principal An Associate Principal with Urban Collage, Inc., Eric S. Bosman. E D U'_1',,TI 0 N AICP has assisted a variety of public and private clients as a facilitator, planner and project manager. Capitalizing on Masters of Urban and Regional his training in architecture and urban planning, Mr. Bosman Planning, University of Illinois, 1998 specializes in community, facility, and educational planning and Masters of Architecture, has completed numerous campus and community plans, facility plans, and architectural programs. As a project manager, Mr. University of Illinois, 1998 y Bosman has assisted clients in managing multi-million dollar Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, implementation programs. He is an accomplished instructor Clemson University, 1995 and has conducted multiple seminars on leadership skills, group dynamics and communication skills. HONORS/AFFILIATIONS American Institute of Certified REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Planners (A1CP) Midtown Public Spaces Program, Atlanta, GA, Project Man- American Planning Association (APA) ager: Assisted with project oversight and management for over Georgia Planning Association, $40 million in design and construction of streetscape and open Treasurer space projects. Council of Educational Facility North Fulton CID Urban Planning Services, North Fulton Planners International (CEFPI) County, GA, Project Manager: Managing the development of a Society of College and University master plan for the GA 400 commercial corridor in North Fulton planners (SCUP) County. The plan will create a cohesive vision for growth and development, catalyze quality of life improvements and provide 2408 GPA Outstanding Small Town direction for CID initiatives and expenditures over the next five Initiative Award, Garden City Town years. Center Plan North Point Activity Center LCI, Alpharetta, GA, Project 2006 GPA Outstanding Plan Award, Manager: Directed the development of a Livable Centers Plan Blueprint Midtown Implementation for the North Point Activity Center to create a development vision Plan coordinated with transportation improvements. The plan seeks 2002 Midtown Leadership Program to intensify and transform traditional suburban shopping areas AIA Honor Award, "CSC Financial into a more sustainable, mixed-use center. Services Corporate Headquarters," Brookhaven -Peachtree Livable Centers Initiative, Atlanta, 2002 GA, Project Manager: Led the preparation of a redevelopment ASLA Honor Award, "New Orleans plan for the Brookhaven -Oglethorpe MARTA Train Station area Baptist Theological Seminary in Northeast Atlanta. The pian included revitalization of aging Campus Master Plan," 2000 commercial areas, planned redevelopment of MARTA station parking areas for mixed-use, transit -oriented development and APA Illinois Chapter Award, "A multiple community workshops to gather public input. Comprehensive Plan for Custer and Reed Townships," 1999 Cherokee Road Master Plan, Social Circle, GA, Project Manager: The City of Social Circle contracted with Urban Collage, Inc. to PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE reshape the City's historic downtown and the SR 11 corridor that bisects it. The design plan reorganizes an abundant right PageSoutherlandPage, Houston, TX of way to widen pedestrian sidewalks in the Downtown area, East St. Louis Action Research incorporate enhanced lighting and landscaping, and create a Project, Champaign, IL significant public event space. Through a rigorous public input process the plan incorporates strategies to improve access to parking, preserve the downtown's historic features and urban design elements, and reduce grade changes that limit handicap access. FY 10 State Route 9 Design Gu1delines Landscape and Streetsccpe Proposal Submitted 10 the City o1 Mltton 9 SECTION II Organizational Staffing MATT CHERRY, Associate 11r,A Collogr Matt Cherry is an Associate with a background in urban design, EDUCATION landscape architecture and graphic design. His work and Master of Urban Design experience ranges from urban revitalization studies and transit- University of Michigan, 2004 oriented developments to detailed site plans and streetscape designs. Having managed many planning efforts throughout Bachelor of Landscape Architecture Metro Atlanta, he focuses on the application of smart growth and University of Georgia, 2000 sustainable design principles across a broad range of urban and rural settings. Matt has also worked extensively as a graphic HONORS/AFFILIATIONS designer, lending his talents of hand drawing and graphic 2006 GPA Outstanding Plan Award, representation to the firm. Blueprint Midtown Implementation Plan REPRESENTATIVE ROJEC ` EXPERIENCE Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit X, Land Use Committee Chair Milltown Public Spaces Program, Atlanta, GA, Project Manager: Currently, providing assistance with project oversight Georgia Chapter Sierra Club, and management for over $40 million in design and construction Volunteer of streetscape and open space projects. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Jimmy Carter Boulevard 1 Buford Highway Redevelopment Plan, Gwinnett County, Project Planner: Assisted in the planning Tun nell-S &Associates process to consolidate and update prior planning efforts into a (Atlanta, a, GAJ single, comprehensive Redevelopment Plan. Assisted with the Givens Associates Design / Metro creation of an Overlay District - a layer of regulation that provides Land Group (Atlanta, GA) for and encourages higher -density, mixed-use redevelopment, University of Georgia Business and which sets design standards for the purpose of creating an Outreach Services (Athens, GA) attractive and consistent gateway for the front door of Gwinnett County. Comprehensive Plan For The Town Of Braselton, Braselton, GA, Urban Designer/Planner: Assisted with the development of the Comprehensive plan for the Town of Braselton. The Plan focuses on the Town's growth management policies and promotes a strong design character in the Town's historic downtown and the Chateau Elan Activity Area. Palmetto LCI Study and Comprehensive Plan, Palmetto, GA, Project Manager: Directed the creation of a master plan for the City of Palmetto, a charming small town with lush vegetation, a wide array of historic homes and a small Main Street with tons of potential. Working with the Atlanta Regional Commission, The City of Palmetto and the citizens of Palmetto to set a precedent for smart -growth policies and historic preservation initiatives in the face of growth pressures common to much of Metro Atlanta. Dallas Livable Centers Initiative, Dallas, GA, Planner: Assisted with the development of a master plan effort to spur private development in the historic downtown core and develop a physical connection between the historic core and a new County Government Center to be constructed outside the downtown area. FYI State Route 9 bees gn Guidelines Landbcope crud Streetscape Propcsai Submitted to the City of Mi(fon 10 SECTION II Organizational Staffing 171- NITI GAJJAR, Senior Rinne>IlF .R.r Eufla�a Niti Gajjar has graduated with a Master of Community Planning EDUCATION from the University of Cincinnati. Aside from her academic Master of Community Planning background in architecture and urban planning, she has worked University of Cincinnati, 2007 on a multitude of projects in India, including various master plans for cities, towns, industrial areas and burgeoning rural areas. Diploma in Architecture (5 year In addition, her experience as an intern planner also includes program) Center for Environment, preparation of base map and conceptual proposals for land use Planning, and Technology (CEPT), and transportation corridor planning projects at Urban Collage. Ahmedabad, 2002 HONORSAFFILIATIONS American Planning Association, Member REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Georgia Planning Association, North Fulton Community Improvement District (CID) Member Planning Services, Alpharetta, GA, Project Planner: Currently assisting with the development of a master plan for the GA 400 Director's Choice Award commercial corridor in North Fulton County. The plan will create for S for Studio Project at Universityof a cohesive vision for growth and development, catalyze quality Cincinnati, Comprehensive Plan of life improvements and provide direction for CID initiatives and for the Retirement Community at expenditures over the next five years. Lebanon, Ohio North Point Livable Communities Initiative, Alpharetta, GA, Student Exchange Program at VSVU, Project Planner: Assisted with the planning process to coordinate Bratislava, Slovakia future development with transportation improvernents and identify transportation choices to better move residents, employees and PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE visitors to and through the area. Environmental Planning Acworth Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Acworth, GA, Project Collaborative - A not for profit Planner: Assisted with the creation of a master pian for several company, Ahmedabad, India historic in -town neighborhoods adjacent to the city's historic School of Planning at CEPT, Main Street. Although the process is in the early stages, several Ahmedabad, India key themes are; preservation of historic resources, infill housing Kapadia Associates, Mumbai, India guidelines, public space improvements and connectivity across the railroad line that divides the downtown area. East Rome Revitalization Plan, Rome, GA, Project Planner: Worked with a multi -disciplinary team planning for transformation of the East Rome neighborhood. The community-based plan will create opportunities for mixed -income housing and economic development in this historic neighborhood. Campbell Terrace 1 Old Wilmington Road Revitalization Plan, Fayetteville, NC, Project Planner: Assisted with the preparation of housing development concepts for the HOPE VI revitalization plan for the dual communities of Campbell Terrace and Delona Gardens in the Old Wilmington Road neighborhood of downtown Fayetteville. The revitalization master plan, includes a variety of development considerations including adaptive re -use, community gardens and orchards, senior housing, townhomes, single family homes, existing institution/educational structures and several additional areas under city ownership in the Old Wilmington Road neighborhood. FY i6 State Route 7 Design Guidelines Landscape anon Streetscape Proposal Submitted to the City of Milton tl SECTION II Organizational Staffing +KATIE BLANKENSTEIN, Landscape Designer JB Ms. Blankenstein is a Landscape Designer with experience throughout the United States and China. Her areas of expertise lie in urban design, streetscape design, traffic calming, master planning, site planning, community planning and design, park design, commercial site design and mixed-use developments. Ms. Blankenstein has diverse background of experience pertaining to urban design, renovation and revitalization. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Gwinnett Place CID, Gwinnett County, GA Visioning Plan & Streetscape Standards Town Center CID, Kennesaw, GA Streetscape Standards & Guidelines Holly Springs LCI Study, Holly Springs, GA Livable Centers Initiative Study & Urban Design Guidelines Locust Grove TE Streetscape, Locust Grove, GA Streetscape Planning and Design Old Milton Parkway Streetscape, Fulton County, GA Streetscape Planning and Design Gwinnett Place CID 1-85 Interchanges, Gwinnett County, GA Interchange Median Landscape Planting Design Stone Mountain TE Streetscape, Stone Mountain, GA Historic Town Center & Streetscape Planning and Design Dallas Streetscape, Dallas, GA TE & CMAQ Streetscape Design Perimeter Center West Streetscape, Fulton and DeKalb County, GA; Streetscape Planning and Design Garden City Downtown Master Plan, Garden City, GA Streetscape Planning and Design Dallas CMAQ and TE Streetscape, Dallas, GA Streetscape Planning and Design Gwinnett Place CID, Gwinnett County, GA Streetscape Master Plan Satellite Blvd Streetscape Master Plan, Gwinnett County, GA Streetscape Design & Beautification Hammond Drive LCI Streetscape, Atlanta, GA Presentation Graphics Norcross TE and LCI Streetscape, Norcross, GA Streetscape Planning and Design Oak Street CDBG Streetscape, Roswell, GA Streetscape Planning and Design West Point Downtown Redevelopment, West Point, GA Urban Plaza and River Park Master Plan Cobb Galleria Parkway LCI Streetscape, Cobb County, GA Streetscape Planning and Design University of Georgia Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, 1996 HONORS AFFILIATIONS Georgia Downtown Association People for Public Spaces East Atlanta Community Association (EACA) Atlanta Regional Commission, Member Bicycle/ Pedestrian Task Force "Designing for Pedestrian Safety ARC / FHWA Workshop, Atlanta, 2408 "Designing Streets for Pedestrians", PEDS Workshop, Atlanta, 2048 "Urban Design Inside 1-285", Moderator and Speaker, Georgia ASLA & Georgia Planning Association Joint Annual Conference, Atlanta, 2007 "How To Turn A Place Around", People for Public Spaces Conference, New York City, 2006 GDOT RDW Design Workshop, 2006 GDOT Context Sensitive Design Workshop, 2006 GDOT TE Training Workshop, 2005 LCI Implementation Workshop, 2004 GDOT Context Sensitive Design Workshop, 2004 FYIa State Route 9 Design Guidelines Landscape csnd Streefac ape Proposal Submitted to the City of Milton 12 SECTION II Organizational Staffing ALISHA H. SMITH, Landscape Designer/Graphics &VIsualization JB Ms. Smith has been involved in a wide range of public and private projects, with experience in landscape/hardscape design, master planning, urban design, streetscape design, historic preservation, park design, graphic design and formatting for publications. Her involvement as a planner and planting designer on a diverse body of projects and ecologically sensitive areas, has given her a unique perspective towards site analysis and sustainable design_ REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Old Milton Parkway Streetscape Alpharetta, Georgia Streetscape Planning and Design Perimeter Center West Streetscape Fulton and DeKalb County, Georgia Streetscape Planning and Design Powder Springs Street Streetscape Marietta, Georgia Streetscape Planning & Design Cobb Galleria LCI Streetscape Cobb County, Georgia Streetscape Planning and Design Cumberland Blvd. Streetscape Cobb County, Georgia Streetscape Planning and Design Dallas CMA[, and TE Streetscape Dallas, Georgia Streetscape Planning and Design Hammond Drive LCI Streetscape Atlanta, Georgia Presentation Graphics Historic Marietta Square Intersections Marietta, Georgia Intersection Paving & Crosswalk Design Norcross TE and LCI Streetscape Norcross, Georgia Streetscape Planning and Design Suwanee Town Center Suwanee, Georgia Design and Construction Documents Town Center LCI Study Kennesaw, Georgia Livable Centers Initiative Study Vinings Historic Trolley Line Park Cobb County, Georgia Interpretive Park Master Plan & CD's University of Georgia Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, 1998 HONORS.iAFFILIATIONS Georgia Cities Foundation Heart & Soul Bus Tour, Spokesperson for the City of Dallas, Georgia, April 2009 "Designing Streets for Pedestrians". PEDS Workshop, Atlanta, 2008 "Sweetwater Creek State Park Visitor's Center: Native Landscapes and Roof Gardens." LEED Presentation; Greenbuild Conference, 2006 "Preserving Native Texas: A Master Pian for the Fort Worth Nature Center and Refuge." Analysis and Planning National Award of Merit; ASLA, 2004 "Dealey Plaza Master Plan: A Restoration of History." Landscape Architectural Written Communication, Merit Award; AS LA Texas Chapter, 2002 Warren Medical Office Building, Tulsa, OK. Landscape Architectural Design Unrealized, Merit Award; ASLA Texas Chapter, 2002 FY 10 State Route 4 design Guidelines Londscape and Streetscape Proposal Sutamitted to the City of MWen 13 SECTION III Scope of Service PHASE 2: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND KICKOFF Kickoff Meeting with City Staff The planning team will begin the project by conducting a kickoff meeting with key city staff to allow the Team to gather and review relevant past studies and project history. Such background material will include, but not be limited to, the S.R. 9 Overlay ordinance, the Draft State Route 9 Design Guidelines, the State Route 9 Visual Survey Results, the Deerfield Overlay, the Milton Trail Plan and the City of Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan. At the kick-off meeting, the Team will review with city staff the primary goals and objectives of the effort and establish project protocols. Following the meeting, planning staff will conduct a full site inspection and documentation of the study area along the S.R. 9 corridor. Meeting #1 with S.R. 9 Design Guidelines Committee At this first meeting with the committee, the planning team will give a presentation showing examples of streetscape, landscape and various other design concepts appropriate for the S.R. 9 corridor, based on the kickoff meeting, subsequent project documentation, past streetscape project involvement, and a range of applicable case studies. These concepts will address design treatments for various geometries and traffic conditions currently existing along the S.R. 9 corridor and relevant collector streets. Graphics will include optionsfor street furniture, pedestrian/roadway lighting, paver treatments, sidewalk/clear zone treatments, curb and gutter configurations, pedestrian signal and crosswalk examples, building setbacks and adjacent parking configurations, among other relevant items. These examples will address both GDOT and ADA guidelines. This meeting will also involve a working sessionjdiscussion on various examples and concepts, document issues and opportunities, and identify preferred concepts or components. By the end of the session, applicable solutions and case studies will be narrowed down to a select few for development by the Team into S.R. 9 concepts. All concepts will be presented as a digital slideshow as well as on project display boards. Fallowing the committee meeting, digital copies of all meeting materials will be gathered and e-mailed to the committee and appropriate other local stakeholders. All draft concepts will be sent to appropriate city staff in advance of the committee meeting for review. e AVA W�kLt. t 4 r Mi N. ilrec� + nfw Gmwf't' ?Y'0 State Route 9 Dees gn G §s dellnes Landscape and Streelscape Ptoposot SukamiYi c€ to the Gity of Milton SECTION III Scope of Services PHASE 2: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Following the first meeting with the design guidelines committee, the planning team will begin to create sketches and graphics for the corridor for consideration as part of the design guidelines. These conceptswill include multiple potential design solutions to corridor issues and problem areas for consideration by the committee. Included will be various `section' diagrams showing pedestrian areas and roadway conditions, plan graphics showing specific paving/ landscape patterns and treatments, 3-D models of select areas and relevant product sheets from various streetscape element manufacturers. Meeting #2 with S.R. 9 Design Guidelines Committee At this second meeting, the planning team will review the associated outcomes and preferences of the committee based on prior meetings. The team will then present the sketches and concept graphics described above, incorporating a variety of options relating to multiple areas along the S.R. 9 corridor. The committee will discuss pros/cons, preferences, alternates and refinements with the planning team for further development and incorporation into the design guidelines package. PHASE 3: CREATION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES Following the second meeting with the design guidelines committee, the planning team will revise the the design concepts based on committee and city staff comments and incorporate them into a Draft Design Guidelines summary document for e-mail and hard copy distribution to committee members, city staff and other appropriate stakeholders. This document will include drawings, sketches, diagrams, photographs and accompanying narrative describing desired improvements. The planning team will then give a presentation at a City Council work session summarizing the planning process and draft design guidelines package. The team will be prepared for discussion with the council, as needed, to help explain concepts and consider further refinements to the guidelines. Following the Council meeting, the State Route 9 Design Guidelines package will be revised as needed and provided to city staff in both digital and hard copy form. ryio State pcuie 4 Design Guidelines Landscape and Streetscope Proposal Submifted to the City of Milton 7s existing width with 10, 71-10 bike lane width va sidewalk f jrnitu existing 2 lane planted to zone turn la ryio State pcuie 4 Design Guidelines Landscape and Streetscope Proposal Submifted to the City of Milton 7s SECTION 1V Work Plan PHASE 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND KICKOFF 3 WEEKS TASKS Gather and review existing information and relevant studies Conduct site inspection and documentation Research case studies, relevant projects, manufacturers, etc. Present gathered info and early graphics to design guidelines committee a■1►,i.II'Ll MAM141 141 Kick-off Meeting with City Staff Meeting #1 with Design Guidelines Committee PHASE 3; Revise conceptual, streetscape options CREATION OF DESIGN and associated graphics Meeting with City Council (worksession) GUIDELINES Create Design Guidelines Summary 2 WEEKS Document outlining planning process and preferred streetscape configurations Present summary document to City Council as part of working session FYI0 State Route 9 Design Guidelines Landscape and Streetscope Proposal Submitted to the City of AA.f€tan 16 PHASE2• Creation of design concepts and .......... ............. CONCEPTUAL streetscape configuration options Meeting #2 with Design Guidelines Committee DEVELOPMENT Present revisions of early graphics 3 WEEKS and design concept options to design guidelines committee 11 11 0 6 WAR PHASE 3; Revise conceptual, streetscape options CREATION OF DESIGN and associated graphics Meeting with City Council (worksession) GUIDELINES Create Design Guidelines Summary 2 WEEKS Document outlining planning process and preferred streetscape configurations Present summary document to City Council as part of working session FYI0 State Route 9 Design Guidelines Landscape and Streetscope Proposal Submitted to the City of AA.f€tan 16 SECTION V Final Comments On behalf of a talented team of professionals, we are pleased to present our response to your Request for Proposals for the State Route 9 Landscape and Streetscape Design Guidelines. We understand that Milton is a community with high standards for its quality of life and for its physical environment. We applaud your efforts to pursue this important project, building on recent plans such as State Route 9 Overlay Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan. As a gateway to your City from S.R. 400 and Alpharetta, State Route 9 presents a significant opportunity for improving this front door and heightening your city's profile in the region. Ourteam represents the best and the brightest of the Atlanta region, with extensive streetscape and public space experience. The effort is led by our firm, Urban Collage, Inc., one of the Southeast's premier planning and urban design firms, with a specialization on dynamic community involvement and successful implementation. We are teamed with jB+a, Inc, a talented landscape architecture studio with extensive on -the -ground streetscape, landscape and public space construction design and administration experience. We believe we are uniquely qualified for the following reasons: 1) We have extensive experience with streetscape improvements and design guidelines, having worked with the Midtown Alliance, Perimeter Community Improvement District, The City of Social Circle and The North Fulton Community Improvement District; 2) We have significant experience working with the Department of Transportation to balance pedestrian and vehicular needs as well as to obtain design variations for key urban design elements; 3) Our highly graphic products are easy to understand and convey important design concepts in a quick, straight forward and visual way; 4) We have significant experience in North Fulton and are well-respected by local leaders, organizations and community interests; 5) We pride ourselves on being careful listeners and facilitators to arrive at unique conclusions that meet the city's goals and needs. Please let us know if you have further questions about our three -phased approach, personnel and experience as detailed on the previous pages. We look forward to the possibility of working with the city on this exciting project? Sincerely, Urban Collage, Inc. jB+a, Inc. Fy10 slate Route 9 desigh Guifxeiines iandscopp. onzf Str w7sr,ape Pr()pceal S�,bmilted 1� the City sof AA"s€errs City of Milton City of Milton FY10 State Route 9 Design Guideline Landscape and Streetscape Addendum RFP# 1 O-CDO1 PROPOSAL LETTER (Bidder to sign and return with proposal) We propose to furnish and deliver any and all of the deliverables and services named in the Request for Proposal {RFP} regarding the City of Milton FYI State Route 9 Design Guideline Landscape and Streetscape Addendurn. It is understood and agreed that we have read the City's specifications shown or referenced in the AFP and that this proposal is made in accordance with the provisions of such specifications. By our written signature on this proposal, we guarantee and certify that all items included meet or exceed any and all such City specifications. We further agree, if awarded a contract, to deliver goods and services which meet or exceed the specifications. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, waive technicalities. and informalities, and to make an award in the best interest of the city. PROPOSAL. SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION I certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same materials, supplies, equipment, or services and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I understand collusive bidding is a violation of State and Federal Law and can result in fines, prison sentences, and civil damage awards. I agree to abide by all conditions of the proposal and certify that i am authorized to sign for my company. I further certify that the provisions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Sections 45-10-20 et. seq. have not been violated and will not be violated in any respect. Authorized Signature "' Date January 21, 2010 PrintlType Name Robert J egle, Principal Print/Type Company Name ere Urban Colfage, Ino. ate Route 9 Design Guidelines Landsr. rape egad Streel scope Prepvs of Sc:b sitte d to ihe^. City Of Mi{?on City of Milton CITY OF MILTON DISCLOSURE FORM MUST BE RETURNED WITH BID This form is for disclosure of campaign contributions and family member relations with City of Milton officials/employees. Please complete this form and return as part of your RFP package when it is submitted. Name of Offeror Urban Collage. Inc Name and the official position of the Milton Official to whom the campaign contribution was made (Please use a separate form for each official to whom a contribution has been made in the past two (2) years.) List the dollar amount/value and description of each campaign contribution made over the past two (2) years by the Applicant/Opponent to the named Milton Official. Amount/Value Description a NA Please list any family member that is currently (or has been employed within the last 12 months) by the City of Milton and your relation: N/A FYI State & uta 9 Design GuldeHnes Landscape and Streetscape IProposol to the CHV of M11ton City of Milton ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM #1 RFP 14-CDO1 Upon receipt of documents, please email, fax or mail this page to: City of Milton Attn: Rick Pearce, Purchasing Office 13000 Deerfield Pkwy Suite I07G Milton, GA 30004 Phone: 678-242-2511 Fax: 678-242-2499 Email: rick.pcarce@cityofntiltonga..a5 This must be received by the purchasing office on or before the due date of the RFP. It can he included with the RFP response. I hereby acknowledge receipt of documents pertaining to the above referenced RFP. COMPANY NAME' Urban Collage, Inc. CONTACT PERSON: Robert J. Begle ADDRESS: 421 Luckie Street NW, Suite 200 CITY: Atlanta STATE: GA ZIP: 30303 PHONE: 40455&-0277 FAX: 404-58&0079 EMADL ADDRESS: bbegle@urbancoliege-cam Sl tore -- AD] ENDUM -91 January 21, 2010 Date FYI0 State kQute 9 Design Gul:delines tcindscope and Streetscope Proposal Submitted to the City of Miltoo RFP #10-CDOI ADDENDUM #1 Written questions submitted and City of Milton's answers: iY 10 Stu4e Route 4 Design Guidelines Landscape and Stree#scape Proposal Submitte Ci is the City of Milton --- QUESTION ANSWER What type of mapping or base information is available from the Please visit the following: 1 City or the County regarding the h.it ;l t U; til clfmih do a,u !c . �.c ]isv�?r finance f i36i0fi= State Route 9 Design Guideline 1 75.ART12G.04€ 8.pd Landscape Streetscape RPP? 2 Is there a cost budget for this project? There is no desi nated budget for this specific g g i� RFP iY 10 Stu4e Route 4 Design Guidelines Landscape and Stree#scape Proposal Submitte Ci is the City of Milton EXHIBIT "B"(Part 2 Best and Final) BEST & FINAL OFFER - FEBRUARY 1" 20-10 I SECTION 5: COST PROPOSAL <. City of Milton MUST BE RETURNED WITH BID Cost Evaluation (35°1 of total score Return this section with the RFP The offerors cost proposal shall be a fixed prig.: Iaimp seam amount and signed by and atrthorized agent of the company. This includes all deliverables in Section 3. Meeting # I: S, R. 9 Design Guidelines Committee plus Draft Document Level of Effort ea Hvursi Rate per hour 115.0c TotaJ Gast (Maetng 41 plus draft docun)ent)=-730-CD Meeting # 2; S.Ro 9 Design Guide -lines Committee plus Draft Document Level of Effort 60 � (Hours) Rate oer }tear- �6.00 Totai Cost (.Meeting 92 pEus draft docurmenty $ F•70c•30 Meeting # 3: City Council work mission Presentation plan Final Document Level of Effort 40 .:H v u rs) Rate per hour .aa Total cost Weet ng #3 pians Final Dwument) s 3.60.0c Misc costs Grand Total $ Rate per hour for additional meoe�tangs if needed (riot part of evaluabons �15 ac Authorized Signature Date .-per �� �. 2a � c Pnnt. Type Nanw Rouen j. 8egle, Pw c:�a Print'Type Company Narne Here" Jrban M PG. 39 EXHIBIT "C" Key Personnel Eric Bosman Katie Blankenstein PG. 40 r. `..car m?Almn STATE OF GEORGIA CITY OF MILTON EXHIBIT "E" CONTRACTOR AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT By executing this affidavit, the undersigned contractor verifies its compliance with O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91, stating affirmatively that the individual, finn, or corporation which is contracting with the City of Milton has registered with and is participating in a federal work authorization program, in accordance with the applicability provisions and deadlines established in O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91. The undersigned further agrees that; should it employ or contract with any subcontractor(s) in connection with the physical performance of services pursuant to this contract with the City of Milton, contractor wi11 secure from such subcontractor(s) similar verification of compliance with O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91 on the Subcontractor Affidavit provided in Rule 300-10-01-.08 in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "1." Contractor further agrees to maintain records of such compliance and provide a copy of each such verification to the City of Milton at the time the subcontractor(s) is retained to perform such service. EEV 1 Basic Pilot Program User Identification Number BY: Authorized Officer or Agent Date Urban Collage, Inc. Title of Authorized Officer or Agent of Contractor Printed Name of Authorized Officer or Agent SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME ON THIS THE DAY OF , 2010 Notary Public My Commission Expires: PG. 41 . �� Clry ar Ulm. STATE OF GEORGIA CITY OF MILTON EXHIBIT "E" CONTRACTOR AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT By executing this affidavit, the undersigned contractor verifies its compliance with O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91, stating affirmatively that the individual, firm, or corporation which is contracting with the City of Milton has registered with and is participating in a federal work authorization program, in accordance with the applicability provisions and deadlines established in O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91. The undersigned further agrees that, should it employ or contract with any subcontractor(s) in connection with the physical performance of services pursuant to this contract with the City of Milton, contractor will secure from such subcontractor(s) similar verification of compliance with O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91 on the Subcontractor Affidavit provided in Rule 300-10-01-.08 in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "1." Contractor further agrees to maintain retards of such compliance and provide a copy of each such verification to the City of Milton at the time the subcontractor(s) is retained to perform such service. RBEG9082 EEV 1 Basic Pilot t Program User Identification Number BY: Aprized Officer or Agent Date (Cont ctar Name) P rincipal Title of Authorized Officer or Agent of Contractor Robert J. Beg Ie Printed Name of Authorized Officer or Agent SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME ON THIS THE 21st DAY OF January ; 2010 Notary Public My Commission Expires: bums October 19, 2012 r' gum �1L14 r FYip State Route s Desijjn Guidelines LQndscape and Streeiscape Proposal Submitted to the CiFy of Muton STATE OF GEORGM CITY OF MILTON EXHIBIT ,._E., CONTRACTOR AFFIDAVIT ,AND AGREEMENT By executing this affidavit, the undersigned contractor verifies its compliance with O.C.G.A. § 13-10-93, stating affirmatively that the individual, firm, or corporation which is contracting with the City of Milton has registered with and is participating in a federal work authorization program, in accordance with the applicability provisions and deadlines established in O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91. The undersigned further agrees that, should it employ or contract with any subcontractor(s) in connection with the physical performance of services pursuant to this contract with the City of Milton, contractor will secure from such subcontractor(s) similar verification of compliance with O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91 on the Subcontractor Affidavit provided in Rule 300-10-01-.08 in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "1." Contractor further agrees to maintain records of such compliance and provide a copy of each such verification to the City of Milton at the time the subcontractor(s) is retained to perform such service. RBEG9082 EEV 1 Basic Pilot Program User Identification Number BY: A prized Officer or Agent Date (Cont ctor Name) Principal Title of Authorized Officer or Agent of Contractor Robert J. Begle Printed Name of Authorized Officer or Agent SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME ON THIS THE 21st DAV OF January f ; 2010 Notary Public My Commission Expires: October 19, 2012 /%Gm A�N\w `Y 10 State Route 9 Design Guiciefines tandsc ape and Streetscape Plaposal Submitted t❑ r.. ,_,-, -: ..;ii: •�:: STATE OF GEORGIA CITY OF MILTON EXHIBIT "V' SUBCONTRACTOR AFFIDAVIT By executing this affidavit, the undersigned subcontractor verifies its compliance with O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91, stating affirmatively that the individual, firm or corporation which is engaged in the physical performance of services under a contract with (name of contractor) on behalf of the City of Milton has registered with and is participating in a federal work authorization program, in accordance with the applicability provisions and deadlines established in O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91. aq'w EEV -ibasic not Program laser Identification Number BY: Authorizekffic�� ate (Subcontractor Name) Title of Authorized Officer or Agent of Subcontractor fie � Printed Name of Authorized icer or Agent SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME ON THIS THE 2.(A kqkk, DAY OF Notary Pihfic My Commission Exit s: lt� •- FY30 Sfvt� Route 9 Design GuideVin ex Gdndscnpe pnd streetscape Propor01 svbmitted to the Clty of Milton No Text A CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE ATE(maft-rM 03/1 W1 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the pollcy(ies) must he endorsed. M SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to y the terms and condrdons of the policy. Certain policies may require an endorsemsrrl. A statsreant on this cerli icste dols not confer r4lbb to the certificate holder In HBu of such endoreement(sj. { PRODUCER-----... AET Kevin W. Smith Sandy Springs Insuranoe Agency : Via; PC6 EM, (404) 856-3917- -� °Ir x Nn , (404) 835-9947 60DO lake Forest Drive, Suite #107 kwsialsandyspringsinsLNanCe.Com Sandy Springs, GA 30328 PRODUCER ` — Phone (404)843-2187 Fax (404j2"W1774 T� INSUR6R(SL FORDMIri COVERAGE NAIL a INSURED IN=URERA: Tudor Insurance Company _ _ 19_305 Urban Collage Inc. INS s.; - -- -_-- -- _ _ 121 Luckie Street Nw Suite 200 INSURER C: Atlanta, GA 30303-$ D 404-586-0277 INSURER E : I INSURER F : I COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICi ES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUEO TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERRA OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS f CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE: POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. i _. r POLICY EFF i LTR I TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUYBfft MYIpD1YYYY ----- _ -. LIMITS T GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE 4 ! L! COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PiI _ C CLAIMS -MADE E] OCCUR MED EXP (Any ore parson) _ PERSONAL S ADV INJURY = GENERAL AGGREGATE S GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER i PRODUCTS - CDMPIOP AGG S LI POLICY U IJ LDC-- S AUTOMOBILE LUUi1LrrY } COMBINED SINGLE LWT = ANY AUTO (Ea seddant) ALL OWNED AUTOS I BODILY INJURY (Par person) _ _....... BODILY INJURY (Per acddwd = C SCHEDULED Auras PROPERTY DiunACE s L HIRED AUTOS (Per accident) NON -OWNED AUTOS GI UMBRELLA LUIB OCCUR { jj EACH OCCURRENCE EXCESS L1ASI CLA1M5-MADE AGGREGATE _ DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION $ ! _ WOW&" OOM MMSATION - - — AMC EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y I DuOTFl rr - _ ANY PROPRiETORfPARTNERIE%ECUT3YE I E L EACH ACCiOENfr OFFICEWEMBER EXCLUDED? MA I : 1 _..__. (A dist" Irl NH) E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYE _ H a, describe under -- - DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below f i E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LAAnr = .�._.. A Professional Uabiiity SPL 0013808 DIN12MO09 08128/2010 - $1,0D0,000 Limit with a $5,000 deductible. DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS r LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 104, Adcltional Remarks Soma, if more space Is required) Urban Planning and Consulting, CERTIFICATE HOLDER City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway Suite 107-G Milton, Georgia 30004 ACORD 25 (2009109) OF CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTN -.-- - -- X11988-2009 AC RRD C ORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registensd marks of ACORD Cert ID 65897 ACORD-- CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCEDATE(MWDDIYYYY) ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH 3/18/2010 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION SANDY SPRINGS INSURANCE AGENCY ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE PO BOX 10660 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR JACKSONVILLE FL 32247-0660 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. MILTON GA 30004 {866} 972-7378 (HOW 455-9611 _ INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIL # INSURED INSURER A: ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 19305 URBAN COLLAGE, INC. INSURER B: INSURER C: 121 LUCKIE ST NW STE 200 ATLANTA GA 30303 INSURER D, INSURER E: PREMISES Esoctwence 1,000,000 COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR AMLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION DATE IMWDDffYI DATE IMMIDDfVrYl LIMITS _Lm TYPE OF INSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY 13000 DEERFIELD PARKWAY IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR STE 107-G EACH OCCURRENCE$ 1 000 0 0 MILTON GA 30004 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE v� --- DAMAGE Tp REN-FIEMD .-- _...I.$ A A X C_OMMERCIALGENERALLIABILITY _-PREMISE PAS 001126327 8/25/2009 8/25/201❑ PREMISES Esoctwence 1,000,000 CLAIMS MADE 5-1 OCCUR MED SSP (Any one person) $ 10,000 PERSONAL &ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE S 2,000,000 GEWLAGGREGATE LIMITAPPLIESPER : PRODUCTS - COM PIOPAGG $ 2,000,000 POLICY PRO X LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COM BINEDSING LE LIMIT A A ANY AUTO PAS 001126327 8/25/2009 8/25/2010 (Ea accident) $ 1,000,000 BODILY INJURY ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS (Perpersort) $ BODILY INJURY X HIRED AUTOS X NON-OVVNED AUTOS (Par acAdent) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE $ - (Per accident) GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN EA ACC $ ANY AUTO AUTO ONLY, AGG $ EXCESSIUMBRELLAUABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 F] A A X OCCUR CLAIMSMADE PAS 001126327 8/25/2009 8/25/2010 AGGREGATE $ 1,000,000 s $ DEDUCTIBLE g RETENTION s WORKERS COMPENSATION AHDYoC 3&81T1UI I JOTH- I ER EMPLOYERT LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERIEXECUTiVE E. L. EACH ACCIOENT $ I-. L. DISEASE - EA EM PLOY EE $ OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? If yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS ENGINEERS OR ARCHITECTS-CONSTILTANTS / THE CITY OF MILTON, ITS OFFICALS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND VOLUNTEERS ARE ADDTIONAL INSURED BY THIS POLICY IN REGARDS TO GENERAL LIABILITY. SUBJECT TO POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS. A WAIVER OF SUBROGATION IS IN FAVOR OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. OUR POLICY IS PRIMAY, EXPECT WHEN OTHER INSURANCE APPLIES, AND CONTRIBUTORY. WE WILL CONTRIBUTE(VS NON-CONTRIBUTORY) WITH OTHER VALID COLLECTABLE INSURANCE AS EXPLAINED IN C_ METHOD OF SHARTNC;_ CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION ACORD 25 (2001108) Page I of 2 ® ACORD CORPORATION 1988 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN CITY OF MILTON NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL 13000 DEERFIELD PARKWAY IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR STE 107-G REPRESENTATIVES. MILTON GA 30004 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE v� ACORD 25 (2001108) Page I of 2 ® ACORD CORPORATION 1988 IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsements). DISCLAIMER The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon. ACORD 25 (2001/08) Page 2 of 2 3/18/201❑ ACORDra CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE SL.:ZGc?,: o /1s/ry 10 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION �,DCKTON COMPANIES, LLC ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE 5847 SAN FELIPE, SOITE 320 HOUSTON, Tx , 7057 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. REPRESENTATIVES. i INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAfC # INSURED ..:.: r'TAFF, INC. INSURERA:Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America AUTHORtZEDREPRESENTATIVE INSURER B: �� �►. . •:.I -RESCENT SPRINGS DRIVE KINGWOOD, TM 7?339 - SEF BELOW INSURER C' INSURER D: INSURER E: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAYBE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. lNiRDD'L� POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LTR INSRO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE MMIDDIYY DATE MMIDDIYY LIMITS THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAM EO TO THE LEFT, SUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO GENERAL LIABILITY OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. EACH OCCURRENCE $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS MADE ❑ OCCUR AUTHORtZEDREPRESENTATIVE MILTON, GA 30004 �� �►. PRE MISE6 Es oCcurBnCB s MED EXP (Arty One person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE S GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COM PIOPAGG $ POLICY PRO- IECT LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT IEa accident} $ BODILY INJURY {Par Person} $ ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULEDAUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ HIREDAUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE $ {Per accident} �- GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN EA ACC $ ANY AUTO AUTO ONLY: qGG S EXCESSIUMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE S AGGREGATE S OCCUR LICLAIMS MADE $ DEDUCTIBLE $ I RETENTION $ A WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY C45302568 10/01/2009 10/01/2010 X TOORRYLIMITS I OERH E. L. EACH ACCIDENT ' S 1, 000, 000 ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNEWEXECUTIVE E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEEI S 1, 6 0 0, O D 0 OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? If yes. describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VE HICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT? SPECIAL PROVISIONS URBAN COLLAGE INC. (1144500) IS COVERED THROUGH BLANKET ALTERNATE EMPLOYERS ENDORSEMENT FOR ALL EMPLOYEES UNDER CLIENT SERVICE AGREEMENT. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION IN FAVOR OF CITY OF MILTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND VOLUNTEERS INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED BY CONTRACT. A 30 DAY NOTICE OF CANCELLATION WILL BE SENT TO CERTIFICATE HOLDER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. end. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION AL:UKL) LO [1UUl1Ut5] fl ACORD CORPORATION 1988 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAM EO TO THE LEFT, SUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. CITY OF MILTON 13000 DEERFIELD PARKWAY STE 107G AUTHORtZEDREPRESENTATIVE MILTON, GA 30004 �� �►. Faae 1 of 1 AL:UKL) LO [1UUl1Ut5] fl ACORD CORPORATION 1988 ACORD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE OP ID Mw DATE(MNND0rYYYYI JBAIN-1 07/20/09 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTiFiCATE Graham -Naylor Agency, Inc. HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 1355 Terrell Mill Rd Bldg 1464 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Marietta GA 30067 Phone:770-952-1096 INSURED jB+a, Inc. k3+a Community Advantaagee LLC 300 Galleria 400 Atlanta GA 30339 COVERAGES I INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIL # INSURER A: Builders Insurance Grou INSURER B: Allied Ins. Co. INSURER C: Evanston Insurance any INSURER D: INSURER E: THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY RE RU IRE MENT. TERM 0R CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT VITH RESPECT TO WHICH TH 15 CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSiiA LTR INSRD TYPE OF ENSU RANGE POLICY NUMBER L1 Y EFFE TIVE DATE MMIDDIYYI i P LICY EXPIRATI N DATE MMIDDIYY I LIMITS REPRESENTATIVES. GENERAL LIABILITY- AUTHO R TI` EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $ X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY ACP7103991430 04/2/09 8 04J2 e / 10 PREMISES jEa occurence} $100,000 CLAIMS MADE ; .. f OCCUR MEA EXP (Any one person) s5,000 - PERSONAL &ADV INJURY $1,OOP ,00❑ _ GENERAL AGGREGATE s2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMPIOP AGG s2,000,000 POLICY X JE T LDC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED LIMIT $ B ANY AUTO ACP7103991430 04/28/09 04/28/10 {EaaaccidSINGLE ccidanl} ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) X HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ X NON -OWNED AUTOS (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Par accident) GARAGE LIABFLITY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN EA ACC $ ANY AUTO AUTO ONLY: AGG $ EXCESSIUMSRELLA UABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE s2,000,000 B }{ OCCUR F-1CLAIMSMADE ACP7103991430 04/28/09 04/28/10 AGGREGATE $2,000,000 I$ $ DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AN DX TORY LIMITS ER A EMP LOYER WCV0064174 04/28/09 04/28/10 E -L - EAC HACC IDENT $500,00 ANY PROPRIETORETORILITyIPARTNERIE]CECUTIVE E. L. DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE $500,000 OFFICER(MEMBEREXGLUDED? It yes, describe under E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT E500, 000 SPECIAL PROVISIONS below OTHER C Professional Liab AE817685 07/16/09 07/16/10 Prof Liab $1,000,000 CLAIMS MADE POLICY Retention $10,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIC NS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES 1 EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENOOR5EMFNT 7 SPECIAL PROVISIONS CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANrFI I ATIONI SAMPL-1 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POUCIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPI RATON DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 10 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTWICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO 50 SHALL SAMPLE CERTIFICATE IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABIUTY OF ANY ICI NO UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHO R TI` WM. John Graham M. CIC ALVKU 40 txUU11VU) U ACUNU CUKPUKAI IUN 1141W IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endarsement(s). DISCLAIMER The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon. ACORD 26 (2001108) City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway Suite 107C Milton, Georgia 30004 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Cyndee L. Bonacci, Parks and Recreation Director Submission Date: April 1, 2010 Meeting Date: April 19, 2010 Agenda Item: Approval of a contract between the City of Milton and Team RV for the Missing Man flyover during the 2010 Memorial Day Ceremony Background: The City of Milton is in the process of planning for the annual Memorial Day Ceremony to be held on Monday, May 31, 2010 at 10 a.m. at City Hall. This year’s ceremony will feature a missing man formation flyover. Discussion: Team RV is a Precision Formation Flight Demonstration Team based in the Atlanta area. Team RV performs national air shows, local parades, missing man flyovers, fly-ins, and other activities. Its flight members also travel the country and train other pilots on the art and discipline of formation flight. I have contracted with Team RV previously during my time in Snellville for a missing man formation and for a complete 20-minute aerial demonstration. They are easy to work with and provide a great performance especially for the price. Their missing man flyover will add a nice touch to our annual ceremony of remembrance. Attachments: A contract between the City of Milton and Team RV for the Missing Man Flyover during the 2010 Memorial Day Ceremony TEAM RV AIR SHOW CONTRACT Team RV Air Shows, Inc. “Team RV”, 4020 Homestead Ridge Drive, Cumming, GA 30041 This Agreement is between City of Milton, Georgia (referred to as “Organizer”) and Team RV, a general aviation business based in Cumming, Georgia, which provides precision formation aircraft demonstrations. The Organizer and Team RV agree to the following: 1. The Organizer will pay Team RV the fee of $500.00 for the Missing Man. 2. Team RV will provide the following: a. 4 aircraft for formation demonstration purposes. Often there are plane and pilot issues that limit the number of aircraft that actually arrive at the air show. Mechanical issues, pilot sickness, and weather are just a few reasons why the actual number of aircraft may be less. b. Mike Stewart of Team RV will be available the week prior to the air show for interviews via telephone. Upon arrival at the air show, members of Team RV will be available to visit and speak to others as arranged by the Organizer. c. Team RV will have in force, for the duration of the air show, by each individual pilot and plane, a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy on all air show aircraft. 3. Terms: a. 25% deposit is due upon contract signing. This deposit is refundable to Organizer only if Team RV is unable for any reason, to arrive at the air show with the minimum number 4 of aircraft requested. If due, the refund will be paid within 15 days of the air show date. Once Team RV is positioned for the air show, the Organizer is responsible for the total fee. b. The final amount due is payable when Team RV arrives at the air show and prior to the first performance. c. Meteorological conditions must be suitable for air show performance as determined by either the specifications of the waiver or by MV FR minimum flight operation requirements whichever is more restrictive. Winds not to exceed 25 knots. Team RV will not be responsible for weather conditions which preclude an air show performance and will be entitled to all fees agreed to. d. The Organizer will, to the extent if any allowed by law, hold harmless Team RV if Team RV determines a reasonable safety of flight hazard exists resulting in a performance being canceled, aborted, curtailed or delayed. Team RV shall afford the Organizer every opportunity to correct any safety of flight issues, and will reasonably endeavor to complete the flight display. 4. Fees: Date of Air Show Performance(s) ____May 31, 2010 ______ Total Fee: $500.00 25% Deposit: $125.00 Due on arrive at the air show: $375.00 Special Requests or Provisions: None required. Signed: ____________________________________ _______________________________ Team RV Date Organizer Date City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Chief D. Harrell Date: Submitted on April 5, 2010 for the April 26, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Item: 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 City Manager’s Office Recommendation: Consent to the execution of an updated I.G.A. with the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety for a GCIC Criminal Justice Information System Holder of Record Agreement. Background: Since its inception and currently, The Milton Police Department has had an I.G.A. with the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety for a GCIC Criminal Justice Information System Holder of Record Agreement. Discussion The Milton Police Department currently uses the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety as its Holder of Record for GCIC services. This has been in effect since the P.D. started in 2007. This submittal is for correcting and “cleaning up” language in the agreement to accurately reflect current operations. There is no change in the fiscal impact. Funding and Fiscal Impact: Fiscal impact is $1521.00 per month. This amount was budgeted and is currently being paid. Alternatives: The alternative would be to staff the City of Milton’s GCIC terminal twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. This would incur a substantially greater cost as three or four full time employees would need to be hired. Concurrent Review: Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager Paul Higbee, Jarrard and Davis INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE GEORGIA CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (GCIC) CRI MINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM HOLDER OF RECORD AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALP HARETTA, GEORGIA ANDTHE CITY OF MILTON, GEORGIA This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, by and between the City of Alpharetta, Georgia ("Alpharetta") and the City of Milton, Georgia ("Milton") entered into this day of .2010. Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) Criminal Justice Information System Holder of. Record Agreement This Agreement between the Milton Police Department and the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety formally establishes the requirements for requesting criminal history record information (CHRI) and other information available via Georgia's Criminal Justice Information System network (0I5), the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS), or the National Crime Information System (NCIC). It establishes how record entries, modifications, supplemental record entries, record locates, clearances and cancellations will be accomplished. It also establishes individual agency responsibilities for confirming all requests for "HIT" confirmations and validating record entries. REQUESTING CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION In accordance with federal regulations, NCIC policy and the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety User's Agreement, all requests for CHRI are made using a criminal justice agency Originating Agency Identifier (ORI). When a criminaIjustice agency requests CHRI for the administration of criminal justice (PUR/ C), that agency shall provide a warrant number, case number, citation number, "EF" number, arrest/booking number, system record number, docket number or other significant number leading to the case file or investigation. Failure to provide such a required number shall result in denial of the request and notification to the GCIC Chief of Staff of a potential violation of O.C.G.A. §16-9-90. When a criminal justice agency requests CHRI for criminal justice employment (PUR/J) or other authorized purposes (PUR/E, M, N, W), that agency shall provide a copy of the fingerprint card or the signed consent form. Failure to provide either document shall result in the denial of the request and notification to the GCIC Chief of Staff of a potential violation of O.C.G.A. § 16 -9 -90 - Requesting Vehicle Registration/Title. Driver History and Other Information via the UIS Network. NLETS or NCIC All requestsfor information received over the law enforcement radio network(s) monitored by Alpharetta Department of Public Safety shall be honored and the requested information shall be provided as soon as possible. If the requesting officer, prior to the end of the shift on which it was requested, does not claim hard copies of the terminal printouts, the printouts shall be shredded. Telephonic requests shall be honored if the operator can identify the person making the request. If the operator is unsure of the requester, the operator shall ask the requester to provide their agency's ORI then telephone that agency to ensure the requester is authorized to receive said information. If the person is authorized to receive the information, the operator shall make the request using the ORI of the Milton Police Department. If the person is not authorized to receive the information the operator will not request the information and will notify his or her supervisor. The supervisor shall be responsible for notifying the GCIC Chief of Staff of a potential security violation. Makiniz Record Entries. Modifications. and SUDDlemental Record Entries The ORI of the Milton Police Department shall be used to make all requested record entries when it receives a warrant or a complete incident report from the Milton Police Department. The only exception to this requirement is when the Milton Police Department requests the entry of a missing juvenile, a fleeing felon, felony vehicle or a missing ALZHEIMER'S afflicted adult. Requests fort hesetypes of entries shall be accepted telephonically_ Supporting documentation shall be faxed or delivered as soon as it is available. If the supporting documentation is not received within 48 hours, the record entry(s) shall be canceled. The Alpharetta Department of Public Safety shall use the warrant or complete incident report to code the GCIC/NCIC worksheet prior to entering the record. The Alpharetta Department of Public Safety for wanted and missing person record entries shall inquire against the GOC and [NCIC criminal history files (using the ORI of the Milton Police Department). The Milton Police Department shall indicate the limits of extradition and charge type on the face of the warrant. All additional personal descriptors shall be added to the GCIC/NCIC worksheet and Included in the record entry or added to the record entry using the Supplemental Record Entry format. When all available information has been added to the record entry, an inquiry shall be made against the record entry. Another person in the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety shall check the inquiry response for completeness and accuracy. The original terminal printouts shall be retained in the files of the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety. Request for Modifying, Clearing, and Canceling Record Entries When the Milton Police Department requests that a record entry be modified, cleared or canceled it must provide a supplemental report to the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety. The record will only be modified, cleared or canceled when the supplemental report has been received. Milton Police DepartmentThe original terminal printouts shall be retained in the files of the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety. Requesting "HIT" Conformation When the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety receives a "HIT" on a record inquired upon as the result of a request from the Milton Police Department, a request for "HIT" confirmation message (YQ format) shall be sent. The Milton Police Department must inform the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety if the request is PRIORITY (10 minute response] or ROUTINE (one hour response). As soon as this information is received, the request for "HIT" confirmation shall be transmitted using the ORI of the Milton Police Department. As soon as the response to the request for "HIT" confirmation is received, it shall be transmitted to the officer. Responding to Requests for "HIT" Conformation When the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety receives a request for "HIT" confirmation, the on -duty operator shall locate the active file and compare all data elements against the data in the YQ message. If all data elements match the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety shall respond to the YQ message using a YR message entered using the ORI of the Milton Police Department and confirm that the record inquired on is a valid record entry based upon the records maintained by the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety. The Milton Police Department shall be notified that the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety has confirmed a "HIT" on one of its record entries. If a Locate Message is receive, the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety shall place a detainer or clearthe entry using the Milton Police Department's ORI.. If no Locate Message is received within one hour the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety shall send a Failure to Locate Message to GCI C's ICDC and the agency that failed to "Locate" the record entry after it was confirmed. The Alpharetta Department of Public Safety using the Milton Police Department ORI shall "Clear" the record entry. The original terminal printouts shall be retained in the files of the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety. Validation of Record Entries All record entries are to be validated 90 days after entry; and, then every 12 months in accordance with the file retention schedule established by NCIC. It is the exclusive responsibility of the Milton Police Department to validate all record entries made on its behalf by the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety, in accordance with the validation steps established by GCIC and NCIC. Compensation and Consideration For requesting criminal history record information (CHRI) and other information available via Georgia's Criminal Justice Information System network (CJIS), the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS), or the National Crime Information System (NCIC) pursuant to this agreement, the City of Milton shall pay to the City of Alpharetta $1,521 per month, which equates to $18,252 annually, the sum shall be remitted to the City of Alpharetta on or before the 5th calendar day of each month of the term. This figure is based on the initial estimated use of two (2) operator hours per day. The Cities agree that the amount of com pensation shall be reconciled annually based on the costs incurred by the City of Alpharetta during the prior fiscal year. The City of Alpharetta will be available pursuant to this Agreement to provide service to the City of Milton twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty five days per year. Additionally, the City of Milton shall provide to the City of Alpharetta the equipment needed to access the CHRI system on its behalf and storage cabinets for all City of Milton records. This amount will be paid in full each month and represents the direct and indirect costs of all services provided by the Alpharetta Department of Public safety for services described in this agreement. This agreement is effective upon signing by the agency chief executives. Signatures of other employees are not valid. This agreement can be terminated with 90 days notice by either the Alpharetta Department of Public Safety or the Milton Police Department. In the event of cancellation, GCIC will be notified and all record entries shall be canceled. This agreement also includes the Rules of the GCIC Council, O.C.G.A. § 16-9-90, the Georgia Computer Crime Protection Act, as amended, and the GCIC Policy and Operations Manuals. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of the date set forth below: Record Holding Agency Head Law Enforcement Agency Head Signature / Title Signature Printed Name Printed Name Date Date City of Alpharetta Mayor City of Alpharetta Approved As to Form: City Attorney City of Milton Mayor City of Milton Approved as to Form: r City Attorney City Clerk Ci ty of Al phare tta City AdmiNstrator City Clerk City of Milton City Manager MAY IS OLDER AMERICANS MONTH WHEREAS, the older Americans of the City of Milton are a vital part of our nation’s demographic makeup; and WHEREAS, older citizens are members of our community entitled to dignified, independent lives free from fears, and misconceptions about aging; and WHEREAS, each community in America must strive to recognize the contributions of our older citizens, understand and address their evolving needs, and support their caregivers; and WHEREAS, our society is dependent upon intergenerational cooperation and support, and benefits from our collective efforts to serve older Americans and the people who love them; and WHEREAS, this year marks the 44th anniversary of the passage of the Older Americans Act by the United States Congress; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation activities enhance the physical health and mental well-being of older adults; and WHEREAS, participation in recreation programs improves strength and flexibility, and provides opportunities for older adults to learn new skills and meet new friends; and WHEREAS, the City of Milton is supporting and encouraging citizen participation in the 16th Annual North Fulton Golden Games to be held during the month of May; NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Milton, Georgia hereby dedicate and proclaim May 2010 as OLDER AMERICANS MONTH in the City of Milton, and encourage all older citizens to become involved in the Milton community and remain physically active throughout their lifetime. Given under our hand and seal of the City of Milton, Georgia on this 26th Day of April, 2010. (Seal) _________________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor MILTON PARKS AND RECREATION APPROVED BY THE GEORGIA RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, the Georgia Recreation and Park Association was founded in 1945 as a private, non-profit Institution to support and promote the recreation and park industries within the state of Georgia; and WHEREAS, GRPA is the only state organization that serves as an advocate for quality recreation and park areas, facilities, programs and services at the local level; and WHEREAS, GRPA's mission includes promoting healthy lifestyles through the utilization of park facilities and recreation services for the well being of each citizen individually and the community as a whole; and WHEREAS, GRPA has established specific criteria for agency membership; and WHEREAS, the newly established City of Milton Parks and Recreation Department has applied for agency membership; and WHEREAS, the GRPA 7th district membership and officers, the state membership committee, executive committee and board of trustees have voted unanimously to grant membership to the City of Milton Parks and Recreation Department based on its compliance with all established GRPA criteria for membership; and WHEREAS, the City of Milton Parks and Recreation Department will be included with other agencies located in northeast Georgia as a member of the GRPA 7th district; and WHEREAS, the City of Milton Parks and Recreation Department will now have the privilege of competing in district and statewide competitions, participating in continuing education opportunities for professional staff and board members, and receiving ongoing support from GRPA; NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Milton, Georgia hereby proclaim The Milton Parks and Recreation Department as a member agency of the Georgia Recreation and Park Association and pledge to support and ensure participation with GRPA for years to come. Given under our hand and seal of the City of Milton, Georgia on this 26th Day of April, 2010. (Seal) _________________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 1 of 20 U09-03 PETITION NUMBER(S): U09-03 PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 2880 Mountain Road DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2/2, 249 OVERLAY DISTRICT Northwest EXISTING ZONING AG-1 (Agricultural) ACRES 10.3380 EXISTING USE Single family residence/horse farm PROPOSED USE 145 foot Monopole Cell Tower with a 4 ft. lightning rod for a total of 149 feet OWNER Jan C. Hines ADDRESS 80 Milton Avenue Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 PETITIONER/REPRESENTATIVE T-Mobile South, LLC/Shawn Blassingill ADDRESS 4 Concourse Parkway, Suite 300 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 PHONE 404-964-9212 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION U09-03 – DENIAL INTENT To obtain a use permit 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). Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 2 of 20 U09-03 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION – MARCH 23, 2010 U09-03 – DENIAL 7-0 Mr. David R. Gilley of Georgia Tax and Regulatory Solutions, LLC presented his findings regarding U09-03. He concluded “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 indicate that there are properties that would provide better screening of the tower and therefore minimize its adverse aesthetic impact. Accordingly, GTRS recommended that this Application be denied.” After hearing many public concerns regarding the quality of life, lack of need for an additional tower for residents in the community, weather the applicant will build the tower for future profit, proximity of 21 homes within 1,000 feet of the tower, lack of buffering from adjacent homes, and potential negative effects on the value of the homes. The Planning Commission discussion included the following issues: 1. Property values affected by cell towers. 2. T-Mobile’s ability to co-locate on other towers and potential construction time for this request. 3. Submittal of engineered drawings of the structure in regards to wind load. 4. Amount and type of coverage in the area. 5. Property owner is not the current resident. Please note the following: • The applicant has not submitted additional items for U09-03 as of April 14, 2010. • An additional Design Review Board (DRB) meeting was held on April 13, 2010. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 3 of 20 U09-03 LOCATION MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 4 of 20 U09-03 ZONING MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 5 of 20 U09-03 FUTURE LAND USE MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 6 of 20 U09-03 REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 10, 2010 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 7 of 20 U09-03 Distances from property lines/structures Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 8 of 20 U09-03 SUBJECT SITE – View of house and barn in background SUBJECT SITE – View toward corral Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 9 of 20 U09-03 SUBJECT SITE - View of Stream south of pond SUBJECT SITE – View of Interior of property looking west Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 10 of 20 U09-03 Tower Simulation looking west from Hopewell Road Tower Simulation looking from subject tract to the north Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 11 of 20 U09-03 SUBJECT SITE: The subject site is a 10.3380 acre tract of agriculturally zoned land, located on the northern side of Mountain Road. The subject site is developed with a single- family residence and a small barn. It is located within the Agricultural, Forestry and Mining Land Use designation on the Focus Fulton 2025 Plan which was still in place at the time of this application’s submittal. Existing uses and zoning of nearby property The subject site is surrounded by lots ranging in size from one acre to approximately 30 acres. They are developed with single family residences within the AG-1 (Agricultural) district. Many of the tracts are working horse farms and other related agricultural uses. Further to the south, east and southeast is The Manor subdivision and golf course. The parcels within the subdivision are a minimum of one acre and developed with large estate homes ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to over 10,000 square feet. Further to the north is the Fulton/Cherokee County line. Staff notes that the Mayor and City Council denied a request for a Use Permit (U08-01/VC08-01) for a Landscaping Business located on Land Road on March 17, 2008. In the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, the Mayor and City Council may exercise limited discretion in evaluating the site proposed for a use that requires a Use Permit. In exercising such discretion pertaining to the subject use, the Mayor and City Council shall consider each of the following as outlined in Article 19.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance; Use Permit Considerations. Staff has reviewed said items pertaining to the subject use, and, offers the following comments: A. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and/or Economic Development Revitalization plans adopted by the Mayor and City Council: Focus Fulton 2025 Plan Map: Agricultural, Forestry and Mining The proposed monopole cell tower is inconsistent with the intent and following policies of the Focus Fulton 2025 Comprehensive Plan (this plan was still in place at the time of the applicant filing this request): •••• Encourage development consistent with the surrounding scale, transition of densities and uses, and Comprehensive Plan policies, where appropriate. •••• Protect the existing rural character of Northwest Fulton. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 12 of 20 U09-03 B. Compatibility with land uses and zoning districts in the vicinity of the property for which the use permit is proposed; The proposed 145 foot monopole with 4 foot lightning rod is inconsistent with the adjacent land uses of single family residences on large agricultural parcels and associated agricultural uses such as barns and riding rings. The closest residential structures are 304 feet, 317 feet and 331 feet from the cell tower to the east, northeast and north respectively. Although the proposed cell tower meets the use permit standards for setbacks, it is Staff’s opinion that it is incompatible based on the location of the tower in an area of residential structures. Further, the tower appears to be located such that it will be significantly higher than the tree stands and will not be visually screened from the road as depicted in the tower simulation photos above. C. Whether the proposed use may violate local, state and/or federal statutes, ordinances or regulations governing land development; Staff has determined that the subject site contains state water which requires a 50 foot undisturbed buffer and 25 foot non-impervious setback as required by Chapter 14, Environment of the City Code. The revised site plan indicates that no portion of the tower facility encroaches into the required buffer and non-impervious setback. D. The effect of the proposed use on traffic flow, vehicular and pedestrian, along adjoining streets; The proposed monopole cell tower is an unmanned operation that will generate only an occasional trip to the site for maintenance. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed monopole cell tower will not impact traffic flow along adjoining streets. E. The location and number of off-street parking spaces; For occasional maintenance trips to the site, space is available next to the gate of the 2,025 square foot leased area. Staff is of the opinion that parking will not impact the surrounding areas due to the size of the large parcel and the location of the leased area toward the center and rear of the site. F. The amount and location of open space; The applicant’s site plan indicates a leased area of 2,025 square feet and an additional access easement. The remainder of the property is Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 13 of 20 U09-03 developed with a small single family residence and barn. The parcel is approximately 10 acres which provides a large area of open space. G. Protective screening; Although the submitted site plan meets the requirements of Article 19.4.7 to provide a 10-foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards exterior to the required fencing not less than 6 feet in height, Staff recommends that the applicant provide a 20-foot landscape strip in lieu of the required 10-foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards to provide additional screening of the tower and associated facilities. This requirement will be reflected in the Recommended Conditions. H. Hours and manner of operation; The proposed monopole cell tower is an unmanned operation that will generate only an occasional trip to the site for maintenance. Staff will condition the site maintenance to be completed between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except in cases of emergency or when an after-hours permit is obtained pursuant to the City of Milton Noise Ordinance. I. Streetscape lighting; The applicant has not indicated any streetscape lighting for the site. In addition, no lights will be attached to the monopole tower. Staff notes that any security light utilized in the maintenance area must comply with the Northwest Overlay District and/or Night Sky Ordinance standards for site lighting. J. Ingress and egress to the property. The applicant’s site plan indicates that access to the leased property will be derived from the existing driveway into the site off of Mountain Road. Given the limited use of the subject site for regular maintenance, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development’s ingress and egress will have limited impact upon the community when conditioned to the limited times listed above. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS Based on the applicant’s revised site plan submitted to the Community Development Department on February 10, 2010. The original site plan submitted on November 30, 2009 was amended so the proposed tower would not encroach into the stream buffer and non-impervious setback. Staff offers the Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 14 of 20 U09-03 following considerations based on the Use Permit standards for cell towers as indicated in the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance, Article 19.4.7, prior to the adoption of the Telecommunications Ordinance by the Mayor and City Council on December 7, 2009: Use Permit Standards – Article 19.4.7 1. Towers must be set back a distance equal to one and one-half (1½) times the height of the tower adjacent to residential and/or AG-1 zoned property. The closest AG-1 zoning property is located 229 feet from the proposed cell tower location. The minimum required is 223.5 feet which includes the lighting rod. Therefore, it meets the required one and one-half times the height of the 149 foot tower. 2. Height shall not exceed 200 feet from existing grade. The proposed height of the tower is 149 feet and is below the maximum height allowed. 3. Tower and associated facilities shall be enclosed by fencing not less than six feet in height and shall also be equipped with an appropriate anti- climbing device. The site plan and associated plans indicate a new six foot high chain link fence with 3 strands of barbed wire. Staff notes that all chain link fencing shall be black vinyl clad. Although barbed wire is permitted in this use and zoning district, Staff recommends that the barbed wire not be utilized which will be reflected in the Recommended Conditions. 4. A minimum 10-foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards shall be required surrounding the facility exterior to the required fence unless the City Arborist determines that existing plant materials are adequate. The site plan indicates a 10-foot landscape strip planted with Leyland cypress. Staff recommends that a 20-foot landscape strip in lieu of the required 10-foot landscape strip be planted to buffer standards per the specifications of the City Arborist to provide additional screening of the facilities from adjacent single family residences. 5. Antennas or towers shall not have lights unless required by federal or state law. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 15 of 20 U09-03 The proposed tower and antenna will not have any lighting, as it will be less than 200 feet per the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Staff notes that any security light utilized in the maintenance area must comply with the Northwest Overlay District and/or Night Sky Ordinance standards for site lighting. 6. Towers shall not be located within one-half mile from any existing telecommunication tower above the district height, excluding alternative structures. Staff has confirmed that no existing towers are located within one-half mile from the proposed tower. 7. The tower shall comply with applicable state and local statutes and ordinances, including, but not limited to, building and safety codes. Towers which have become unsafe or dilapidated shall be repaired or removed pursuant to applicable state and local statutes and ordinances. The applicant has stated that the proposed tower will comply with all state and local ordinances as listed above and will apply for building permit approval prior to any construction. The applicant is aware and agrees to removal requirements for unsafe or dilapidated wireless facilities. Staff has determined that the subject site contains state water which requires a 50 foot undisturbed buffer and 25 foot non-impervious setback as required by Chapter 14, Environment of the City Code. The revised site plan indicates that no portion of the tower facility encroaches into the required buffer and non-impervious setback. 8. Facilities shall not be artificially lighted except to assure human safety or as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The applicant has stated that the facilities will not be artificially lighted. Staff notes that on page C3.3 of the construction plans, lighting is indicated. Staff notes that any security light utilized in the maintenance area must comply with the Northwest Overlay District standards and/or the Night Sky Ordinance for site lighting. 9. Communication towers shall be designed and constructed to ensure that the structural failure or collapse of the tower will not create a safety hazard to adjoining properties, according to applicable Federal Standards which may be amended from time to time. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 16 of 20 U09-03 The applicant has stated that the proposed tower is designed by certified structural engineers to ensure proper safety according to applicable Federal standards. 10. Telecommunications facilities shall not be used for advertising purposes and shall not contain any signs for the purpose of advertising. The applicant has stated there will not be any advertising on the proposed wireless facility. 11. Any telecommunications facility may co-locate on any existing tower, pole or other structure as long as there is no increase in height to the existing facility. The applicant has stated that the proposed facility may accommodate two additional carriers without increasing the height. 12. A commercial telecommunication facility that ceases operation for a period of 12 consecutive months shall be determined to have terminated and shall be removed within 90 days of termination at the property owner's expense. It shall be the duty of both the property owner and the tower owner to notify the City in writing of any intent to abandon the use of the tower. The applicant has stated that Section 19.4.7(B)(12) will be met. 13. Communication facilities not requiring FAA painting/marking shall have either a galvanized finish or [be] painted a dull blue, gray, or black finish or shall be screened through fencing and landscaping. The applicant states that the facility will be galvanized steel and screened behind fencing and landscaping. Staff notes that the City Design Review Board shall make the final recommendation for the finish of the structure. 14 An application for a telecommunications facility shall be submitted in accordance with the Department’s Plan Review submittal requirements. The applicant states that the facility will adhere to the above requirements. 15. An application for a telecommunication facility shall include a certification from a registered engineer that the structure will meet the applicable design standards for wind loads. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 17 of 20 U09-03 The applicant states that a certified/registered structural report will be provided for the proposed facility. 16. Communications facilities shall not be located in 100-year flood plain or delineated wetlands. The applicant states that the proposed communication facility is not located in a 100-year flood plain or delineated wetlands. Staff has confirmed these findings to be correct. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Transportation Engineer – No Comments Building Official – No Comments City Arborist – There will be no specimen trees affected by the proposed cell tower. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT On Thursday, January 13, 2010 the applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information Meeting held at the Milton City Hall. There were approximately 70 to 80 people in attendance from the community of which 20 people indicated interest in U09-03 on the City’s sign in sheet. Public Comments – Staff has received e-mails which are attached expressing both opposition and support of the request. Staff has met with the adjacent property owners on two occasions. In addition, about ten residents have called Staff to express their opposition to the proposed cell tower. City of Milton Design Review Board Meeting – January 5, 2010 The following recommendations were made by the DRB: • Board/Applicant comments: o The Board stated that their purpose is to examine the aesthetic aspects of the proposed towers; land use/location is not for them to decide. o The applicant states that the tower will be a standard grey tower, as this is the best option for blending in. The Board states that they preferred this to the fake tree option. o Applicant states that they are willing to meet City standards in terms of fencing. They are willing to remove the 3 rows of barbed wire topping the chain link fencing. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 18 of 20 U09-03 o Board inquired as to whether the Applicant would be able to screen the cell tower compound that is adjacent to the power easement (New Providence). The applicant states that the compound is at least 15’ away from the easement, and that the existing trees will remain. o Board informed the applicant that the trees used to screen the compound had to be a mix of evergreens that would provide screening in one year; Leylands are not allowed according to the Ordinance. o Only towers above 200’ are required to be lit. o Stealth products include: light pole, flag pole, mono pine. o The Board reminded the residents that the Board has the responsibility to protect the Code, and therefore the applicant. They ask the public to help by providing as much information as possible. o A balloon test has been flown; applicant has pictures taken from 20 different locations. These pictures would be on display at the CZIM meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 7th at 7:00pm. o There appears to be a Code disconnect. The Code states that a tower “buried far from the ROW is better.” Did not anticipate that homes would be so nearby. • Public comments: • The cell tower is a commercial use; not appropriate for rural, residential area. Should be on commercial property. • The tower would ruin the land value of the surrounding area. • The tower would be an eyesore. This is not for the good of the community; not in the spirit of what the City was dreamed of. • The residents would like to explore options for tower camouflage. • The applicant should look into other collocate options first. • Does the code require a propagation study to access the need for more towers? (This is included in the submitted documents). • Resident expressed his frustration and displeasure with the process. • Resident stated that his house was 327’ from the proposed Mountain Road tower location; trees less than 100’ tall. Feels that this location was not a good choice for a cell tower. • It is important for the Council/Board to visit the sites before they made any decisions. • Residents asked if Board considered areas that are highly populated as undesirable for cell towers. (Board reminded her that their purview is limited to aesthetics.) • It is incumbent upon Board to understand the unique requirement of the Milton rural community. • Resident asked if a fall zone analyses is required. (Towers are designed to collapse within itself.) • Resident is concerned about environment impact of tower, especially the poisoning of the spring fed pond if the tower was to fall. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 19 of 20 U09-03 City of Milton Design Review Board Meeting – April 13, 2010 Staff notes that another meeting before the Design Review Board was required based on the Zoning Ordinance’s requirement to publish the DRB meeting in the newspapers as well as include it in the adjacent property owners’ notice. The meeting was scheduled for April 6, 2010 but a quorum of members was not present. Therefore, it was rescheduled for April 13, 2010. The Design Review Board asked the following questions and made the following comments and recommendations: The Design Review Board made the following questions, comments and recommendations: o The Norwest Fulton Overlay District requires a mix of three species of trees acceptable to the City Arborist should be planted. In the mix of trees one should be evergreen, one deciduous and one seasonal or perennial (Article 12H.3.10.). The applicant agreed to comply with this requirement instead of the Leyland cypress depicted on the landscape plan. Staff notes that the applicant will need to meet all the requirements of the Northwest Overlay District. o It was requested that the barbed wire be removed. The applicant agreed to remove the three strands of barbed wire. o It was asked where the power to the site is located. The applicant stated that power to the site will be located underground. o It was asked when the area light on the leased area will be lit. The applicant stated that it was only for emergency access and repairs. Staff notes that there were no public comments regarding this item. Public Participation Plan and Report This petition was administratively deferred to the March 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Staff received an updated Public Participation Report on March 15, 2010 which meets the required submittal date of seven (7) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant will be required to submit an updated public participation report 7 days prior to the Mayor and City Council meeting. CONCLUSION It is Staff’s opinion that 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. Therefore, Staff recommends DENIAL of U09-03. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor an d City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 20 of 20 U09-03 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, it should be approved USE PERMIT for an Antenna Tower and Associated Structure to Exceed the District Height (Article 19.4.7.) CONDITIONAL subject to the owner’s agreement to the following enumerated conditions. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulations and offerings contained in the Letter of Intent, these conditions shall supersede unless specifically stipulated by the Mayor and City Council. 1) To the owner’s agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows: a) One monopole communications tower and equipment slab(s) and/or building(s). b) The tower shall not exceed 145 feet with a 4 foot lighting rod. 2) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following: a) To the revised site plan received by the Milton Community Development Department on February 10, 2010. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion. 3) To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations: a) To provide a 20 foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards per the requirements of Article 12H.3.10. around the leased area. b) All chain link fencing shall be black vinyl clad. c) No barbed wire will be permitted on top of the minimum 6 foot high security fence. d) All site maintenance to be completed between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except in cases of emergency or when an after-hours permit is obtained pursuant to the City of Milton Noise Ordinance. GTRS Georgia Tax & Re(.,uhitor Solutions, LLC March 22, 2010 City of Milton Planning and Development Division 13000 Deerfield Parkway. Suite 107C Milton. GA 30044 Re: 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 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 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 -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-76dBrn was not achieved throughout the vicinity. Therefore, the Applicant has demonstrated that there is poor coverage in this geographic service area. 1435440 GTRS Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC 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. 'f'he 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 treeline (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 I04 feet and that the tower be disguised as a pine tree or provide another stealth design to minimize its visual impact. Based an 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 141*4 v GTRS Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC 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 len&Ah 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 he a minimum of 223.5 feet. According to the application documents (see construction drawings labeled "Sheet 3 of 3"), the closest adiacent 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 -ciimbing device. A ten (14) foot vide 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 seated by a licensed structural engineer with its building permit application. 143;.u0 GTRS Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC 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. Sincerely. � r David R. Gilley Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC 1411 vl ALL, Robyn MacDonald From: james pace [yipyoo2@att.net] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2490 12:25 PM To: Robyn MacDonald; pippi08@att.net Subject: Cell Towers I have excellent cell phone reception at all points in my house including the basement. The Atlanta Board of Realtors provided site informaton on the impact of cell phone towers on house prices. The impact on negative values was variable up to 50% when a sale could be accomplished. Health effects need to be addressed. 2002 was the last year a study on the effects of radio waves was done governments in other countries are issuing warnings about cell phones and cell towers. Reasonable doubt and concern about the safety of cell phones and cell phone towers has resulted in a Senate Committee hearing and a study being initiated. September 2009 the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations heard testimony from a Hearing on "The Health Effects of Cell Phone Use". Senator Spector requested the hearing. There are growing health concerns about the long term effects of radio wave exposure. A $24,000,000 study is underway to obtain better data for firm conclusions - previous studies have weaknesses with many of the earlier studies paid for by interested parties. This is a three phase study to be reported in final analysis in the year 2014. I listened to this hearing in full and came to the conclusion this could be another lead paint or tobacco scenario. The effects will come later. Witness List at this hearing included scientists from Finland, Israel, the National Institutes of Health, Linda Erdereich, Ph.D., Senior Managing Scientist, Exponent Health, Sciences, Center of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Computational Biology, New York, New York, and other outhstanding scientists. Scientists presented data and studies from their works and the World Health Organization. A growing global concern is reflected by tougher exposure standards in other parts of the world. We should proceed carefully with our policies. We should not ignore the possible long tern health effects of cell phones and cell towers. I have a copy of the hearing. It is available for review. Carolyn Pace 770-667-6273 yyoo2 cr.att.net Robyn MacDonald From: james pace [yipyoo2@att.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:11 PM To: Robyn MacDonald Sulbject: Fw: cell tower ---- Forwarded Message ---- From: james pace <james99pace@gmail.com> To: james pace <yipyoo2@att.net> Sent: Sat, April 1.0, 2010 3:48:25 PM Subject: Gell tower The following items should be considered in our efforts to not allow tower construction. A. The search for towers described on the application only evaluated a radius of 1820 feet around the CogburnlHopewell intersection. Even though there are 27 towers in a 4 mile radios of this point, it would be very hard to find an existing tower in such a small search area. This small search area made a joke of co - locating with another tower. B. The amount of data transmission that will be used for 3G and 4G applications will require a booster antenna at each home even though the areas are covered with antennas. These booster antennas are available on the Internet for 129$ dollars presently and could/should be provided by service providers at a much smaller cost(50$ estimate). C The cell towers are being constructed by a third party construction company. In order to protect the taxpayers of the city of Milton in the event of default of this construction company it is recommended that all towers proposed have a removal fee paid to the city of Milton that will be used to remove the towers if abandoned. Robyn MacDonald From: Leslie Wicks [lawicks@bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 10:30 PM To: Joe Lockwood, .toe Longoria; Julie ZahnerBailey; Burt Hewitt; Bill Lusk; Alan Tart; Karen Thurman Cc: Robyn Macdonald Subject. Cell Towers and affect on Property Values To Mayor Joe Lockwood and all City Council Members, Here is some information I have found in my research on Cell Towers concerning Property Values. It is not right for someone to profit while neighboring resident's property values could decrease. The biggest investment we make in our lives is our home. Would you consider buying a home next to a Cell Tower? Thank you for your time. Leslie Wicks/2870 Mountain Road Property Values are affected by approximately 0%- 21%. Also, please realize there are studies on High Tension Lines which has been around much longer and affects property values. Property values are affected up to 1,000 feet (300 meters). Article on "The Impact of Wireless Towers on Residential Property Value" by Carol c. McDonough, PhD A wireless tower needs to be considered as a negative amenity that may reduce residential property valuation. Article talks about: Power Lines and Property Values: Some Evidence And Similarities between Power Lines and Wireless Towers. http://www. broad bandwirelessre orts.com u loads 1 A raisal Journal - Cell towers bad for home prlces.pdf In a question by the Planning Commission that went unanswered, I would like to submit to you (3) websites on studies for property values and cell towers. (CPRS - Cell Phone Base Station) 1. New Zealand Study — this study also gives information for their mobile phone site requirements. There is a section on Environmental Effects and Adverse Health Effects as well as the Property Value Study. Each case study included residents in two areas: the case study area (within 300 meters (984.25 ft) of a cell phone tower) and a control area (over 1km (3,280.8399 ft) from the cell phone tower). Both areas within each case study had the same living environment (in socia -economic terms) except that the former is an area with a CPBS while the latter is without a CPBS. The results do provide a gauge of the perceptions that people have about living near a cell site, or moving to an area near one, and how this might impact on values of properties in proximity to a CPBS. In Survey sections please take note of: - Affect on Decision to Purchase or Rent - Concerns about Proximity to the CPBS In Summary and Conclusions—vihether or not CP BS's are ever proven conclusively to be free from health risks is only relevant to the extent that buyers of property near a CPBS perceive this to be true. Consequently, values of residential property located in close proximity to CPBS's may be adversely affected by the negative perceptions of buyers, regardless of research evidence to the contrary. This article is (22) pages, and has some very good information in it. http://www.prres.net/Papers/Bond The impact Of Cellular Phone Base Station Towers On Property Value s.pdf The effect of proximity to CP13Ss is similar to that caused by proximity to HVOTL-pylons and Reduces price by around 21%. Taking actual distance into account (using GTS analysis) the effect is a reduction of price of 15%, on average (but up to 25% depending on the neighborhood). This effect reduces with distance from the CPBS and is negligible after 1000 feet (300 in eters). The literature on property value effects from HVOTLs, pylons and cell phone towers adds to the growing body of evidence and knowledge on this (and similar) valuation issue(s). 2. Canadian Study based off of the New Zealand Study In Canada there are at least two instances where the assessed value of residential properties was reduced due to close proximity to commercial antenna towers. Eight residential properties that back directly into a microwave tower site (impact of the tower upon the aesthetics of the neighboring lands)_ Sixteen residential properties because of aesthetic impacts of a broadcasting antenna tower installation that had been upgraded. The most reliable evidence of the value of land is its market value as determined by the price that a willing purchaser is willing to pay to a willing vendor in a free market. http.-I/www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sfOS353.htm I 3. Florida Study based off of the New Zea land Study Generally, the closer a property is to the tower, the greater the decrease in price. The effect of proximity to a tower reduces price by 15% on average. This effect is reduced with distance from the tower and is negligible after 1000 feet. The results clearly show that the price of residential property increases with the distance from a tower. As distance from the tower increases by 10 feet, price of a residential property increases by 0.57%. http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournaIslarticle/171851340 1.htm1 010 City of Milton, Georgia 30004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members; Art & Polly Worley www.artworley.com After perusing the Property Value Study for Telecommunication Structures in Fulton County, Georgia, submitted by T -Mobile, l have some comments regarding several of the properties cited in this report. First, the study does not address how long these properties were on the market before selling. One in particular in Litchfield Hundred (13 33 5 Bishops Court) was on the market for 255 days before selling. Another sold home in this neighborhood (1255 Cashiers Way, adjacent to 1245 Cashiers Way, which is addressed in the study) was on the market for 815 days before selling. An active listing at 1295 Cashiers Way (adjacent to 1290 Cashiers Way, which is addressed in the study) has been on the market since 1114109 and still has not sold. As stated in the study, "Overall, the data indicates that the telecommunication tower has no impact on sale prices or marketability", it seems from the above data that the tower does have impact on sales prices and marketability. The majority of the study discussed homes in South Fulton County. The City of Milton offers buyers a completely different environment for the purchase of a home. The typical buyer in Milton wants to get away from commercial areas or cookie cutter neighborhoods on small lots. The median price for a home in Milton is approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and can go upwards to $1,500,000-x. Buyers in this price range tend to be more discriminating concerning their surroundings. Additionally, the neighborhoods referenced in the study were built after the cell towers were in place, as opposed to the new, proposed cell towers in Milton being built in already established residential areas. I think it makes a difference, in that the prices of homes built prior to a tower being installed would definitely be affected in a negative way, as opposed to a buyer choosing a home where a cell tower was already in place. Sincerely, Art Worley A1" C Town & Country REAL ESTATE 14205 Highway 92, Suite 109 Woodstock, GA 30188 (770)475-4913 • Fax(770)569-5756 Each office independenliv owned and operated gF.Ao1* March 23, 2010 City Council Members City of Mifton, Georgia 30004 To Whom It May Concern, Art & Polly Worley www.artworley.com I am a resident of the City of Milton and have lived and worked here as a residential realtor for the past 25 years. In my professional opinion, I believe it would be very detrimental to the value of residential real estate to be in close proximity to a cell tower, in the City of Milton or elsewhere. It is difficult to calculate an exact devaluation figure or percentage, but I have seen over and over again homes that do not sell if they have a cell tower, power lines or similar utility structures within view of the property. It is definitely a "deal [tiller" and very detrimental to the home's value. I would be happy to discuss this issue further upon your request. Sincerely, Art Worley Town & Country REAL ESTATE 14205 Highway 92, Suite 109 Woodstock, GA 34188 (770) 475-4913 . Fax (770) 569-5756 Farb nffirp lRdAnnnrka tiv nwnarl and nnaratF l Public Remarks #:332BT72 Sold Broker, JENNO6 City: ROSWELL tate: GEORGIA Subdivision: Litchfield Hundred $1,299, 900 Area: 33 Map, 600G4 County: Zip: 30075 FULTON Int -114 ft+ Ceil Claire Yr Built: Age Desc. Nbrhd - Sidewalk Now/Under 2006 Construction Lvis BdrLake:ms Maths Hit Bth Waterfront., Upper 4 4 0 OTHER Main 1 1 1 Stories: 2 CrElem: SWEET 5 1 5 1 Stories APPLE Total 5 Lower 4 Style: Rus�c,Middle: ELKINS Tradittonal POI NTE High: ROSWELL Directions. 400N to Holcomb Bridge. Wast toward RnsAell on 92 to King Rd. Rt on King Rd. to dead and at Cox Rd. Left on Cox to 2nd Litchfield entra nce or. Buck -sport and fallow aigns t new section Highlands fudge -style eAerior w1rusbc bearr,ed entrance & front wrap around cored stone porch. Front cherry paneled library, oversized rnstr vvlfplc, step up sifting area and true custom doset�dressing room. Kitdetail is fabulous fb`ful backsplash, exposed beam ceiling in eating area. Private/Confidential Remarks Stacked stone fplc in keeping rm which opens to covered porch wlfplc. 3UILDER INCEN ITVES, CALL AGENT FOR DETAILS. 678-461-0884 Features Bedroom: Bdrsm On Main Lev, Sitting Room Master Bath: Double Vanity, Sep Tub/Shower, Whirlpool T€b Kitchen: B rea kfa st Area, Breakfast Bar, Cabinets Shin, Counter Top - Dining: Seats 12¢, Separate Setting, Other Stave, Island, Keeping Room Dng Rm Const: Brick 4 Sides, Sthne House Faces: Unknovlr Tennis or. Prop: No Pool: Abne Parkin 3 Car Gara e. Ijtchen Ler.", SidelRear E Road: Paved. Public Parking: g # FP: 4 Maintain Rooms: Family Room, L'braryl:lffica, Media Room, Recreation Room. Separato Eden Basement: SatVStubbeu, Daylight, Full Home Warranty. Yes Lot Size: 1 Up To 2 Acres Lot Desc: CU-Qa-Sac; Private Back-vard. Wooded Green Building Certification: Other Descriptive Info ", ation Nbrhd - Club House Int - g ft+ Ceil upper Nbrhd - Playgromnd Int -114 ft+ Ceil Claire Nbrhd - Swinutling Poul int - 2 -Story foyer Nbrhd - Sidewalk ':rit - DSL Available Nbrhd - Tennis Lighted Int - Hardwood Floors App] - Dishwasher Int - Trey Ceilings Appl - Double Ovens hA - Walk-in Closet(sj Appl - Garbage Disposal Ext - Deck A.ppl - Gas GvniRnUiCtop Ext - Front Pomh ,app] - Gas Water Heater Ext - lrrlgatlon System Appl - Microwave Ext - tither Appl - Self -Clean Oven Ext - Prof Landscaping Legal, Financial &`fax Information Tax ID: LandLot: €00311004 Plat BooklPage: 287128 DLeed Book/Page-, 410 Hcap - bone Fptr. - in GreatlFam Room FpIC - In Keeping Room FpIc - 8n Master Bedroom Heat - Forced Alr Heat - Gas Heat - Zoned Coni - Gelling 'Fares Cool - Central Electric Cool -Zoned Enrgy - Attic Vent Fares Enrgy - C;9ck Thermostat Lai Dimensions: I +acres HERS Index: Enrgy - High Ef"f System Enrgy - Ther mai Pane VVdws Water - Public Water Sewer - Septic Tank Laundry - Laundry Room Laundry - Upstairs Dock - None Distract: 2 SectionlGMD: 2 Lot: 42 Block, nia TaxlTax Yr: Sq Ft: 4,946 Sq Ft Source: Tax $0'/2008 Record Special: Cert Prof. Ovvrer Finance: N Home Bldr CPH&: Annl Master Assoc Fee Desc: $0 SwirrfTennis: $7001 A.nifl Assoc Fee: $7001 includes Initiiatlan Requsred SvnrniTennis Fee: $ Ovmer Second: Assumable: No Assessment DuelConternplated: HOA Phone: of 6 % i f ."071 i _.29 €'?I�] Mgtnt Co: Wignit Phone: Office Information Owner Name: Builder Agent LicenseM 165953 List Agent ID: CLOSES0 Co -List Agent 1D: MAJHERB Firm License#: H-14253 office: List Date: Days to Exp: 8121!2006 Duplicate FMLS 4: Said Information A1g€nt Eonail: Owner Phone: 678-461-0884 Show Inst: Anytsrw Accu Selling Cornrnission: 3 VRC: No Agent: SUZANNE B CLOSE Phone/Fax: - 770-594-45041678-461-0150 Co -Agent: ^, PhonelFax: 770-594-4979/618-401-0150 Phone]Fax: #678-461-87001 678-461-0150 Selling Agent/Broker may present offers directly to Seller?- N WD Date: WD DOM: Exp Hate: Exp DOM: 8/21/2007 Closing Date: Binding Agreerr�nt Date: Sale Price: $1?Q0{]00 Due Diligence Ends, Closing 5131 Original List Price: Drop Closing !Date: 5/311200 Q01* 255 Tata! DOM: 255 $1.299.900 WOLF %, 92% Costs Paid by Seiler: Terms: COW-UNIN5 Seo] Agent: _'. Sell Agit !b: •'_l Y NDYF. Lender Mediated: Sell Office: HN8H10 Sun, Apr 11, ..: .• ,,;i ..;n;ati-)n. r:ga,L'ik:s ofe ir:.'n dM: ` ; :.: :.:. i.:-�; r- : , ,si.;�r f -� .O[aJ.= Requested By - 201001.28 �:_rll [:!•;i f! -1I.1 I71� I!u+. Ilii i3lf:,rd rl3r: �^d �,nrs 3j;�ul•�5:"••� 1'E�f f.IB�; fi7rc,ig f17� :,L*flil r'1iISPr�CtiPf, by hi7d+Ot :. PIN the appropriate professianais. cz� 2r,10-:-2010 FIM',L5 - 4 of 6 4!1112010 1:29 PM Residentias- Detached $1,099,000 #:3518080 Sold Broker. Area: 13 Map:600G4 JENN06 1255 Cashiersy'Jx; f W City: ROSWELL State: County: gip: `x'075 GEORGIA FULTON Subdivision: Yr Built: Age Oesc: Litchfield Hundred 2006 NewfUnder Nbrhd - Swimming Poral Construction Lvls Bdrms Baths Hlf Bth Lake. NONE Waterfront: 0 Upper 4 4 0 Stories: 2 OrElem: Main 1 ; 1 + Stories CRABAPPLE Lower 0 1 0 CROSS NG f-13 1 Style: Middle: ELKINS Appi - Gas OvnlRn9,Ctop Traditional POINTE Appi - Gas Water Beater High: ROSWELL Directions: Hwv 92 west io King Rd- Turn rtand go to Cox rd- Turn left to Lithfielf Hundred- Follow Jenny Pruitt New Harms markers. ... r Residentias- Detached $1,099,000 #:3518080 Sold Broker. Area: 13 Map:600G4 JENN06 1255 Cashiersy'Jx; f W City: ROSWELL State: County: gip: `x'075 GEORGIA FULTON Subdivision: Yr Built: Age Oesc: Litchfield Hundred 2006 NewfUnder Nbrhd - Swimming Poral Construction Lvls Bdrms Baths Hlf Bth Lake. NONE Waterfront: 0 Upper 4 4 0 Stories: 2 OrElem: Main 1 ; 1 + Stories CRABAPPLE Lower 0 1 0 CROSS NG Total 5 6 1 Style: Middle: ELKINS Appi - Gas OvnlRn9,Ctop Traditional POINTE Appi - Gas Water Beater High: ROSWELL Directions: Hwv 92 west io King Rd- Turn rtand go to Cox rd- Turn left to Lithfielf Hundred- Follow Jenny Pruitt New Harms markers. Public Remrks SALE OF A L 1FETINIE'•f On remaining inventory of Luxury Estate Homes in one of Rosw ell's hestsv&nitennis neighborhoods. Sale begins 61261?008. This Estate borne reduced $200,000. Contact agent for details. Pr"lvatelCorlfielential Remarks Agents must accompany clients or register at the sales office- if not co-op fee is 1 %;- Features Bedroom: Bdrm On Main Lev, Master On Main Faster Bath: Double Vanity, Sep Tub/Shower, Whirlpool Tub Kitchen Brea kfast Area.. Breakfast Bar, Cabinets Stain, Island, Keeping Dining: Separate Dng Rm Setting. mer Room, Counter Top - Stone Const: Brick 4 Sides, Stone Clouse Faces: Unknown Tennis on Prop: No Pool: None Parking- 4 Car Gerage, Aifachad 'Road: P'a;ed, Public Main4n# FA: 4 Rooms: Bonus Room, Family Room, LibraryiOfFice, Media Room, Separate Den, Separate LVrg Rm Basement: Bath1Slubbed, Daylight, Full Horne Warranty: Yes Lot Size: 1 Up To 2 Acres Let Besc: CuVl7e-Sac, Level, Leval Drivamay, Private Lot Dimansions: 1-0 Backyard, Wooded acres Green Building Cer?ifscatlon; Other Descriptive information Nbrhd - Club House int -10 ft+ Cell Main Nbrhd - Playground Int - 9 ft + Ceil Louver Nbrhd - Swimming Poral Int - 9 ft+ Ceii Upper Nbrhd - Street Lights Ext -tic Nbrhd - Tennis Lighters Ext - Prof Landscaping Appi - Double Ovens Ext - Patio Apps - Dishwasher Ext - irrigation System Appl - Garbage Disposal Hcap - Other Appi - Gas OvnlRn9,Ctop Fpkc - in Master Bedroom Appi - Gas Water Beater Fplc - In Other Room Legal, Financial & Tax Information Fplc - In Keeping Room Heat - Forced Air Meat - Cas Cost - Central E :sctric Cool - Fan Gael -Zoned Enrgy - Att;c Vent Fans Enrgy - Clack Therrmstat Enrgy - Extra Insulation Enrgy - High Eff System Tax ID: LandLot: 1003&1004 District: 2 Plat BookiPage: 287!128 peed BooklPage: Gi0 HERS Index. 0 Water - Public Water Sewer - Septic Tank Laundry - Hall Laundry - Laundry Room Dock - Nona SectlonIGMD: 2 Let: 46 Bloch: nla TaxlTax Yr: ' Sq Ft Source: Not $012005 q F#; E7 Xmilable 5peclal: None Owner Finance: N Domer Second: Assumable: No CPRS: Ann[ Master Assoc Fee Desc: $0 Assessment DuelConternplated; SwimlTennis: $7001 Annl Assoc Fee: $700 ; Initiat'sar! HOA Phone: Required Required Fee: $ Mgmt Co: Mgmt Phone: Nigrat Erroil: Office Informaticni Owner Mame: Rosen Cus orn Owner Phone: 678--461-088.1 Show Inst: Anytime Access Humes =Agent License#: 165953 Selling Commission, 3% CIRC: No •—PhonefFax: LlstAgentiD:CLO5E5B Agent: 770-594-4994 167z3-461-0150 Co -List Agent 117: SWENCENl1 Co -Agent: PhonefFax:770-594-4993 16 78-461 -0150 Firm LlcL-nse#: H-94253 PhonefFax: # 678-461-87001 678-431-0150 Office: Selling AgentlBroker rwy present offers directly to Seller?: N List [late: Clays to Exp: WD Date: WD DOM: Exp Date: Exp DOM: 612&12(307 1111512008 Duplicate FMLS #_ Sold Information Sale Price: $1066-030 Due Diligence Ends: Closing [late: 1012/2008 S' d'sn nt Date; 911612CK38 Original List Price: $1,298.900 Prop dosing Date: 10/2J2008 DOM; 446 ota M- 81 SP/OLP %: 829a Costs Paid by Seller: 0 Terms: COW-UNIN5 Sell Agent lD: MAJHEF?B Sell Agent: _ isiiwJ, Lender Mediated: Sell Office: HNBH07 Sun, Apr 1l, Requested 13y: P `Itr �,._ ❑i:.�; •, -••. •.;inr;�.aa::a. re���„��_. ❑i s�u.ce, ,r1..lu::.ng t�r.it i�ot limi:zs: to �ys:a� � lockage, is 2010 01:28 �1�esned r+AS b,: r-i.:r r.. �, 'N,:. �i ! •_ V pe ticVt by and or with ;:rt. ^ci nc ter: d ::e .. riSied rP� a�ign rsonai ins er. r PM he :: r•rr,n-nIc i?i•:7fr3....:,!�, i- ;n 2_201C+ FF:"'_r AiC: 6 of 6 4/11/2010 11,29 PNf Residential Age Desc: Detached Demographic 2flOB #-3907980 a:: t:: _: Broker: ATFH02Area: 13 1295 Cashiers W a Media: ca City: ROSWELL State: County: Waterfront: 0 GEORGIA FULTON Public Remarks $929.000 ' Map- 6000-4 Zip: 3GO75 Subdivision: Litchfield Yr Built: Age Desc: Hundred Demographic 2flOB Newftlnder Bedroom: odrrn On Wri Lev Construc*�on Lvls Bdrms $aths 1iif M Lake: Waterfront: 0 Upper 4 4 4 NONE Main 1 I 1 Stories. 2 Elem: SWEET Lower a 0 r7 Stories APPLE Total 5 5 1 Style: Biddle: ELKI NS # Fly: " Traditional POO NTE Basement: 'Daylight, Exterior Erity, Full High: ROSWELL Directions: From 400 go Weston 92 to King Road, rake a right At dead end, t3ke left onto Cox Rd, then right at 2nd Litchfield antrance at Buckspor[- i urn Ight on Ad son, right on Cashiers Way Priced below recent appraisal. Vr4hat a remarkable price to be able to ow,, this b7d Fred King hm- All hrdv�ds on rrain w/secortd ivi rrsr & 3 other hdrms up & guest rm on main. Lr g flit open to a vhd great rm vlfp, great for entertaining. Out door fpic on covered porch- Private/Confidential Remarks Call Agent for SHowng €nstructons � �' @ �t� C� '� I ; _ ; Features Bedroom: odrrn On Wri Lev Master Hath: Double Vanity. Carden Tub. Sep TublShower, Whirlpool Tub Kitchen: Breakfast Area, Keeping Room, Pantry, Counter Top - Stone Dining: Separate ON Rrn Setting: mer Const: Bfiok 4 Sides, Stone House Faces: South Tennis on Trop: No Pool: None Parking: 3 Car Garage Road: Paved # Fly: " Rooms: Bonus Room, Computer. Great Room, Library] OT -lice, Loft, OLi er, Separate Lvng Rm Basement: 'Daylight, Exterior Erity, Full Home Warranty: Yes Lot Size: 1 Up To 2 Acres Lot Desc: Level, Level Orivev,ay, Private Backyard, Wooded Lot Dimensions: 0 Green RuJiding CeYtii;cation: HERS Index: 0 Other Descriptive infon-nation -.... Nbrhd - Street Lij4hts 'int - [ISL Available Hcap - None Laundry - Laundry Room Nbrhd -Tennis Lighted Int - His & Her Closets Fpir. -teras Starter Laundry - Upstairs Appl - Double Ovens int - Hardwood Floors Fplc - In Living Room Dock - Norte Appi - Dishwasher int - Cable Modem i=ptc - 1n ,easter Bedroom Appl - Garbage Disposal Int - Rear Stairs Fplc - In Keeping Room Appl - Gas 0vn1RnglGtop int - Trey Ceilings Heat - Gas Appl -?Microwave int - Walk -Irl Closet(s) Cool - Centcal Electric Appl - Gas Water Veater Ext - Front Porch Enrgy - High Elf System Int - f 0 ftp C 01 lritaM Ext - Prof Landscaping Water - Pub9a Water Int - 2 -Story Foyer Ext - Irrigation System Sewer - Septic Tanis Legal, Financials & ax Information Tax Id: . LandLot: 940-1,012 rXstrict: 2 SecihonIGMD: 2 Lot: 37 Block: 0 Plat Book,Page: Deed Book/Page- 0/0 TaxlTax Yr: Sq Ft: 4,729 Sq Ft Source: Tax 259114E $412[30& Record Special: Mone Owner Finance. N Owner Second,. Assumable: No No CPHS: Anni ?Master Assoc Fee Desc: $0 Assessment DuelConternplated. No 6,Arriffennis: $70D I Anna Assoc Fee: $70001 Includes Initiation Required .S.v4rri/Tannis Fee: $0 HCA Phone: Mgrnt Co: Mgmt Diene: Mgrnt Ernail: Office information Owner Name: Builder Owner Phone. 878-461-W184 Show Inst: Anytime Access, Lockbox ,Agent License#: 165953 Selling Commission: 3 VRC: Nb --' List Agent ID: CLOSESB Agent. PhoneEFax: 404-924-6814 1404-924-5815 I. of 411;./2010 1.29 PM 2 of 6 4/11/2010 1:29 PM Co-List Agent ID: SPENCEW Co-Agent: _ s; r `.3?EN :- PhonelFax: --- --- --- 77&,642-1760 r 77D-640-0562 Firm License#: H-57502 Phone/Fax: # 4D4-237-50001 404237-5401 ❑ffk;e: - 30THESYS N; Selling AgentlBroker my present offers directly to Seller?: 1V — t.ist Date: [says to Exp: WD Date: WD DON{: Exp Date: Exp DONT: Duplicate FN#LS #: Sold Information Sale Price: $ Due Diligence Ends: Closing Date: Binding Agreement Date: Original List Price; S995,00D Prop Closing Date: SPlOLP %: 01% Costs Paid by Seller: Terms: Sell Agent ID: Sell Agent: Lender Mediated: Sell Office: Sun, Apr 11, Th,- 3G,:.1F--'y c; 311 :r,::rn.3-�oii. regard's 3 a ;r.•.ir: . ine!,,Fd ng b:rt n•.�t limited L sguart N-AAage, is Requested By: 2010 011:2$ dk•an,ed r.=_:sab'e but no: Jug=.rlr'!C + an ShOUfd he 1-R.-Meed ehrpugrt persanal r.A ci PM r r-. apr.i.,rii:.._ ,:i._:es_;: n, G 032-20M '.AL` GR7n. < _._... -- - 2 of 6 4/11/2010 1:29 PM Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 1 of 19 U09-04 PETITION NUMBER(S): U09-04 PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 14495 Hopewell Road DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2/2, 691, 692 OVERLAY DISTRICT Northwest EXISTING ZONING AG-1 (Agricultural) ACRES 26.4294 EXISTING USE Single family residence/horse farm PROPOSED USE 150 foot Monopole Cell Tower with a 4 ft. lightning rod for a total of 154 feet OWNER Ronald Bogino ADDRESS 14495 Hopewell Road Milton, GA 30004 PETITIONER/REPRESENTATIVE T-Mobile South, LLC/Shawn Blassingill ADDRESS 4 Concourse Parkway, Suite 300 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 PHONE 678-612-7489 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION U09-04 – DENIAL INTENT To obtain a use permit 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). Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 2 of 19 U09-04 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION – MARCH 23, 2010 U09-04 – DENIAL 7-0 Mr. David R. Gilley of Georgia Tax and Regulatory Solutions, LLC presented his findings regarding U09-04. He concluded “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, GTRS recommended that this Application be denied.” After hearing many public concerns including visibility from Hopewell Road and the tower extending 60 feet above tree line, not being visibly consistent with the agricultural character of the area, the fact that the FCC Act of 1996 only requires that cell service be available; not that every carrier is available, lack of need for the additional tower based on excellent cell service tested by the community, proposed cell tower will negatively impact values of residential properties, and T-Mobile has not demonstrated a significant gap in service. The owner of the subject property stated that rural character is not subdivision after subdivision and his certain property rights should be considered. Another nearby resident stated that if the application meets the standards of the use permit and it is denied, then they are denied their property rights. The Planning Commission discussion included the following issues: 1. The applicant will verify if sealed engineered drawings were submitted for U09-04. 2. The applicant verified that the property owner resides on the property. 3. The number of co-locaters that can be installed on this tower. 4. Questions regarding the appraisal performed by Greystone Valuation Services. Please note the following: The applicant submitted a set of revised site plans/engineered drawings for U09-04 on March 30, 2010. It appears that the only revision made to the plans was the change from “preliminary, not for construction” to plans sealed by a registered engineer. The applicant has not submitted additional items for U09-03 as of April 14, 2010. An additional Design Review Board (DRB) meeting was held on April 13, 2010. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 3 of 19 U09-04 LOCATION MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 4 of 19 U09-04 CURRENT ZONING MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 5 of 19 U09-04 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 6 of 19 U09-04 REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED MARCH 30, 2010 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 7 of 19 U09-04 Distances from property lines/structures Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 8 of 19 U09-04 SUBJECT SITE – Looking south into entrance from Hopewell SUBJECT SITE – Looking south toward cell tower location Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 9 of 19 U09-04 SUBJECT SITE – Approximate leased area PHOTO SIMULATION OF TOWER FROM HOPEWELL ROAD Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 10 of 19 U09-04 PHOTO SIMULATION OF TOWER FROM SADDLESPRINGS DRIVE LOOKING NORTH SUBJECT SITE: The subject site is a 26.4294 acre tract of agriculturally zoned land, located on the south side of Hopewell Road. The subject site is developed with a single- family residence and Seven Gables Horse Farm. It is located within the Agricultural, Forestry and Mining Land Use designation on the Focus Fulton 2025 Plan which was still in place at the time of this application’s submittal. Existing uses and zoning of nearby property The subject site is surrounded by lots on average ranging in size from one acre to approximately 15 acres. They are developed with single family residences within the AG-1 (Agricultural) district. Stratford Estates is located to north on the north side of Hopewell Road developed with single family residences zoned AG-1 (Agricultural). North Fields is located further north of Stratford Estates and developed with single family residences zoned AG-1 (Agricultural). Wyndam Farms is located further to the southeast and developed with single family residences zoned AG-1 (Agricultural). Sunnybrooke Farms is a large lot Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 11 of 19 U09-04 equestrian subdivision zoned AG-1 (Agricultural) located directly to the south of the subject site. Greystone Farms subdivision is zoned CUP (Community Unit Plan) with a minimum lot size of one acre with a minimum heated floor area of 4,000 square feet located north of the subject site. Staff notes that the Mayor and City Council denied a request for a Use Permit (U07-08/VC07-13) for a Landscaping Business located on Hopewell Road on December 13, 2007. A. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and/or Economic Development Revitalization plans adopted by the Mayor and City Council: Focus Fulton 2025 Plan Map: Agricultural, Forestry and Mining The proposed monopole cell tower is inconsistent with the intent and following policies of the Focus Fulton 2025 Comprehensive Plan (this plan was still in place at the time of the applicant filing this request): Encourage development consistent with the surrounding scale, transition of densities and uses, and Comprehensive Plan policies, where appropriate. Protect the existing rural character of Northwest Fulton. B. Compatibility with land uses and zoning districts in the vicinity of the property for which the use permit is proposed; The proposed 150 foot monopole with 4 foot lightning rod is inconsistent with the adjacent land uses of single family residences on large agricultural parcels and associated agricultural uses such as barns and riding rings. The closest residential structure is approximately 354 feet from the proposed monopole cell tower located on the subject site. Other residential structures are located 618 feet, 663 feet and 751feet to the west, south and southeast respectively. Although, it meets the use permit standards for setbacks, it is Staff’s opinion that it is incompatible based on the location of the tower to adjacent residential structures. Further, the tower appears to be located such that it will be significantly higher than the tree stands and will not be visually screened from the road as depicted in the tower simulation photos above. C. Whether the proposed use may violate local, state and/or federal statutes, ordinances or regulations governing land development; It is Staff’s opinion that the proposed use does not violate local, state and/or federal ordinances or regulations governing land development. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 12 of 19 U09-04 D. The effect of the proposed use on traffic flow, vehicular and pedestrian, along adjoining streets; The proposed monopole cell tower is an unmanned operation that will generate only an occasional trip to the site for maintenance. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed monopole cell tower will not impact traffic flow along adjoining streets. E. The location and number of off-street parking spaces; For occasional maintenance trips to the site, space is available nex t to the gate of the 2,500 square foot leased area. Staff is of the opinion that parking will not impact the surrounding areas due to the size of the large parcel and the location of the leased area away from Hopewell Road and behind existing barns. F. The amount and location of open space; The applicant’s site plan indicates a leased area of 2,500 square feet and an additional access easement. The remainder of the property is developed with a single family residence and working horse farm. The parcel is approximately 26 acres which provides a large area of open space. G. Protective screening; Although the submitted site plan meets the requirements of Article 19.4.7 to provide a 10-foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards exterior to the required fencing not less than 6 feet in height, Staff recommends that the applicant provide a 20-foot landscape strip in lieu of the required 10 foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards to provide additional screening of the tower and associated facilities. This will be reflected in the Recommended Conditions. H. Hours and manner of operation; The proposed monopole cell tower is an unmanned operation that will generate only an occasional trip to the site for maintenance. Staff will condition the site maintenance to be completed between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except in cases of emergency or when an after-hours permit is obtained pursuant to the City of Milton Noise Ordinance. I. Streetscape lighting; The applicant has not indicated any streetscape lighting for the site. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 13 of 19 U09-04 In addition, no lights will be attached to the monopole tower. Staff notes that any security light utilized in the maintenance area must comply with the Northwest Overlay District and/or Night Sky Ordinance standards for site lighting. J. Ingress and egress to the property. The applicant’s site plan indicates that access to the leased property will be derived from the existing driveway into the site off of Hopewell Road. Given the limited use of the subject site for regular maintenance, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development’s ingress and egress will have limited impact upon the community when conditioned to the limited times listed above. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS Based on the applicant’s revised site plan submitted to the Community Development Department on March 30, 2010, Staff offers the following considerations: Use Permit Standards – Article 19.4.7 1. Towers must be set back a distance equal to one and one-half (1½) times the height of the tower adjacent to residential and/or AG-1 zoned property. The closest AG-1 zoning property is located 269 feet from the proposed cell tower location. The minimum required is 231 feet which includes the lighting rod. Therefore, it meets the required one and one-half times the height of the 154 foot tower. 2. Height shall not exceed 200 feet from existing grade. The proposed height of the tower is 154 feet and is below the maximum height allowed. 3. Tower and associated facilities shall be enclosed by fencing not less than six feet in height and shall also be equipped with an appropriate anti- climbing device. The site plan and associated plans indicate a new six foot high chain link fence with 3 strands of barbed wire. Staff notes that all chain link fencing shall be black vinyl clad. Although barbed wire is permitted in this use and zoning district, Staff recommends that the barbed wire not be utilized which will be reflected in the Recommended Conditions. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 14 of 19 U09-04 4. A minimum 10-foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards shall be required surrounding the facility exterior to the required fence unless the City Arborist determines that existing plant materials are adequate. The site plan indicates a 10-foot landscape strip planted with Leyland cypress. Staff recommends that a 20-foot landscape strip in lieu of the 10- foot landscape strip be planted to buffer standards per the specifications of the City Arborist to provide additional screening of the facilities from adjacent single family residences. 5. Antennas or towers shall not have lights unless required by federal or state law. The proposed tower and antenna will not have any lighting, as it will be less than 200 feet per the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Staff notes that any security light utilized in the maintenance area must comply with the Northwest Overlay District and/or Night Sky Ordinance standards for site lighting. 6. Towers shall not be located within one-half mile from any existing telecommunication tower above the district height, excluding alternative structures. Staff has confirmed that no existing towers are located within one-half mile from the proposed tower. 7. The tower shall comply with applicable state and local statutes and ordinances, including, but not limited to, building and safety codes. Towers which have become unsafe or dilapidated shall be repaired or removed pursuant to applicable state and local statutes and ordinances. The applicant has stated that the proposed tower will comply with all state and local ordinances as listed above and will apply for building permit approval prior to any construction. The applicant is aware and agrees to removal requirements for unsafe or dilapidated wireless facilities. 8. Facilities shall not be artificially lighted except to assure human safety or as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The applicant has stated that the facilities will not be artificially lighted. Staff notes that on page C3.3 of the construction plans, lighting is indicated. Staff notes that any security light utilized in the maintenance area must comply with the Northwest Overlay District standards and/or the Night Sky Ordinance for site lighting. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 15 of 19 U09-04 9. Communication towers shall be designed and constructed to ensure that the structural failure or collapse of the tower will not create a safety hazard to adjoining properties, according to applicable Federal Standards which may be amended from time to time. The applicant has stated that the proposed tower is designed by certified structural engineers to ensure proper safety according to applicable Federal standards. 10. Telecommunications facilities shall not be used for advertising purposes and shall not contain any signs for the purpose of advertising. The applicant has stated there will not be any advertising on the proposed wireless facility. 11. Any telecommunications facility may co-locate on any existing tower, pole or other structure as long as there is no increase in height to the existing facility. The applicant has stated that the proposed facility may accommodate two additional carriers without increasing the height. 12. A commercial telecommunication facility that ceases operation for a period of 12 consecutive months shall be determined to have terminated and shall be removed within 90 days of termination at the property owner's expense. It shall be the duty of both the property owner and the tower owner to notify the City in writing of any intent to abandon the use of the tower. The applicant has stated that Section 19.4.7(B)(12) will be met. 13. Communication facilities not requiring FAA painting/marking shall have either a galvanized finish or [be] painted a dull blue, gray, or black finish or shall be screened through fencing and landscaping. The applicant states that the facility will be galvanized steel and screened behind fencing and landscaping. Staff notes that the City Design Review Board shall make the final recommendation for the finish of the structure. 14 An application for a telecommunications facility shall be submitted in accordance with the Department’s Plan Review submittal requirements. The applicant states that the facility will adhere to the above requirements. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 16 of 19 U09-04 15. An application for a telecommunication facility shall include a certification from a registered engineer that the structure will meet the applicable design standards for wind loads. The applicant states that a certified/registered structural report will be provided for the proposed facility. 16. Communications facilities shall not be located in 100-year flood plain or delineated wetlands. The applicant states that the proposed communication facility is not located in a 100-year flood plain or delineated wetlands. Staff has confirmed these findings to be correct. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Transportation Engineer – No Comments Building Official – No Comments City Arborist – There will be no specimen trees affected by the proposed cell tower. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT On Thursday, January 13, 2010 the applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information Meeting held at the Milton City Hall. There were approximately 70 to 80 people in attendance from the community of which 33 people indicated interest in U09-04 on the City’s sign in sheet. Public Comments – Staff has received e-mails which are attached expressing both opposition and support of the request. Staff has met with the adjacent property owners. In addition, about five residents have called Staff to express their opposition to the proposed cell tower. City of Milton Design Review Board Meeting – January 5, 2010 The following recommendations were made by the DRB: Board/Applicant comments: o The Board stated that their purpose is to examine the aesthetic aspects of the proposed towers; land use/location is not for them to decide. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 17 of 19 U09-04 o The applicant states that the tower will be a standard grey tower, as this is the best option for blending in. The Board states that they preferred this to the fake tree option. o Applicant states that they are willing to meet City standards in terms of fencing. They are willing to remove the 3 rows of barbed wire topping the chain link fencing. o Board inquired as to whether the Applicant would be able to screen the cell tower compound that is adjacent to the power easement (New Providence). The applicant states that the compound is at least 15’ away from the easement, and that the existing trees will remain. o Board informed the applicant that the trees used to screen the compound had to be a mix of evergreens that would provide screening in one year; Leylands are not allowed according to the Ordinance. o Only towers above 200’ are required to be lit. o Stealth products include: light pole, flag pole, mono pine. o The Board reminded the residents that the Board has the responsibility to protect the Code, and therefore the applicant. They ask the public to help by providing as much information as possible. o A balloon test has been flown; applicant has pictures taken from 20 different locations. These pictures would be on display at the CZIM meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 7th at 7:00pm. o There appears to be a Code disconnect. The Code states that a tower “buried far from the ROW is better.” Did not anticipate that homes would be so nearby. Public comments: The cell tower is a commercial use; not appropriate for rural, residential area. Should be on commercial property. The tower would ruin the land value of the surrounding area. The tower would be an eyesore. This is not for the good of the community; not in the spirit of what the City was dreamed of. The residents would like to explore options for tower camouflage. The applicant should look into other collocate options first. Does the code require a propagation study to access the need for more towers? (This is included in the submitted documents). Resident expressed his frustration and displeasure with the process. Resident stated that his house was 327’ from the proposed Mountain Road tower location; trees less than 100’ tall. Feels that this location was not a good choice for a cell tower. It is important for the Council/Board to visit the sites before they made any decisions. Residents asked if Board considered areas that are highly populated as undesirable for cell towers. (Board reminded her that their purview is limited to aesthetics.) It is incumbent upon Board to understand the unique requirement of the Milton rural community. Resident asked if a fall zone analyses is required. (Towers are designed to collapse within itself.) Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 18 of 19 U09-04 Resident is concerned about environment impact of tower, especially the poisoning of the spring fed pond if the tower was to fall. City of Milton Design Review Board Meeting – April 13, 2010 Staff notes that another meeting before the Design Review Board was required based on the Zoning Ordinance’s requirement to publish the DRB meeting in the newspapers as well as include it in the adjacent property owners’ notice. The meeting was scheduled for April 6, 2010 but a quorum of members was not present. Therefore, it was rescheduled for April 13, 2010. The Design Review Board asked the following questions and made the following comments and recommendations: o The DRB requested that applicant maintain any existing trees around the leased area, even if they are not specimen trees. o The Norwest Fulton Overlay District requires a mix of three species of trees acceptable to the City Arborist should be planted. In the mix of trees one should be evergreen, one deciduous and one seasonal or perennial (Article 12H.3.10.). The applicant agreed to comply with this requirement instead of the Leyland cypress depicted on the landscape plan. Staff notes that the applicant will need to meet all the requirements of the Northwest Overlay District. Staff notes that there were no public comments regarding this item. Public Participation Plan and Report This petition was administratively deferred to the March 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Staff received an updated Public Participation Report on March 15, 2010 which meets the required submittal date of seven (7) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant will be required to submit an updated public participation report 7 days prior to the Mayor and City Council meeting. CONCLUSION It is Staff’s opinion that 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. Therefore, Staff recommends DENIAL of U09-04. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 19 of 19 U09-04 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, it should be approved USE PERMIT for an Antenna Tower and Associated Structure to Exceed the District Height (Article 19.4.7.) CONDITIONAL subject to the owner’s agreement to the following enumerated conditions. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulations and offerings contained in the Letter of Intent, these conditions shall supersede unless specifically stipulated by the Mayor and City Council. 1) To the owner’s agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows: a) One monopole communications tower and equipment slab(s) and/or building(s). b) The tower shall not exceed 150 feet with a 4 foot lighting rod. 2) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following: a) To the revised site plan received by the Milton Community Development Department on March 30, 2010. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion. 3) To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations: a) To provide a 20 foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards per the requirements of Article 12H.3.10. around the leased area. b) All chain link fencing shall be black vinyl clad. c) No barbed wire will be permitted on top of the minimum 6 foot high security fence. d) All site maintenance to be completed between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except in cases of emergency or when an after-hours permit is obtained pursuant to the City of Milton Noise Ordinance. GTRS Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC March 22.2010 City of Milton Planning and Development Division 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107C Milton, GA 30004 Re: 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 05117106). 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 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. 143544YI GTRS Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC 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 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 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 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 2,540 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 (G) 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 1435441 GTRS Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC 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 204 feet or higher to be lighted. A twelve (12) foot wide gravel drive is being provided from Hopewell 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 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 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- 1435440 GTRS Georgia Tax & Re2niatory Solutions, LLC 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. �--Sincerely, 1 David R. Gilley Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC 143544v1 U07 -o4 Honorable Mayor and Council Members, My name is Kay Nowell. I live at 2305 Saddlesprings Drive. My neighborhood adjoins Seven Gables Farm. While in the short terra there are certainly issues of a 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 wireless telecommunications towers even if co -located on existing structures. The number, placement, and appearance of these facilities go to the heart of preserving the nature and character of a community. The effects of your decision today regarding these facilities will have to be lived with for decades and the question is, is the nature, character and safety of the community worth protecting? I think it is and I think many residents of Milton do as well. I have gathered over 254 signatures on a petition in protest of these towers in Milton_ Some items you need to reflect on when considering these petitions: 1.) The proposed structure will stand over 60 ft above surrounding trees. The tower will be placed in an open pasture with minimal trees adjacent to it. This picture was copied from T - Mobile's site. It is a simulation of the tower at Seven Gables farm. I do not think it blends in with the existing character of Milton. Five to six large pine trees will be removed for construction of the base station. This is a commercial structure. There are No commercial structures in our area. The residents in this area bought their homes because of the residential, and or, rural view that Milton has to offer. The tower would diminish this type of view. The proposed garish tower is not visually compatible with the nature and character of Milton. 2.) It is critical to have the propagation studies that are submitted with the petition reviewed by a non -biased third party. Far too frequently, the propagation studies submitted reflect the 'desires' of the Company, as opposed to the actual 'needs'. In other words, the outcome was pre- determined and the studies were designed to reflect this pre -determined outcome. In essence, they become "self-fulfilling prophecies". The effects of not understanding the difTerence between a carrier's iegirinnue, provable needs and its objectives desires, are significant and can mean the difference between the construction of a new tower and being able to co -locate on an existing facility of some type. 3.) The Federal Communications Act of 1996 only requires that cell service is available to a community. It does not specify that service is available from every carrier. A cell phone will connect to any tower for service. We have over 77 towers and antennas within a 4 -mile radius of Seven Gables Farms. I have entails supporting excellent service in our area fi-orn Verizon, AT&T, and even T -Mobile customers so no need for a new tower. 4.) T -Mobile needs to prove there is a significant gap of coverage in this area. I have conducted any own study using a T -Mobile phone_ I have driven extensively through out the Milton area but concentrating all along Hopewell Road, Cogburn Road, through numerous neighborhoods off of these 2 roads surrounding the area that would be affected by the new tower. These calls were made at different tines of day, inside and outside of the car as well as in and outside of homes. No dropped tails. Good reception. Again, no Saeed for a new tower. My husband who has T- M.obile has said his cell service has actually improved over the past 5 months! 1 do not believe there is a significant gap in service but a significant gap in profits that is motivating T -Mobile to build this tower in our beautiful area. I think an actual person with T -Mobile service in the area documenting no dropped calls is more relevant than a study on paper. I also have emails from residents in the area documenting their cell service is excellent in the proposed area of the cell tower. Several have T -Mobile service. There is a T -Mobile cell pole located not far from the corner of Bethany Bend and Hopewell Road. It is on the right side of the road as you head east. It blends into the landscape and is almost undetectable. This is the type of structure that will service the jG and 4G networks of the future, smaller and closer together. Milton should be insisting that T -Mobile construct these less intrusive structures to meet the wireless needs of the community. Why not be pro -active moving towards the fixture instead of lagging behind? I have included a tetter from a heal Estate expert who has worked in the area for the past 25 years. I ask that you consider his comments regarding the negative effect of cell towers on property values as well as his findings regarding the .Property Value study submitted by T - Mobile. There are some interesting facts that T -Mobile seems to have omitted from their study. In summary: The residents of Milton are not against progress in the wireless industry. However, a need for such intrusions such as a 150 -foot tower does not exist. A community should be protected from unnecessary visually obtrusive facilities that can change the nature and character of the community.. permanently. 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. The cellular service in our area is excellent. T - Mobile has not shown there is a significant gap in service. A cell tower in view of a residential area would negatively influence property values. We are asking the Mayor and City Council to deny the T -Mobile petition U09-04. Featured Start q�1v 1=i. InternationalI'c}rtst]�� Zeti�,ti — +.:C7lEilliitti-- Hanle I Bnidmar_k I T:lf Active petitions in over 75 countries Stop Residential Cell Toivers � 134 onf�n-ems f /I Y iv r,We, ;Z 5 3 4a 4-a.! Published by I "a t;x ti i Ion Feb 02, 2010 Category: - y & Fowl] Region: liiitei States of Americ Target. Milton City Council Background (Preamble): T -Mobile has submitted. 3 applications to the city of Milton to place 154' monopole towers in residential neighborhoods. The towers would have the capacity to house 3 layers of antennas for other telecommunication companies to co -locate in the future. A survey of cell phone customers in the area revealed the existing coverage is good. This is about competition and future profits, not about serving existing customers. Please join us in our fight against T -Mobile constructing intrusive towers that will forever change the landscape of Milton. If these applications pass, T -Mobile has plans for many more towers in Milton. Your neighborhood could be next. The number, placement, and appearance of these facilities go to the heart of preserving the nature and character of a community. The effects of today's decisions regarding these facilities will have to be lived with for decades. Isn't our community worth protecting? Petition: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Milton, Georgia, attest that we are in opposition to the installation of T -Mobile's 150 foot monopole towers on the properties located at 14495 Hopewell Road, 13302 Providence Road, and 2880 Mountain Road and call on the city council to deny T -Mobile's applications. Impacted residents in these neighborhoods have good cell phone reception with their carriers which include T -Mobile. The installation of the cellular antenna is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhoods surrounding these locations. We would hope the City of Milton would discourage antenna or tower proliferation and protect against visual blight and damage to our community aesthetics. We understand that the federal courts have already ruled that a municipality has no obligation to allow intrusive cell tower installations anywhere within its borders when adequate coverage already exists. We believe T -Mobile and other cellular communications companies should be required to find more appropriate locations in nearby commercial and industrial zones away from residential neighborhoods and that all alternative scenarios must be exhausted to make a more appropriate selection on industrial or commercial land. ��- : Ilw��}•����-��•+rn.. Car���r�6�srti��33 7`��. 1�+m � II NAME .ADDRESS COMMENTS d �I 7-3 i'b 4 ,e�- . XV/On-j -70 o �-lrai ford r,- br '5I t.�, NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS N—f d&A& N& Sadd les ri n s Ufi v v IID S� IGF � o cea UOFeU-MYt( PO (A -UL 13 b L f r 71 -7/5 _q. . trl_c -r) C ! ye�c ' `r 1 �• �y a 4-� i l,Vj C, V61 `� 30 c f\ 53 5' 55 ,5� 5T7 58, '59 60 6! 71 72. 73 7� iLl I M -M, .�. M�m w; .� • ►.: Lip AFA ItI .■�.:.. 1 � Mli J7� 1��L ■ y� I ' ll r � � ER/A I 10 1r 75 -7�, 77 7 j 7 ?4 j?t 'F2 �7 FS � �a 91 z1392- 53 P L NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS .v 'LL ; XGrA koaet A�ahcc iftc) 54 L,� (1!/I�� alr �'7�� fI►i37 All ,Z3.70 ��L:.��•.� � U C� HU)Q t�,�CZ (9 i44> CELL 7bt,4 y y L.} ani y`rla e� k 17 s �.► <� 3 .�� r. • ►� �► o �iM4 ka rJ- I y V ti Mey P, .��f��r /►r¢S s1S'/ S�/�: !6 f � � // "%�2'�r'r y'.tc_�.. �L) fV L� ���� l j-�� 4 6 V gi \ 0 � /0 0 I i IC,0 lot 1612- /03 6}2- l03 _C r7 [1(T -k -m t r t -V err, t__6 T , I—, I( NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS Pak- LQ- 1�C(:63 KCS A I h. Dn q vVFv,,1ANr Tu- vE- i a f�4 L�� PETITION TO THE MILTON CITY COUNCIL TO DISALLOW THE T -MOBILE CELL TOWER INSTALLATION AT 14495 HOPEWELL ROAD We call upon the City Council of Milton to enact a moratorium on the construction of new towers to permit zoning rule changes that only allow towers on public, commercial, or industrial land. Ordinances should also mandate that new towers not be erected until it is demonstrated that no existing towers or structures can accommodate the wireless carrier's equipment. We, the undersigned residents of the City of Milton, Georgia, attest that we are in opposition to the installation of the T -Mobile 150 foot monopole tower on the property located at 14495 Hopewell Road. Impacted residents in this neighborhood have additional landlines and good cell phone reception with their carriers. The installation of the cellular antenna is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhoods surrounding this location. We would hope the City of Milton would discourage antenna or tower proliferation and protect against visual blight and damage to our community aesthetics. We understand that the federal courts have already ruled that a municipality has no obligation to allow intrusive cell tower installations anywhere within its borders when other providers cover the area. We believe T -Mobile and other cellular communications companies should be required to find more appropriate locations in nearby commercial and industrial zones away from residential neighborhoods and that all alternative scenarios must be exhausted to make a more appropriate selection on industrial or commercial land. NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS 1 � ?QA - eta kjL A- 21�55 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS t r J 4 Signatures 13 to i of 133 # Title Name Eznail Address Town/City SKIP Region Zip/PC Comment Date y 13 Mr. Pizzati gary.pLzzati@cumulus.com cumulus.com 14644 Timber Point Alpharetta Ga NIG 30004 NIG Feb 0 Michele 2340 12 Mrs MacMaster themacmasters@yahoo.com Saddlesprings Milton Ga USA 30004 NIG Feb 0 Dr 11 Ms. Lisa Renko lisa dawn a comcast.net — 14656 Milton Timber Paint GA USA 30009 Feb 0 Shawn 10 NIG 760 Cheshire angiecheshtre@comcast.net Stratforde Milton GA NIG NIG NIG Feb 0 Drive Annie 760 9 NIG Cheshire angiecheshire@comcast.net Stratforde Milton GA NIG NIG NIG Feb 0 Drive Mike2410 8 NIG Harris jandmbarn's@bellsouth.net Saddlesprings Milton Ga USA 30004 Feb 0 Dr Robe 125 7 Mr Stephan rstep321@bellsouth.net bellsouth.net Crabapple Milton GA NIG NIG NIG Feb 0 Way Carolyn 6 2320 NIG pace yipyoo2@att.net Saddlesprings Milton Georgia USA 30004 _ Feb 0 Drive 16450 5 NIG as16454@aol.com Hopewell Milton GA NIG 30004 NIG Feb 0 Road Rashell 4 NIG 740 Scott rashellscott rr me_com Stratforde Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Feb 0 Drive 3 NIG rbentl@bellsouth.net Bethany Milton Ga NIG 30004 NIG Feb 0 hurch Road Chur C Jana 770 2 Mrs. Chevalier jana@paynetsystems.com Foxhollow Alpharetta GA USA 30004 NIG Feb 0 Ruta Kay 1 NIG 2305 2305 pippiO8@att.net att.net Saddlesprings Milton Ga NIG Drive Hene Bethany Way 14680 21 Mrs. Lisa Cauley lisayc65@bellsouth.net bellsouth.net Freemanville Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Rd. Patricia 770 20 Ms pstimme2 a comcast.net Stratfarde Milton GA USA 30004 Stimmel Drive lg Mr Kevin kwhite@etailpromotions.com 720 Old Milton GA USA 30004 NIG White Saddle Lane 14612 18 Mr. Brian Miller beml07@aol.com aol.com Timber Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Point 14612 17 Mrs. Beth Miller bemi07 r@aol.com Timber Milton GA USA 30004 Point 14632 16 Mr Sadalge ssadalge@hotmall.com hotmail.com Timber Alpharetta ga USA 30004 Point Frank 14663 15 Mr fmfricl£s a mindspring.com Timber Alpharetta GA USA 30004 N/G Fricks Point Kristen 14688 14 Mrs. gandkpowell@yahoo.com yahoo.com Timber Milton GA USA 30004 N/G Powell Point 38 Ms Kristen edwin raterc-Dbellsoutb.net 14411 Club Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Rate — Circle Rebecca 2025 37 NIG Geisel becky@geiselontine.com geiselonline.com Drummond Milton GA NIG 30004 NIG Pond Rd Matt 16060 36 Mr. Bidwell bbidwel1325@7a comcast.net Segwick Milton GA USA 30004 Drive Billie 16060 35 Mrs. Bidwell bbidwell325@comcast.net Segwick Milton GA USA 30004 Drive 34 Ms Teresa gar-y@stansmithevents.com stansmithevents.com 795 Bethany Alpharetta GA USA 30004 NIG Niebur Green Sheryl 14608 33 Ms Bettencourt- shell aney2000 a yahoo.cum Timber Alpharetta GA USA 34004 NIG Pimenta Point 32 Mr. Emory ebpiv@bellsouth.net 725 Bethany Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Peebles Green Court Tracy 31 Mrs. Harkness jthark@bellsouth.net 330 Rhodes Chase o Alpharetta GA USA 30004 NIG 30 NIG Michelle lailm@comcast.net comcast.net 765 Bethany Alpharetta 30004 USA NIG NIG Lail Green Court 29 NIG peranda1182@yahoo.com 247 Creek Milton ga NIG NIG Ridge Chase Stephen 15835 28 Mr Cotnoir scotnoira aol.com Thompson Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Road Tina 555 27 Ms. D`Aversa tdaversa@bellsouth.net Champion Milton GA NIG 30004 Hills Drive Desiree 26 215 NIG Buckner mdmbuckner@comcast.net comcast.net Canterbury Milton Georgia USA 30004 Lane 25 Ms Virginia Martin vmartiii ct behaviorvisions.com'315 Coach House Lane Milton Ga USA 30004 14615 24 NIG Sachi Pati spatiOO@gmail.com gmail.com Timber Milton GA USA 34004 NIG Point Nancy 23 14090 NIG rebee nferebee@bcllsouth.net bellsouth.net Hopewell Milton CSA NIG N/Cr NIG Road 22 Mrs. Lindsey lindseyhene@yahoo.com 1994 Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Signatures 53 to 14 of 133 # Title Name Email Address Town/City SIC1P Region Zip/PC Comr Mathieu 15570 53 NIG Rein mrcm@reinfieldfarm.com Birmingham muton ga NIG 30004 NIG hwy Crystal 52 15570 NIG Matusevich mrcm@reinfieldfarm.com reinfieldfarm.com Birmingham milton ga NIG 30004 hwy Anthony35 51 Mr. Borgese aaborgese@aol.com Champions Milton Ga. USA 30004 NIG Close Elizabeth 735 50 Mrs. Borgese libborgese@aol.com Champions Milton Ga. USA 30004 NIG Close 49 Mrs. amygpeters@comeast.net comeast.net 14475 Wood Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Road Marybeth 48 NIG 14668 4vines@gmail.com Timmer Milton Georgia USA 30004 NIG Vine Point 47 NIG inichastain4@aol.com 400 Bethany Milton GA USA NIG NIG Green Cove Wendy 14652 46 NIG Woodson woodsomm-n@aol.com Timber Milton GA USA 30004 N/G Point Teresa 14300 45 Mrs. Stickels myteebay@yahoo.com Saddlevalley Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Lane 44 Ms Renee rrtlpta@hotmail.com hotmail. com S20 bethany Milton Ga USA 30004 NIG Pierce green et 43 N/G pain hanger phanger6221950@yahoo.com 2005 long milton ga USA 30004 NIG hollow In. 42 Mrs. Deborah dppeebles@bellsouth.net 725 Bethany Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Peebles Green Ct. Carlos 41 Mr Bettencoutt- pimenta@me.com 14648 Milton Ga USA 30004 NIG Pimenta timber point James 649 40 Mr. Johnson jmsrjohnson@gmail.com Dunbrody Milton Fulton USA 30004 NIG Drive Martha 14010 39 Ms tishbeall cs juno.com Hopewell Alpharetta GA USA NIG Beall Rd 58 Mrs. Marilyn Weeber mweeber@mindsp.ring.com mindspring.com 57 Ms. Deanna Teel deannalteel rc att.net 56 NIG Sharon luv2gardenl2@.aol.com Murphy GA 55 Mr sanj.joshi@gmail.com 54 Mrs Priscilla Kahale riscillahorseluvr c rn p @gmail.co 14480 Wood Road Milton GA USA 30004 NIG 1180 Nix Rd, Milton GA USA 30004 NIG 1720 Windsor Milton GA Georgia 30004 NIG Cove 14651 Timber Milton GA Georgia 30004 NIG Point 525 Hickory Milton Mill Lane 77 -MIG Alexandra huntervalleyhorses@gmall.com gmail.com Liss 76 NIG gosh y gishtommy@yahoo.com 75 NIG Pauline paulinecdavcid@aol.com David p 74 Mrs Dyere lesliemdyer@hotmail.com 73 NIG harrishouse2@msn. corn 72 Dr. Fred Jabaley fjabaiey@aol.com 71 Mrs. Patsy Jabaley aol.com pjabaley@aol.com 70 N/G Jan Waters janwaters@bellsouth.net 69 NIG Diane dbyersfam@yahoo.com Byers 68 NIG Monica belisouth.net dsophie@bellsouth.net Sophie USA 67 Mrs. Gail Pisano bellsouth.net gepisano@betIsouth.net 66 Mr Vince Pisano vpisano@bellsouth. net 65 NIG Christina Riccardi christina.riecardi@yahoo.com yahoo.com 64 NIG David david—riceardi@yahoo.com Riccardi — 63 NIG Mindy freeman mindy@yahoo.com Freeman — 52 NIG David dfreemanarch@bellsouth.net bellsouth.net Freeman 2125 Double 61 Mr L.Di, don@hsveonsulting.com 60 NIS Marla Prince marlaprince94 r@yahoo. com 59 NIG Elaine Hankins e}6530@yahoo.com 16485 Phillips Milton ga NIG 30004 NIG Rd 16O04phillipsrd Milton ga NIG 30044 NIG 2450 Sadlesprings Milton GA [TSA 30004 NIG Dr - 1635 Eversedge Alpharetta GA USA 30009 NIG Drive 520 tiverton alpharetta ga NIG 30009 - court 14520 Wood Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Road 14520 Wood Milton GA USA 30004 N/G Road 2125 Double Milton Ga USA 30004 N/G Creek Lane 340 Newcastle Alpharetta GA NIG 30009 NIG Drive 12975 Alpharetta GA p NIG 30009 NIG Harrington Dr 13446 Providence Alpharetta GA NIG 30009 NIG Road 13446 Alpharetta GA p USA 30009 NIG Providence Rd. 14855 Wood Milton GA NIG 30004 NIG Road 14855 Wood Milton GA NIG 30004 NIG Road 14120 Phillips Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Circle 14120 Phillips Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Circle 14125 Freemanville Alpharetta GA USA 30004 NIG Rd 320 Rhodes Alpharetta. GA USA 30004 NIG Chase Court 15800 Milton georgia USA 30004 NIG freemanville rd Signatures 93 to 54 of 133 ## Title Name Email Address Town/City SKIP Region Zip/PC Con Roger 560 93 MR Kubler rkubler560 rr aol_com Devonshire Alpharetta GA USA 30004 NIG Farms Way 13 000 Block of 92 Mr Michael B mbarron2k4@yahoo.com yahoo.corn Marrywood Milton Ga LISA 30004 Court Mary 520 91 MS, rnaryconnell 7comeast-net Devonshire AIpharetta F A on USA 3aQ04 NIG Farms Way Debra 90 Ms debbie.hendricks@windstream.com 1361 Milton GA USA 30004 Hendricks A entide Lane Adrienne 2305 89 N1G Norvell adriennekayphotography@gmail.corn Saddlesprings Milton Georgia USA 34004 NIG Drive 88 Mrs Carol caroljones37 rr yahoo.com 2090 Double Milton GA USA 34004 NIG Jones Creek Lane 87 Dr. Edward caroljones37@yahoo.com 2090 Double Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Jones Creek Lane Donna 795 86 ms. Beare beare7@aol-Com Quarterpath Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Lane 85 Mr- David Rube ddubel74@hotmail.com hotrnail.com 59 Meriam Wakefield Ma USA 01880 Street Kimberly 1660 84 Ms MacKenzie mackenzickb@gmail.com Eversedge Alpharetta GA NIG 34409 NIG Drive 83 Mr Joel hockeymom37@gmall.com gmaii.coin 4 65 Hopewell milton GA USA 30004 NIG Stephens 82 Mr- Bruce bhvarnum@aol.com 142b�1 Phillips Milton GA USA. 30004 NIG Varnum Circle 1570 81 Mr. a119801985@yahoo.com Eversedge Alpharetta GA USA 30009 NIG Drive 80 Mrs. Lynn Rauckhorst lmr6l9@sbcglobal.net 14692. Timber Alpharetta GA NIG 30004 NIG Point 79 Mr Craig Sovoda craiger@yahoo.com 16495 Phillips Rd milton ga NIG 30004 NIG 78 NIG Joseph jbaigas@yahoo.com 16485 Phillips milton ga NIG 30004 NIG Baigas Rd Palocsik Parkbrook Trace Dorothy 13266 101 Ms Grayson dorothygrayson@aol.com aol.com Marrywood Milton GA Dr Hiral 13257 100 NIG Lavania hiral.lavanla@gmalf.com gmail.com Marrywood Alpharetta GL Ct 13410 99 Ms. lucylynnh@yahoo_corn Avensong Milton GA Ives Way 13945 98 mrs rnargie chenggis cclub4@conicast.net bethany oaks alpharetta ga Pointe Brenda 1090S 97 Mrs Ames brenda.ames@gmail.com Bethany Milton GA Creek Dr 96 Mrs. Carole cmoareavey a corncast.net 610 Gakstone Milton GA McAreavey Glen David 13410 95 MR Pastore dpastore22@gmait.com Avensong Alpharetta GA Ives Way 94 NIG Tracy tbevens@earthlink.net 3180 Wood Milton Evens Branch Drive USA 30004 NIG NIG 30004 NIG NIG 30004 NIG NIG 30004 NIG USA 30004 NIG USA 30004 NIG NIG NIG NIG Ct 117 NIG Barbara barbshiffman@yahoo.com 740 Old Milton Ga USA 30004 NIG Shiffman Saddle Lame jeromewilson2060cr comcast.net Bethany Alpharetta Ga Creek Dr. 116 NIG talula507@aol.com aol.com 232 harmony miiton ga NIG NIG N/G County Ct court 13279 Rachel 106 Mr. 2010 N Marrywood Milton Ga 115 Ms Howard rachel.m.howard@hotmail_com Bethany Alpharetta GA USA 30004 NIG 1t]5 NIG Poor Creek Drive springbrook milton ga ct. 13279 Ashley NIG 1110S 114 NIG Lisa Bilz lsmillennium@mae.com mae.com Marrywood Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Dr 13397 103 NIG Shaune Marrywood 13293 GA CT 113 NIG Huysamen shuysamen rz gmail.corn Marrywood Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Ct 112 Ms Faye cr fmcnulty bellsouth.net 3055 Oakside Milton Ga USA 30004 NIG McNulty Circle NIG Chapi 13900 111 sandy.chapin@hotmail.com Bethany Milton Ga USA 30004 1-1 11 P a s ointe 13440 110 NIG mtstout@bellsouth.net bellsouth.net Marrywood Alpharetta GA USA 30004 NIG Court 109 NIG Julie White julieaw66@hotmail.com 795 f d D rMilton GA NIG 30004 NIG USA 30004 NIG NIG 30004 NIG USA 30004 NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG 30004 NIG USA 3000 at or e r. 2060 N. 108 Mrs. Wilson jeromewilson2060cr comcast.net Bethany Alpharetta Ga Creek Dr. 107 NIG loan donborz@bellsouth.net 540 Rings Milton GA Borzilleri County Ct 13279 106 Mr. bilz346@comrast.net Marrywood Milton Ga Dr Candice 710 1t]5 NIG Poor bodywork@comcast.net springbrook milton ga ct. Ashley NIG 1110S 104 Bonen ashleybowen 1 @gmail.com Bethany Milton GA Creek Dr 13397 103 NIG dhaugabook@yahoo.com yahoo.com Marrywood Milton GA CT 102 Mr. Michael mpalocslk@comeast.net comeast.net 545 Milton GA USA 30004 NIG NIG 30004 NIG USA 30004 NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG NIG 30004 NIG USA 3000 Signatures 133 to 94 of 133 9 Title Name Email Address Town/City SKIP Region Zip/PC Comment 133 Ms Patriciaricia pkopsky aol.com 2570 Bethany Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Idopsk Creek Ct 3151 Brian 132 NIG htmarston@gmail.com Serenade Milton Georgia NIG NIG NIG Marston Court Elizabeth 131 Mrs shore-beth@yahoo.com 13297 Marrywood Alpharetta ga N/G 30004 N/G Shore Court 13 520 GA Jennifer 130 Mrs jla5@earthlink.net Providence Milton Fulton USA 34004 NIG Zielinski Lake Drive County 13520 GA, Mark 129 Mr markz@hometownmoney.com Providence Milton Fulton USA 30004 N/G Zielinski Lake Drive County 128 NIG Heidi ei der hsatlanta@bellsouth.net 525 Milton GA NIG 30004 Sow127 Sunflower Ct, Mrs. Amy Bratten amy_bratten@yahoo.com 440 Bethany Green Cove Milton Georgia USA 30004 NIG 125 Mr Michael mike2377@gmail.com 505 Harmony Alpharetta GA USA 30004 NIG Leon Ct 125 Mr. toddharkleroad97@yahoo.com 13337 Aventide Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Harkleroad Lane 124 NIG William marc@williamarrington.com 14535 Creek Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Arrington Club Drive 720 Michel 123 N/G mamjadi@grnazl.com Springbrook Milton GA USA 30004 NIG Amjadl CT 2300 122 NIG themaernastei-s@gmail.com gmail.com Saddlesprings Alpharetta Ga NIG 30004 NIG Dr 121 Mrs. Mary maryhern@comcast.net 400 Majestic Milton Ga_ NIG 30004 NIG Hernandez Cove - 120 Mr Christian cweeber@nindspring.com 14480 Wood Rd Milton GA NIG 30004 NIG Weeber 119 NIG tom gish gishtommya yahoo.corn 1440 phillips rd Milton ga USA 30004 118 Mr Mark Baker ma.rk@bakermd.com @ 13409 Marrywood Alpharetta GA p USA 30004 139 MrWilliam Jameson _ ` 750 Stratforde Dr.Milton AlpharettaUSA. 30004 Apr 12, 201069.15.1.237 138 McArthur Fixart Ranehette RoadAlpharettaGA 30004 Max 24, 201069.199.9.254 137 Bill Quillen ', _:::: Fieldstone Farms Milton GA Mai- 18, 201024.126.162.14 136 Ms Sally Stapler -.: . - 530 Watboro Hill Drive AlpharettaGA USA30004 Mar 16, 201074.190.95.58 135 Dale Stapler .1 flca;) i—l 530 Watboro Hill Dr Milton GAUSA 30004- Mar 16, 201074.190.95.58 - -- 134 zackery barbee z: 13275 marrywood drive Alpharetta Georgia USA 30004 Mar 15, 201024.126.180.47 No Text ALL, Robyn MacDonald From: james pace [yipyoo2@att.net] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2490 12:25 PM To: Robyn MacDonald; pippi08@att.net Subject: Cell Towers I have excellent cell phone reception at all points in my house including the basement. The Atlanta Board of Realtors provided site informaton on the impact of cell phone towers on house prices. The impact on negative values was variable up to 50% when a sale could be accomplished. Health effects need to be addressed. 2002 was the last year a study on the effects of radio waves was done governments in other countries are issuing warnings about cell phones and cell towers. Reasonable doubt and concern about the safety of cell phones and cell phone towers has resulted in a Senate Committee hearing and a study being initiated. September 2009 the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations heard testimony from a Hearing on "The Health Effects of Cell Phone Use". Senator Spector requested the hearing. There are growing health concerns about the long term effects of radio wave exposure. A $24,000,000 study is underway to obtain better data for firm conclusions - previous studies have weaknesses with many of the earlier studies paid for by interested parties. This is a three phase study to be reported in final analysis in the year 2014. I listened to this hearing in full and came to the conclusion this could be another lead paint or tobacco scenario. The effects will come later. Witness List at this hearing included scientists from Finland, Israel, the National Institutes of Health, Linda Erdereich, Ph.D., Senior Managing Scientist, Exponent Health, Sciences, Center of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Computational Biology, New York, New York, and other outhstanding scientists. Scientists presented data and studies from their works and the World Health Organization. A growing global concern is reflected by tougher exposure standards in other parts of the world. We should proceed carefully with our policies. We should not ignore the possible long tern health effects of cell phones and cell towers. I have a copy of the hearing. It is available for review. Carolyn Pace 770-667-6273 yyoo2 cr.att.net Robyn MacDonald From: james pace [yipyoo2@att.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:11 PM To: Robyn MacDonald Sulbject: Fw: cell tower ---- Forwarded Message ---- From: james pace <james99pace@gmail.com> To: james pace <yipyoo2@att.net> Sent: Sat, April 1.0, 2010 3:48:25 PM Subject: Gell tower The following items should be considered in our efforts to not allow tower construction. A. The search for towers described on the application only evaluated a radius of 1820 feet around the CogburnlHopewell intersection. Even though there are 27 towers in a 4 mile radios of this point, it would be very hard to find an existing tower in such a small search area. This small search area made a joke of co - locating with another tower. B. The amount of data transmission that will be used for 3G and 4G applications will require a booster antenna at each home even though the areas are covered with antennas. These booster antennas are available on the Internet for 129$ dollars presently and could/should be provided by service providers at a much smaller cost(50$ estimate). C The cell towers are being constructed by a third party construction company. In order to protect the taxpayers of the city of Milton in the event of default of this construction company it is recommended that all towers proposed have a removal fee paid to the city of Milton that will be used to remove the towers if abandoned. Robyn MacDonald From: Leslie Wicks [lawicks@bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 10:30 PM To: Joe Lockwood, .toe Longoria; Julie ZahnerBailey; Burt Hewitt; Bill Lusk; Alan Tart; Karen Thurman Cc: Robyn Macdonald Subject. Cell Towers and affect on Property Values To Mayor Joe Lockwood and all City Council Members, Here is some information I have found in my research on Cell Towers concerning Property Values. It is not right for someone to profit while neighboring resident's property values could decrease. The biggest investment we make in our lives is our home. Would you consider buying a home next to a Cell Tower? Thank you for your time. Leslie Wicks/2870 Mountain Road Property Values are affected by approximately 0%- 21%. Also, please realize there are studies on High Tension Lines which has been around much longer and affects property values. Property values are affected up to 1,000 feet (300 meters). Article on "The Impact of Wireless Towers on Residential Property Value" by Carol c. McDonough, PhD A wireless tower needs to be considered as a negative amenity that may reduce residential property valuation. Article talks about: Power Lines and Property Values: Some Evidence And Similarities between Power Lines and Wireless Towers. http://www. broad bandwirelessre orts.com u loads 1 A raisal Journal - Cell towers bad for home prlces.pdf In a question by the Planning Commission that went unanswered, I would like to submit to you (3) websites on studies for property values and cell towers. (CPRS - Cell Phone Base Station) 1. New Zealand Study — this study also gives information for their mobile phone site requirements. There is a section on Environmental Effects and Adverse Health Effects as well as the Property Value Study. Each case study included residents in two areas: the case study area (within 300 meters (984.25 ft) of a cell phone tower) and a control area (over 1km (3,280.8399 ft) from the cell phone tower). Both areas within each case study had the same living environment (in socia -economic terms) except that the former is an area with a CPBS while the latter is without a CPBS. The results do provide a gauge of the perceptions that people have about living near a cell site, or moving to an area near one, and how this might impact on values of properties in proximity to a CPBS. In Survey sections please take note of: - Affect on Decision to Purchase or Rent - Concerns about Proximity to the CPBS In Summary and Conclusions—vihether or not CP BS's are ever proven conclusively to be free from health risks is only relevant to the extent that buyers of property near a CPBS perceive this to be true. Consequently, values of residential property located in close proximity to CPBS's may be adversely affected by the negative perceptions of buyers, regardless of research evidence to the contrary. This article is (22) pages, and has some very good information in it. http://www.prres.net/Papers/Bond The impact Of Cellular Phone Base Station Towers On Property Value s.pdf The effect of proximity to CP13Ss is similar to that caused by proximity to HVOTL-pylons and Reduces price by around 21%. Taking actual distance into account (using GTS analysis) the effect is a reduction of price of 15%, on average (but up to 25% depending on the neighborhood). This effect reduces with distance from the CPBS and is negligible after 1000 feet (300 in eters). The literature on property value effects from HVOTLs, pylons and cell phone towers adds to the growing body of evidence and knowledge on this (and similar) valuation issue(s). 2. Canadian Study based off of the New Zealand Study In Canada there are at least two instances where the assessed value of residential properties was reduced due to close proximity to commercial antenna towers. Eight residential properties that back directly into a microwave tower site (impact of the tower upon the aesthetics of the neighboring lands)_ Sixteen residential properties because of aesthetic impacts of a broadcasting antenna tower installation that had been upgraded. The most reliable evidence of the value of land is its market value as determined by the price that a willing purchaser is willing to pay to a willing vendor in a free market. http.-I/www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sfOS353.htm I 3. Florida Study based off of the New Zea land Study Generally, the closer a property is to the tower, the greater the decrease in price. The effect of proximity to a tower reduces price by 15% on average. This effect is reduced with distance from the tower and is negligible after 1000 feet. The results clearly show that the price of residential property increases with the distance from a tower. As distance from the tower increases by 10 feet, price of a residential property increases by 0.57%. http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournaIslarticle/171851340 1.htm1 010 City of Milton, Georgia 30004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members; Art & Polly Worley www.artworley.com After perusing the Property Value Study for Telecommunication Structures in Fulton County, Georgia, submitted by T -Mobile, l have some comments regarding several of the properties cited in this report. First, the study does not address how long these properties were on the market before selling. One in particular in Litchfield Hundred (13 33 5 Bishops Court) was on the market for 255 days before selling. Another sold home in this neighborhood (1255 Cashiers Way, adjacent to 1245 Cashiers Way, which is addressed in the study) was on the market for 815 days before selling. An active listing at 1295 Cashiers Way (adjacent to 1290 Cashiers Way, which is addressed in the study) has been on the market since 1114109 and still has not sold. As stated in the study, "Overall, the data indicates that the telecommunication tower has no impact on sale prices or marketability", it seems from the above data that the tower does have impact on sales prices and marketability. The majority of the study discussed homes in South Fulton County. The City of Milton offers buyers a completely different environment for the purchase of a home. The typical buyer in Milton wants to get away from commercial areas or cookie cutter neighborhoods on small lots. The median price for a home in Milton is approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and can go upwards to $1,500,000-x. Buyers in this price range tend to be more discriminating concerning their surroundings. Additionally, the neighborhoods referenced in the study were built after the cell towers were in place, as opposed to the new, proposed cell towers in Milton being built in already established residential areas. I think it makes a difference, in that the prices of homes built prior to a tower being installed would definitely be affected in a negative way, as opposed to a buyer choosing a home where a cell tower was already in place. Sincerely, Art Worley A1" C Town & Country REAL ESTATE 14205 Highway 92, Suite 109 Woodstock, GA 30188 (770)475-4913 • Fax(770)569-5756 Each office independenliv owned and operated gF.Ao1* March 23, 2010 City Council Members City of Mifton, Georgia 30004 To Whom It May Concern, Art & Polly Worley www.artworley.com I am a resident of the City of Milton and have lived and worked here as a residential realtor for the past 25 years. In my professional opinion, I believe it would be very detrimental to the value of residential real estate to be in close proximity to a cell tower, in the City of Milton or elsewhere. It is difficult to calculate an exact devaluation figure or percentage, but I have seen over and over again homes that do not sell if they have a cell tower, power lines or similar utility structures within view of the property. It is definitely a "deal [tiller" and very detrimental to the home's value. I would be happy to discuss this issue further upon your request. Sincerely, Art Worley Town & Country REAL ESTATE 14205 Highway 92, Suite 109 Woodstock, GA 34188 (770) 475-4913 . Fax (770) 569-5756 Farb nffirp lRdAnnnrka tiv nwnarl and nnaratF l Public Remarks #:332BT72 Sold Broker, JENNO6 City: ROSWELL tate: GEORGIA Subdivision: Litchfield Hundred $1,299, 900 Area: 33 Map, 600G4 County: Zip: 30075 FULTON Int -114 ft+ Ceil Claire Yr Built: Age Desc. Nbrhd - Sidewalk Now/Under 2006 Construction Lvis BdrLake:ms Maths Hit Bth Waterfront., Upper 4 4 0 OTHER Main 1 1 1 Stories: 2 CrElem: SWEET 5 1 5 1 Stories APPLE Total 5 Lower 4 Style: Rus�c,Middle: ELKINS Tradittonal POI NTE High: ROSWELL Directions. 400N to Holcomb Bridge. Wast toward RnsAell on 92 to King Rd. Rt on King Rd. to dead and at Cox Rd. Left on Cox to 2nd Litchfield entra nce or. Buck -sport and fallow aigns t new section Highlands fudge -style eAerior w1rusbc bearr,ed entrance & front wrap around cored stone porch. Front cherry paneled library, oversized rnstr vvlfplc, step up sifting area and true custom doset�dressing room. Kitdetail is fabulous fb`ful backsplash, exposed beam ceiling in eating area. Private/Confidential Remarks Stacked stone fplc in keeping rm which opens to covered porch wlfplc. 3UILDER INCEN ITVES, CALL AGENT FOR DETAILS. 678-461-0884 Features Bedroom: Bdrsm On Main Lev, Sitting Room Master Bath: Double Vanity, Sep Tub/Shower, Whirlpool T€b Kitchen: B rea kfa st Area, Breakfast Bar, Cabinets Shin, Counter Top - Dining: Seats 12¢, Separate Setting, Other Stave, Island, Keeping Room Dng Rm Const: Brick 4 Sides, Sthne House Faces: Unknovlr Tennis or. Prop: No Pool: Abne Parkin 3 Car Gara e. Ijtchen Ler.", SidelRear E Road: Paved. Public Parking: g # FP: 4 Maintain Rooms: Family Room, L'braryl:lffica, Media Room, Recreation Room. Separato Eden Basement: SatVStubbeu, Daylight, Full Home Warranty. Yes Lot Size: 1 Up To 2 Acres Lot Desc: CU-Qa-Sac; Private Back-vard. Wooded Green Building Certification: Other Descriptive Info ", ation Nbrhd - Club House Int - g ft+ Ceil upper Nbrhd - Playgromnd Int -114 ft+ Ceil Claire Nbrhd - Swinutling Poul int - 2 -Story foyer Nbrhd - Sidewalk ':rit - DSL Available Nbrhd - Tennis Lighted Int - Hardwood Floors App] - Dishwasher Int - Trey Ceilings Appl - Double Ovens hA - Walk-in Closet(sj Appl - Garbage Disposal Ext - Deck A.ppl - Gas GvniRnUiCtop Ext - Front Pomh ,app] - Gas Water Heater Ext - lrrlgatlon System Appl - Microwave Ext - tither Appl - Self -Clean Oven Ext - Prof Landscaping Legal, Financial &`fax Information Tax ID: LandLot: €00311004 Plat BooklPage: 287128 DLeed Book/Page-, 410 Hcap - bone Fptr. - in GreatlFam Room FpIC - In Keeping Room FpIc - 8n Master Bedroom Heat - Forced Alr Heat - Gas Heat - Zoned Coni - Gelling 'Fares Cool - Central Electric Cool -Zoned Enrgy - Attic Vent Fares Enrgy - C;9ck Thermostat Lai Dimensions: I +acres HERS Index: Enrgy - High Ef"f System Enrgy - Ther mai Pane VVdws Water - Public Water Sewer - Septic Tank Laundry - Laundry Room Laundry - Upstairs Dock - None Distract: 2 SectionlGMD: 2 Lot: 42 Block, nia TaxlTax Yr: Sq Ft: 4,946 Sq Ft Source: Tax $0'/2008 Record Special: Cert Prof. Ovvrer Finance: N Home Bldr CPH&: Annl Master Assoc Fee Desc: $0 SwirrfTennis: $7001 A.nifl Assoc Fee: $7001 includes Initiiatlan Requsred SvnrniTennis Fee: $ Ovmer Second: Assumable: No Assessment DuelConternplated: HOA Phone: of 6 % i f ."071 i _.29 €'?I�] Mgtnt Co: Wignit Phone: Office Information Owner Name: Builder Agent LicenseM 165953 List Agent ID: CLOSES0 Co -List Agent 1D: MAJHERB Firm License#: H-14253 office: List Date: Days to Exp: 8121!2006 Duplicate FMLS 4: Said Information A1g€nt Eonail: Owner Phone: 678-461-0884 Show Inst: Anytsrw Accu Selling Cornrnission: 3 VRC: No Agent: SUZANNE B CLOSE Phone/Fax: - 770-594-45041678-461-0150 Co -Agent: ^, PhonelFax: 770-594-4979/618-401-0150 Phone]Fax: #678-461-87001 678-461-0150 Selling Agent/Broker may present offers directly to Seller?- N WD Date: WD DOM: Exp Hate: Exp DOM: 8/21/2007 Closing Date: Binding Agreerr�nt Date: Sale Price: $1?Q0{]00 Due Diligence Ends, Closing 5131 Original List Price: Drop Closing !Date: 5/311200 Q01* 255 Tata! DOM: 255 $1.299.900 WOLF %, 92% Costs Paid by Seiler: Terms: COW-UNIN5 Seo] Agent: _'. Sell Agit !b: •'_l Y NDYF. Lender Mediated: Sell Office: HN8H10 Sun, Apr 11, ..: .• ,,;i ..;n;ati-)n. r:ga,L'ik:s ofe ir:.'n dM: ` ; :.: :.:. i.:-�; r- : , ,si.;�r f -� .O[aJ.= Requested By - 201001.28 �:_rll [:!•;i f! -1I.1 I71� I!u+. Ilii i3lf:,rd rl3r: �^d �,nrs 3j;�ul•�5:"••� 1'E�f f.IB�; fi7rc,ig f17� :,L*flil r'1iISPr�CtiPf, by hi7d+Ot :. PIN the appropriate professianais. cz� 2r,10-:-2010 FIM',L5 - 4 of 6 4!1112010 1:29 PM Residentias- Detached $1,099,000 #:3518080 Sold Broker. Area: 13 Map:600G4 JENN06 1255 Cashiersy'Jx; f W City: ROSWELL State: County: gip: `x'075 GEORGIA FULTON Subdivision: Yr Built: Age Oesc: Litchfield Hundred 2006 NewfUnder Nbrhd - Swimming Poral Construction Lvls Bdrms Baths Hlf Bth Lake. NONE Waterfront: 0 Upper 4 4 0 Stories: 2 OrElem: Main 1 ; 1 + Stories CRABAPPLE Lower 0 1 0 CROSS NG f-13 1 Style: Middle: ELKINS Appi - Gas OvnlRn9,Ctop Traditional POINTE Appi - Gas Water Beater High: ROSWELL Directions: Hwv 92 west io King Rd- Turn rtand go to Cox rd- Turn left to Lithfielf Hundred- Follow Jenny Pruitt New Harms markers. ... r Residentias- Detached $1,099,000 #:3518080 Sold Broker. Area: 13 Map:600G4 JENN06 1255 Cashiersy'Jx; f W City: ROSWELL State: County: gip: `x'075 GEORGIA FULTON Subdivision: Yr Built: Age Oesc: Litchfield Hundred 2006 NewfUnder Nbrhd - Swimming Poral Construction Lvls Bdrms Baths Hlf Bth Lake. NONE Waterfront: 0 Upper 4 4 0 Stories: 2 OrElem: Main 1 ; 1 + Stories CRABAPPLE Lower 0 1 0 CROSS NG Total 5 6 1 Style: Middle: ELKINS Appi - Gas OvnlRn9,Ctop Traditional POINTE Appi - Gas Water Beater High: ROSWELL Directions: Hwv 92 west io King Rd- Turn rtand go to Cox rd- Turn left to Lithfielf Hundred- Follow Jenny Pruitt New Harms markers. Public Remrks SALE OF A L 1FETINIE'•f On remaining inventory of Luxury Estate Homes in one of Rosw ell's hestsv&nitennis neighborhoods. Sale begins 61261?008. This Estate borne reduced $200,000. Contact agent for details. Pr"lvatelCorlfielential Remarks Agents must accompany clients or register at the sales office- if not co-op fee is 1 %;- Features Bedroom: Bdrm On Main Lev, Master On Main Faster Bath: Double Vanity, Sep Tub/Shower, Whirlpool Tub Kitchen Brea kfast Area.. Breakfast Bar, Cabinets Stain, Island, Keeping Dining: Separate Dng Rm Setting. mer Room, Counter Top - Stone Const: Brick 4 Sides, Stone Clouse Faces: Unknown Tennis on Prop: No Pool: None Parking- 4 Car Gerage, Aifachad 'Road: P'a;ed, Public Main4n# FA: 4 Rooms: Bonus Room, Family Room, LibraryiOfFice, Media Room, Separate Den, Separate LVrg Rm Basement: Bath1Slubbed, Daylight, Full Horne Warranty: Yes Lot Size: 1 Up To 2 Acres Let Besc: CuVl7e-Sac, Level, Leval Drivamay, Private Lot Dimansions: 1-0 Backyard, Wooded acres Green Building Cer?ifscatlon; Other Descriptive information Nbrhd - Club House int -10 ft+ Cell Main Nbrhd - Playground Int - 9 ft + Ceil Louver Nbrhd - Swimming Poral Int - 9 ft+ Ceii Upper Nbrhd - Street Lights Ext -tic Nbrhd - Tennis Lighters Ext - Prof Landscaping Appi - Double Ovens Ext - Patio Apps - Dishwasher Ext - irrigation System Appl - Garbage Disposal Hcap - Other Appi - Gas OvnlRn9,Ctop Fpkc - in Master Bedroom Appi - Gas Water Beater Fplc - In Other Room Legal, Financial & Tax Information Fplc - In Keeping Room Heat - Forced Air Meat - Cas Cost - Central E :sctric Cool - Fan Gael -Zoned Enrgy - Att;c Vent Fans Enrgy - Clack Therrmstat Enrgy - Extra Insulation Enrgy - High Eff System Tax ID: LandLot: 1003&1004 District: 2 Plat BookiPage: 287!128 peed BooklPage: Gi0 HERS Index. 0 Water - Public Water Sewer - Septic Tank Laundry - Hall Laundry - Laundry Room Dock - Nona SectlonIGMD: 2 Let: 46 Bloch: nla TaxlTax Yr: ' Sq Ft Source: Not $012005 q F#; E7 Xmilable 5peclal: None Owner Finance: N Domer Second: Assumable: No CPRS: Ann[ Master Assoc Fee Desc: $0 Assessment DuelConternplated; SwimlTennis: $7001 Annl Assoc Fee: $700 ; Initiat'sar! HOA Phone: Required Required Fee: $ Mgmt Co: Mgmt Phone: Nigrat Erroil: Office Informaticni Owner Mame: Rosen Cus orn Owner Phone: 678--461-088.1 Show Inst: Anytime Access Humes =Agent License#: 165953 Selling Commission, 3% CIRC: No •—PhonefFax: LlstAgentiD:CLO5E5B Agent: 770-594-4994 167z3-461-0150 Co -List Agent 117: SWENCENl1 Co -Agent: PhonefFax:770-594-4993 16 78-461 -0150 Firm LlcL-nse#: H-94253 PhonefFax: # 678-461-87001 678-431-0150 Office: Selling AgentlBroker rwy present offers directly to Seller?: N List [late: Clays to Exp: WD Date: WD DOM: Exp Date: Exp DOM: 612&12(307 1111512008 Duplicate FMLS #_ Sold Information Sale Price: $1066-030 Due Diligence Ends: Closing [late: 1012/2008 S' d'sn nt Date; 911612CK38 Original List Price: $1,298.900 Prop dosing Date: 10/2J2008 DOM; 446 ota M- 81 SP/OLP %: 829a Costs Paid by Seller: 0 Terms: COW-UNIN5 Sell Agent lD: MAJHEF?B Sell Agent: _ isiiwJ, Lender Mediated: Sell Office: HNBH07 Sun, Apr 1l, Requested 13y: P `Itr �,._ ❑i:.�; •, -••. •.;inr;�.aa::a. re���„��_. ❑i s�u.ce, ,r1..lu::.ng t�r.it i�ot limi:zs: to �ys:a� � lockage, is 2010 01:28 �1�esned r+AS b,: r-i.:r r.. �, 'N,:. �i ! •_ V pe ticVt by and or with ;:rt. ^ci nc ter: d ::e .. riSied rP� a�ign rsonai ins er. r PM he :: r•rr,n-nIc i?i•:7fr3....:,!�, i- ;n 2_201C+ FF:"'_r AiC: 6 of 6 4/11/2010 11,29 PNf Residential Age Desc: Detached Demographic 2flOB #-3907980 a:: t:: _: Broker: ATFH02Area: 13 1295 Cashiers W a Media: ca City: ROSWELL State: County: Waterfront: 0 GEORGIA FULTON Public Remarks $929.000 ' Map- 6000-4 Zip: 3GO75 Subdivision: Litchfield Yr Built: Age Desc: Hundred Demographic 2flOB Newftlnder Bedroom: odrrn On Wri Lev Construc*�on Lvls Bdrms $aths 1iif M Lake: Waterfront: 0 Upper 4 4 4 NONE Main 1 I 1 Stories. 2 Elem: SWEET Lower a 0 r7 Stories APPLE Total 5 5 1 Style: Biddle: ELKI NS # Fly: " Traditional POO NTE Basement: 'Daylight, Exterior Erity, Full High: ROSWELL Directions: From 400 go Weston 92 to King Road, rake a right At dead end, t3ke left onto Cox Rd, then right at 2nd Litchfield antrance at Buckspor[- i urn Ight on Ad son, right on Cashiers Way Priced below recent appraisal. Vr4hat a remarkable price to be able to ow,, this b7d Fred King hm- All hrdv�ds on rrain w/secortd ivi rrsr & 3 other hdrms up & guest rm on main. Lr g flit open to a vhd great rm vlfp, great for entertaining. Out door fpic on covered porch- Private/Confidential Remarks Call Agent for SHowng €nstructons � �' @ �t� C� '� I ; _ ; Features Bedroom: odrrn On Wri Lev Master Hath: Double Vanity. Carden Tub. Sep TublShower, Whirlpool Tub Kitchen: Breakfast Area, Keeping Room, Pantry, Counter Top - Stone Dining: Separate ON Rrn Setting: mer Const: Bfiok 4 Sides, Stone House Faces: South Tennis on Trop: No Pool: None Parking: 3 Car Garage Road: Paved # Fly: " Rooms: Bonus Room, Computer. Great Room, Library] OT -lice, Loft, OLi er, Separate Lvng Rm Basement: 'Daylight, Exterior Erity, Full Home Warranty: Yes Lot Size: 1 Up To 2 Acres Lot Desc: Level, Level Orivev,ay, Private Backyard, Wooded Lot Dimensions: 0 Green RuJiding CeYtii;cation: HERS Index: 0 Other Descriptive infon-nation -.... Nbrhd - Street Lij4hts 'int - [ISL Available Hcap - None Laundry - Laundry Room Nbrhd -Tennis Lighted Int - His & Her Closets Fpir. -teras Starter Laundry - Upstairs Appl - Double Ovens int - Hardwood Floors Fplc - In Living Room Dock - Norte Appi - Dishwasher int - Cable Modem i=ptc - 1n ,easter Bedroom Appl - Garbage Disposal Int - Rear Stairs Fplc - In Keeping Room Appl - Gas 0vn1RnglGtop int - Trey Ceilings Heat - Gas Appl -?Microwave int - Walk -Irl Closet(s) Cool - Centcal Electric Appl - Gas Water Veater Ext - Front Porch Enrgy - High Elf System Int - f 0 ftp C 01 lritaM Ext - Prof Landscaping Water - Pub9a Water Int - 2 -Story Foyer Ext - Irrigation System Sewer - Septic Tanis Legal, Financials & ax Information Tax Id: . LandLot: 940-1,012 rXstrict: 2 SecihonIGMD: 2 Lot: 37 Block: 0 Plat Book,Page: Deed Book/Page- 0/0 TaxlTax Yr: Sq Ft: 4,729 Sq Ft Source: Tax 259114E $412[30& Record Special: Mone Owner Finance. N Owner Second,. Assumable: No No CPHS: Anni ?Master Assoc Fee Desc: $0 Assessment DuelConternplated. No 6,Arriffennis: $70D I Anna Assoc Fee: $70001 Includes Initiation Required .S.v4rri/Tannis Fee: $0 HCA Phone: Mgrnt Co: Mgmt Diene: Mgrnt Ernail: Office information Owner Name: Builder Owner Phone. 878-461-W184 Show Inst: Anytime Access, Lockbox ,Agent License#: 165953 Selling Commission: 3 VRC: Nb --' List Agent ID: CLOSESB Agent. PhoneEFax: 404-924-6814 1404-924-5815 I. of 411;./2010 1.29 PM 2 of 6 4/11/2010 1:29 PM Co-List Agent ID: SPENCEW Co-Agent: _ s; r `.3?EN :- PhonelFax: --- --- --- 77&,642-1760 r 77D-640-0562 Firm License#: H-57502 Phone/Fax: # 4D4-237-50001 404237-5401 ❑ffk;e: - 30THESYS N; Selling AgentlBroker my present offers directly to Seller?: 1V — t.ist Date: [says to Exp: WD Date: WD DON{: Exp Date: Exp DONT: Duplicate FN#LS #: Sold Information Sale Price: $ Due Diligence Ends: Closing Date: Binding Agreement Date: Original List Price; S995,00D Prop Closing Date: SPlOLP %: 01% Costs Paid by Seller: Terms: Sell Agent ID: Sell Agent: Lender Mediated: Sell Office: Sun, Apr 11, Th,- 3G,:.1F--'y c; 311 :r,::rn.3-�oii. regard's 3 a ;r.•.ir: . ine!,,Fd ng b:rt n•.�t limited L sguart N-AAage, is Requested By: 2010 011:2$ dk•an,ed r.=_:sab'e but no: Jug=.rlr'!C + an ShOUfd he 1-R.-Meed ehrpugrt persanal r.A ci PM r r-. apr.i.,rii:.._ ,:i._:es_;: n, G 032-20M '.AL` GR7n. < _._... -- - 2 of 6 4/11/2010 1:29 PM Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 1 of 19 U09-05 PETITION NUMBER(S): U09-05 PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 13302 New Providence Road DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2/2, 996, 997 OVERLAY DISTRICT Northwest EXISTING ZONING AG-1 (Agricultural) ACRES 51.59 EXISTING USE Single family residence PROPOSED USE 150 foot Monopole Cell Tower with a 4 ft. lightning rod for a total of 154 feet OWNER Rosemarie J. Schmidt Family Limited Partnership ADDRESS 13302 New Providence Road Milton, GA 30004 PETITIONER/REPRESENTATIVE T-Mobile South, LLC/Shawn Blassingill ADDRESS 4 Concourse Parkway, Suite 300 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 PHONE 678-612-7489 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION U09-05 – DENIAL INTENT To obtain a use permit 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). Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 2 of 19 U09-05 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION – MARCH 23, 2010 U09-05 – DENIAL 7-0 Mr. David R. Gilley of Georgia Tax and Regulatory Solutions, LLC presented his findings regarding U09-05 concluded that “Section 19.2.4” gives the Mayor and Council the authority to impose conditions on the approval of use permits. Accordingly, GTRS recommended the Application be approved with the following the conditions: 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 and shall be a maximum height of 100 feet. After hearing public concerns regarding the proposed cell tower discussion included whether it was inconsistent with the design of the neighborhood. The applicant couldn’t fully answer questions regarding the need for the tower. The residents believed it is just a business proposition to expand the sale of co- locaters and inconsistent with community preferences for the neighborhood. The Planning Commission discussion included the following issues: 1. The possibility of lowering the height of the tower but the applicant can’t agree to the lowering of the tower until a radio frequency study is conducted. 2. The height of the adjacent power lines which are approximately 60-70 feet. The applicant stated that the height wouldn’t be high enough for co-location with the power poles within the easement. 3. Discussion of stealth structures and if it is available for this site. The applicant stated that it depends on the needed height and trees surrounding it. 4. Why they submitted a property value study using properties that were sold 6 and 7 years ago. 5. Planning Commission requested documentation of discussions with Georgia Power regarding the potential for co-location on utility poles. Please note the following: No new material has been submitted for U09-05 as of April 14, 2010. An additional Design Review Board (DRB) meeting was held on April 13, 2010. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 3 of 19 U09-05 LOCATION MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 4 of 19 U09-05 CURRENT ZONING MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 5 of 19 U09-05 FUTURE LAND USE MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 6 of 19 U09-05 SITE PLAN SUBMITTED DECEMBER 1, 2009 - Distances from property lines/structures Proposed Leased Area Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 7 of 19 U09-05 SUBJECT SITE - Looking west toward house on subject site SUBJECT SITE – Interior of property from driveway Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 8 of 19 U09-05 Looking east across New Providence Road Photo simulation of tower from subject site Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 9 of 19 U09-05 Photo simulation from New Providence Road looking south SUBJECT SITE: The subject site is a 51.59 acre tract of agriculturally zoned land, located on the southwest side of New Providence Road. The subject site is developed with a single-family residence. It is located within the Residential 1 unit or less per acre Land Use designation on the Focus Fulton 2025 Plan which was still in place at the time of this application’s submittal. Existing uses and zoning of nearby property The subject site is surrounded by lots on average ranging in size from one acre to approximately 30 acres. They are developed with single family residences within the AG-1 (Agricultural) district. Providence Plantation subdivision is located to north on the north side of New Providence Road developed with single family residences zoned AG-1 (Agricultural). Further north is Boxwood Estates subdivision zoned CUP (Community Unit Plan) with minimum one acre lots and minimum 3,500 square foot heated floor area. Southeast down Dorris Road are scattered single family residences on large lots with equestrian facilities. Furthe r to the southeast is Oxford Lakes subdivision zoned AG-1 (Agricultural) with single family residences. Further to the south is Ranchette road developed with smaller Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 10 of 19 U09-05 AG-1 (Agricultural) lots ranging in size between three and five acres. West of the subject site are large AG-1 (Agricultural) lots with scattered single family residences. Northwest of the site is Providence Lake subdivision zoned AG-1 (Agricultural). The Mayor and City Council approved a Use Permit (U08-06) on the east side of Arnold Mill Road (SR 140) on November 17, 2008 for a Landscaping Business. In addition, the Mayor and City Council denied a Use Permit (U09-01/VC) on the west side of Arnold Mill Road on October 19, 2009 for a Landscaping Business. A 100-foot wide Oglethorpe power easement bisects the subject site and Is located directly north of the proposed leased area. A. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and/or Economic Development Revitalization plans adopted by the Mayor and City Council: Focus Fulton 2025 Plan Map: Residential 1 unit or less per acre The proposed monopole cell tower is inconsistent with the intent and following policies of the Focus Fulton 2025 Comprehensive Plan (this plan was still in place at the time of the applicant filing this request): Encourage development consistent with the surrounding scale, transition of densities and uses, and Comprehensive Plan policies, where appropriate. Protect the existing rural character of Northwest Fulton. B. Compatibility with land uses and zoning districts in the vicinity of the property for which the use permit is proposed; The proposed 150 foot monopole with 4 foot lightning rod is inconsistent with the adjacent land uses of single family residences on large agricultural parcels and associated agricultural uses such as barns and riding rings. The closest residential structure is approximately 479 feet from the proposed monopole cell tower located on east side of New Providence Road. Other residential structures are located 539 feet, 432 feet and 506 feet to the southwest (on the subject site), northwest and north respectively. Although, it meets the use permit standards for setbacks, it is Staff’s opinion that it is incompatible based on the location of the tower to nearby residential structures. Further, the tower appears to be located such that it will be higher than the tree stands and will not be visually screened from the road as depicted in the tower simulation photos above. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 11 of 19 U09-05 C. Whether the proposed use may violate local, state and/or federal statutes, ordinances or regulations governing land development; It is Staff’s opinion that the proposed use does not violate local, state and/or federal ordinances or regulations governing land development. D. The effect of the proposed use on traffic flow, vehicular and pedestrian, along adjoining streets; The proposed monopole cell tower is an unmanned operation that will generate only an occasional trip to the site for maintenance. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed monopole cell tower will not impact traffic flow along adjoining streets. E. The location and number of off-street parking spaces; For occasional maintenance trips to the site, space is available nex t to the gate of the 10,000 square foot leased area. Staff is of the opinion that parking will not impact the surrounding areas due to the size of the large parcel and the location of the leased area away from New Providence Road and located in the middle of the parcel . F. The amount and location of open space; The applicant’s site plan indicates a leased area of 10,000 square feet and an additional access easement. The remainder of the property is developed with a single family residence. The parcel is approximately 51 acres which provides a large area of open space. G. Protective screening; Although the submitted site plan meets the requirements of Article 19.4.7 to provide a 10-foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards exterior to the required fencing not less than 6 feet in height, Staff recommends that the applicant provide a 20-foot landscape strip in lieu of the required 10 foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards to provide additional screening of the tower and associated facilities. This will be reflected in the Recommended Conditions. H. Hours and manner of operation; The proposed monopole cell tower is an unmanned operation that will generate only an occasional trip to the site for maintenance. Staff will condition the site maintenance to be completed between the hours of Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 12 of 19 U09-05 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except in cases of emergency or when an after-hours permit is obtained pursuant to the City of Milton Noise Ordinance. I. Streetscape lighting; The applicant has not indicated any streetscape lighting for the site. In addition, no lights will be attached to the monopole tower. Staff notes that any security light utilized in the maintenance area must comply with the Northwest Overlay District and/or Night Sky Ordinance standards for site lighting. J. Ingress and egress to the property. The applicant’s site plan indicates that access to the leased property will be derived from the existing driveway into the site off of New Providence Road. Given the limited use of the subject site for regular maintenance, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development’s ingress and egress will have limited impact upon the community when conditioned to the limited times listed above. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS Based on the applicant’s site plan submitted to the Community Development Department on December 1, 2009, Staff offers the following considerations: Use Permit Standards – Article 19.4.7 1. Towers must be set back a distance equal to one and one-half (1½) times the height of the tower adjacent to residential and/or AG-1 zoned property. The closest AG-1 zoning property is located 395 feet from the proposed cell tower location. The minimum required is 231 feet which includes the lighting rod. Therefore, it meets the required one and one-half times the height of the 154 foot tower. 2. Height shall not exceed 200 feet from existing grade. The proposed height of the tower is 154 feet and is below the maximum height allowed. 3. Tower and associated facilities shall be enclosed by fencing not less than six feet in height and shall also be equipped with an appropriate anti- climbing device. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 13 of 19 U09-05 The site plan and associated plans indicate a new six foot high chain link fence with 3 strands of barbed wire. Staff notes that all chain link fencing shall be black vinyl clad. Although barbed wire is permitted in this use and zoning district, Staff recommends that the barbed wire not be utilized which will be reflected in the Recommended Conditions. 4. A minimum 10-foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards shall be required surrounding the facility exterior to the required fence unless the City Arborist determines that existing plant materials are adequate. The site plan indicates a 10-foot landscape strip planted with Leyland cypress. Staff recommends that a 20-foot landscape strip in lieu of the 10- foot landscape strip be planted to buffer standards per the specifications of the City Arborist to provide additional screening of the facilities from adjacent single family residences. 5. Antennas or towers shall not have lights unless required by federal or state law. The proposed tower and antenna will not have any lighting, as it will be less than 200 feet per the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Staff notes that any security light utilized in the maintenance area must comply with the Northwest Overlay District and/or Night Sky Ordinance standards for site lighting. 6. Towers shall not be located within one-half mile from any existing telecommunication tower above the district height, excluding alternative structures. Staff has confirmed that no existing towers are located within one-half mile from the proposed tower. 7. The tower shall comply with applicable state and local statutes and ordinances, including, but not limited to, building and safety codes. Towers which have become unsafe or dilapidated shall be repaired or removed pursuant to applicable state and local statutes and ordinances. The applicant has stated that the proposed tower will comply with all state and local ordinances as listed above and will apply for building permit approval prior to any construction. The applicant is aware and agrees to removal requirements for unsafe or dilapidated wireless facilities. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 14 of 19 U09-05 8. Facilities shall not be artificially lighted except to assure human safety or as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The applicant has stated that the facilities will not be artificially lighted. Staff notes that on page C3.3 of the construction plans, lighting is indicated. Staff notes that any security light utilized in the maintenance area must comply with the Northwest Overlay District standards and/or the Night Sky Ordinance for site lighting. 9. Communication towers shall be designed and constructed to ensure that the structural failure or collapse of the tower will not create a safety hazard to adjoining properties, according to applicable Federal Standards which may be amended from time to time. The applicant has stated that the proposed tower is designed by certified structural engineers to ensure proper safety according to applicable Federal standards. 10. Telecommunications facilities shall not be used for advertising purposes and shall not contain any signs for the purpose of advertising. The applicant has stated there will not be any advertising on the proposed wireless facility. 11. Any telecommunications facility may co-locate on any existing tower, pole or other structure as long as there is no increase in height to the existing facility. The applicant has stated that the proposed facility may accommodate two additional carriers without increasing the height. 12. A commercial telecommunication facility that ceases operation for a period of 12 consecutive months shall be determined to have terminated and shall be removed within 90 days of termination at the property owner's expense. It shall be the duty of both the property owner and the tower owner to notify the City in writing of any intent to abandon the use of the tower. The applicant has stated that Section 19.4.7(B)(12) will be met. 13. Communication facilities not requiring FAA painting/marking shall have either a galvanized finish or [be] painted a dull blue, gray, or black finish or shall be screened through fencing and landscaping. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 15 of 19 U09-05 The applicant states that the facility will be galvanized steel and screened behind fencing and landscaping. Staff notes that the City Design Review Board shall make the final recommendation for the finish of the structure. 14 An application for a telecommunications facility shall be submitted in accordance with the Department’s Plan Review submittal requirements. The applicant states that the facility will adhere to the above requirements. 15. An application for a telecommunication facility shall include a certification from a registered engineer that the structure will meet the applicable design standards for wind loads. The applicant states that a certified/registered structural report will be provided for the proposed facility. 16. Communications facilities shall not be located in 100-year flood plain or delineated wetlands. The applicant states that the proposed communication facility is not located in a 100-year flood plain or delineated wetlands. Staff has confirmed these findings to be correct. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Transportation Engineer – No Comments Building Official – No Comments City Arborist – There will be no specimen trees affected by the proposed cell tower. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT On Thursday, January 13, 2010 the applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information Meeting held at the Milton City Hall. There were approximately 70 to 80 people in attendance from the community of which 4 people indicated interest in U09-05 on the City’s sign in sheet. Public Comments – Staff has received e-mails which are attached expressing both opposition and support of the request. Staff has met with the adjacent property owners. In addition, one resident has called Staff to express their opposition to the proposed cell tower. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 16 of 19 U09-05 City of Milton Design Review Board Meeting – January 5, 2010 The following recommendations were made by the DRB: Board/Applicant comments: o The Board stated that their purpose is to examine the aesthetic aspects of the proposed towers; land use/location is not for them to decide. o The applicant states that the tower will be a standard grey tower, as this is the best option for blending in. The Board states that they preferred this to the fake tree option. o Applicant states that they are willing to meet City standards in terms of fencing. They are willing to remove the 3 rows of barbed wire topping the chain link fencing. o Board inquired as to whether the Applicant would be able to screen the cell tower compound that is adjacent to the power easement (New Providence). The applicant states that the compound is at least 15’ away from the easement, and that the existing trees will remain. o Board informed the applicant that the trees used to screen the compound had to be a mix of evergreens that would provide screening in one year; Leylands are not allowed according to the Ordinance. o Only towers above 200’ are required to be lit. o Stealth products include: light pole, flag pole, mono pine. o The Board reminded the residents that the Board has the responsibility to protect the Code, and therefore the applicant. They ask the public to help by providing as much information as possible. o A balloon test has been flown; applicant has pictures taken from 20 different locations. These pictures would be on display at the CZIM meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 7th at 7:00pm. o There appears to be a Code disconnect. The Code states that a tower “buried far from the ROW is better.” Did not anticipate that homes would be so nearby. Public comments: The cell tower is a commercial use; not appropriate for rural, residential area. Should be on commercial property. The tower would ruin the land value of the surrounding area. The tower would be an eyesore. This is not for the good of the community; not in the spirit of what the City was dreamed of. The residents would like to explore options for tower camouflage. The applicant should look into other collocate options first. Does the code require a propagation study to access the need for more towers? (This is included in the submitted documents). Resident expressed his frustration and displeasure with the process. Resident stated that his house was 327’ from the proposed Mountain Road tower location; trees less than 100’ tall. Feels that this location was not a good choice for a cell tower. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 17 of 19 U09-05 It is important for the Council/Board to visit the sites before they made any decisions. Residents asked if Board considered areas that are highly populated as undesirable for cell towers. (Board reminded her that their purview is limited to aesthetics.) It is incumbent upon Board to understand the unique requirement of the Milton rural community. Resident asked if a fall zone analyses is required. (Towers are designed to collapse within itself.) Resident is concerned about environment impact of tower, especially the poisoning of the spring fed pond if the tower was to fall. City of Milton Design Review Board Meeting – April 13, 2010 Staff notes that another meeting before the Design Review Board was required based on the Zoning Ordinance’s requirement to publish the DRB meeting in the newspapers as well as include it in the adjacent property owners’ notice. The meeting was scheduled for April 6, 2010 but a quorum of members was not present. Therefore, it was rescheduled for April 13, 2010. The Design Review Board asked the following questions and made the following comments and recommendations: o What was the typical leased area for the site? The applicant stated that smallest was 50x50 and the typical was 100x100. It was recommended that the smallest be used for this site instead of the 100x100 to limit the amount of disturbance of the area. o The Norwest Fulton Overlay District requires a mix of three species of trees acceptable to the City Arborist should be planted. In the mix of trees one should be evergreen, one deciduous and one seasonal or perennial (Article 12H.3.10.). The applicant agreed to comply with this requirement instead of the Leyland cypress depicted on the landscape plan. Staff notes that the applicant will need to meet all the requirements of the Northwest Overlay District. Staff notes that there were no public comments regarding this item. Public Participation Plan and Report This petition was administratively deferred to the March 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Staff received an updated Public Participation Report on March 15, 2010 which meets the required submittal date of seven (7) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant will be required to submit an updated public participation report 7 days prior to the Mayor and City Council meeting. CONCLUSION Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 18 of 19 U09-05 It is Staff’s opinion that 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. Therefore, Staff recommends DENIAL of U09-05. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on April 26, 2010 4/19/2010 Page 19 of 19 U09-05 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council , it should be approved USE PERMIT for an Antenna Tower and Associated Structure to Exceed the District Height (Article 19.4.7.) CONDITIONAL subject to the owner’s agreement to the following enumerated conditions. Where these conditions conflict with the stipulations and offerings contained in the Letter of Intent, these conditions shall supersede unless specifically stipulated by the Mayor and City Council. 1) To the owner’s agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows: a) One monopole communications tower and equipment slab(s) and/or building(s). b) The tower shall not exceed 150 feet with a 4 foot lighting rod. 2) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following: a) To the site plan received by the Milton Community Devel opment Department on December 1, 2009. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion. 3) To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations: a) To provide a 20 foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards per the requirements of Article 12H.3.10. around the leased area. b) All chain link fencing shall be black vinyl clad. c) No barbed wire will be permitted on top of the minimum 6 foot high security fence. d) All site maintenance to be completed between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except in cases of emergency or when an after-hours permit is obtained pursuant to the City of Milton Noise Ordinance. GTRS Georgia Tax & Regulator.• Solutions, LLC March 22. 2010 City of Milton Planning and Development Division 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 1070 Milton. GA 30004 Re: Application for Use Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 13302 New Providence Road. 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 02107196); Section 19.2.5, Additional Restrictions; and Section 19.4.7, Antenna Tower to Exceed District Height (as amended 05117/06). 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 agricultural land use designation. 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 some of these locations. 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. T -Mobile's target signal strength is -76 dBm. This level of signal strength will provide reliable service within residential buildings. Additionally, a signal strength of -86 dBm will provided reliable in -vehicle coverage for individuals travelling through the area. Field tests were performed in the subject area and a coverage level of -76dBm was not achieved throughout the vicinity. In addition, some areas to the east of the proposed site have gaps in coverage. Therefore, the Applicant has demonstrated that there is poor coverage in this geographic service area. The Property is a heavily wooded lot that will provide good natural screening for the tower's accessory structures. In addition, the trees should provide some screening of the tower 1415440 GTRS Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC 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. In addition, the leased area will be placed adjacent to an Oglethorpe power easement, which is a compatible use. However, the Applicant proposes to place a 154 -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 PS -9, PS -A, PS -B, and PS -C). 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. Can the contrary, although a reduction in height may not provide the signal strength desired by the Applicant over the entire coverage area, 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 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 10,000 sf lease area and a twelve (12) foot wide gravel drive will be constructed from New Providence Road to the new facility. The remainder of the Property is grassed and wooded. Adequate protective screening will be provided. The Applicant proposes a six foot high fence is being constructed around the new facility with nineteen (19) Leyland cypress trees. The 14?544v1 GTRS Georgia Tax & Regulatory Solutions, LLC cell tower will be 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 Hopewell Road to the new facility that will allow vehicles to travel to and frnm the site. Section 19.4.7 Analvsis 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 -1 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 (see construction drawings labeled C3) the right of way of New Providence Road is the closest property line and it is 241.7 feet away. The closest house appears to be on the opposite side of New Providence Road, approximately 479 feet away. The next closest property line is the adjacent neighbor to the north on the opposite side of the power easement, approximately 395 feet away. The tower and associated facilities shall be enclosed by a six (b) 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 of the new monopole and nineteen (19) Leyland cypress trees are being planted within the landscape strip. The tower will not be lighted. 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. 141;44V1 GTRS Georgia Tax & Re2tdatory Solutions, LLC Recommendation Section 19.2.4 gives the Mayor and Council the authority to impose conditions on the approval of use permits. Accordingly. we recommend the Application be approved with the following the vondi ti ons 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. ?. Tower will be built as a stealth design and shall be a maximum height of 160 feet. .Sincerely. David R. Gilley Georgia Tax & Regulatory Sions, LLC I a I-M'Iv 1 ALL, Robyn MacDonald From: james pace [yipyoo2@att.net] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2490 12:25 PM To: Robyn MacDonald; pippi08@att.net Subject: Cell Towers I have excellent cell phone reception at all points in my house including the basement. The Atlanta Board of Realtors provided site informaton on the impact of cell phone towers on house prices. The impact on negative values was variable up to 50% when a sale could be accomplished. Health effects need to be addressed. 2002 was the last year a study on the effects of radio waves was done governments in other countries are issuing warnings about cell phones and cell towers. Reasonable doubt and concern about the safety of cell phones and cell phone towers has resulted in a Senate Committee hearing and a study being initiated. September 2009 the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations heard testimony from a Hearing on "The Health Effects of Cell Phone Use". Senator Spector requested the hearing. There are growing health concerns about the long term effects of radio wave exposure. A $24,000,000 study is underway to obtain better data for firm conclusions - previous studies have weaknesses with many of the earlier studies paid for by interested parties. This is a three phase study to be reported in final analysis in the year 2014. I listened to this hearing in full and came to the conclusion this could be another lead paint or tobacco scenario. The effects will come later. Witness List at this hearing included scientists from Finland, Israel, the National Institutes of Health, Linda Erdereich, Ph.D., Senior Managing Scientist, Exponent Health, Sciences, Center of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Computational Biology, New York, New York, and other outhstanding scientists. Scientists presented data and studies from their works and the World Health Organization. A growing global concern is reflected by tougher exposure standards in other parts of the world. We should proceed carefully with our policies. We should not ignore the possible long tern health effects of cell phones and cell towers. I have a copy of the hearing. It is available for review. Carolyn Pace 770-667-6273 yyoo2 cr.att.net Robyn MacDonald From: james pace [yipyoo2@att.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:11 PM To: Robyn MacDonald Sulbject: Fw: cell tower ---- Forwarded Message ---- From: james pace <james99pace@gmail.com> To: james pace <yipyoo2@att.net> Sent: Sat, April 1.0, 2010 3:48:25 PM Subject: Gell tower The following items should be considered in our efforts to not allow tower construction. A. The search for towers described on the application only evaluated a radius of 1820 feet around the CogburnlHopewell intersection. Even though there are 27 towers in a 4 mile radios of this point, it would be very hard to find an existing tower in such a small search area. This small search area made a joke of co - locating with another tower. B. The amount of data transmission that will be used for 3G and 4G applications will require a booster antenna at each home even though the areas are covered with antennas. These booster antennas are available on the Internet for 129$ dollars presently and could/should be provided by service providers at a much smaller cost(50$ estimate). C The cell towers are being constructed by a third party construction company. In order to protect the taxpayers of the city of Milton in the event of default of this construction company it is recommended that all towers proposed have a removal fee paid to the city of Milton that will be used to remove the towers if abandoned. Robyn MacDonald From: Leslie Wicks [lawicks@bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 10:30 PM To: Joe Lockwood, .toe Longoria; Julie ZahnerBailey; Burt Hewitt; Bill Lusk; Alan Tart; Karen Thurman Cc: Robyn Macdonald Subject. Cell Towers and affect on Property Values To Mayor Joe Lockwood and all City Council Members, Here is some information I have found in my research on Cell Towers concerning Property Values. It is not right for someone to profit while neighboring resident's property values could decrease. The biggest investment we make in our lives is our home. Would you consider buying a home next to a Cell Tower? Thank you for your time. Leslie Wicks/2870 Mountain Road Property Values are affected by approximately 0%- 21%. Also, please realize there are studies on High Tension Lines which has been around much longer and affects property values. Property values are affected up to 1,000 feet (300 meters). Article on "The Impact of Wireless Towers on Residential Property Value" by Carol c. McDonough, PhD A wireless tower needs to be considered as a negative amenity that may reduce residential property valuation. Article talks about: Power Lines and Property Values: Some Evidence And Similarities between Power Lines and Wireless Towers. http://www. broad bandwirelessre orts.com u loads 1 A raisal Journal - Cell towers bad for home prlces.pdf In a question by the Planning Commission that went unanswered, I would like to submit to you (3) websites on studies for property values and cell towers. (CPRS - Cell Phone Base Station) 1. New Zealand Study — this study also gives information for their mobile phone site requirements. There is a section on Environmental Effects and Adverse Health Effects as well as the Property Value Study. Each case study included residents in two areas: the case study area (within 300 meters (984.25 ft) of a cell phone tower) and a control area (over 1km (3,280.8399 ft) from the cell phone tower). Both areas within each case study had the same living environment (in socia -economic terms) except that the former is an area with a CPBS while the latter is without a CPBS. The results do provide a gauge of the perceptions that people have about living near a cell site, or moving to an area near one, and how this might impact on values of properties in proximity to a CPBS. In Survey sections please take note of: - Affect on Decision to Purchase or Rent - Concerns about Proximity to the CPBS In Summary and Conclusions—vihether or not CP BS's are ever proven conclusively to be free from health risks is only relevant to the extent that buyers of property near a CPBS perceive this to be true. Consequently, values of residential property located in close proximity to CPBS's may be adversely affected by the negative perceptions of buyers, regardless of research evidence to the contrary. This article is (22) pages, and has some very good information in it. http://www.prres.net/Papers/Bond The impact Of Cellular Phone Base Station Towers On Property Value s.pdf The effect of proximity to CP13Ss is similar to that caused by proximity to HVOTL-pylons and Reduces price by around 21%. Taking actual distance into account (using GTS analysis) the effect is a reduction of price of 15%, on average (but up to 25% depending on the neighborhood). This effect reduces with distance from the CPBS and is negligible after 1000 feet (300 in eters). The literature on property value effects from HVOTLs, pylons and cell phone towers adds to the growing body of evidence and knowledge on this (and similar) valuation issue(s). 2. Canadian Study based off of the New Zealand Study In Canada there are at least two instances where the assessed value of residential properties was reduced due to close proximity to commercial antenna towers. Eight residential properties that back directly into a microwave tower site (impact of the tower upon the aesthetics of the neighboring lands)_ Sixteen residential properties because of aesthetic impacts of a broadcasting antenna tower installation that had been upgraded. The most reliable evidence of the value of land is its market value as determined by the price that a willing purchaser is willing to pay to a willing vendor in a free market. http.-I/www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sfOS353.htm I 3. Florida Study based off of the New Zea land Study Generally, the closer a property is to the tower, the greater the decrease in price. The effect of proximity to a tower reduces price by 15% on average. This effect is reduced with distance from the tower and is negligible after 1000 feet. The results clearly show that the price of residential property increases with the distance from a tower. As distance from the tower increases by 10 feet, price of a residential property increases by 0.57%. http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournaIslarticle/171851340 1.htm1 010 City of Milton, Georgia 30004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members; Art & Polly Worley www.artworley.com After perusing the Property Value Study for Telecommunication Structures in Fulton County, Georgia, submitted by T -Mobile, l have some comments regarding several of the properties cited in this report. First, the study does not address how long these properties were on the market before selling. One in particular in Litchfield Hundred (13 33 5 Bishops Court) was on the market for 255 days before selling. Another sold home in this neighborhood (1255 Cashiers Way, adjacent to 1245 Cashiers Way, which is addressed in the study) was on the market for 815 days before selling. An active listing at 1295 Cashiers Way (adjacent to 1290 Cashiers Way, which is addressed in the study) has been on the market since 1114109 and still has not sold. As stated in the study, "Overall, the data indicates that the telecommunication tower has no impact on sale prices or marketability", it seems from the above data that the tower does have impact on sales prices and marketability. The majority of the study discussed homes in South Fulton County. The City of Milton offers buyers a completely different environment for the purchase of a home. The typical buyer in Milton wants to get away from commercial areas or cookie cutter neighborhoods on small lots. The median price for a home in Milton is approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and can go upwards to $1,500,000-x. Buyers in this price range tend to be more discriminating concerning their surroundings. Additionally, the neighborhoods referenced in the study were built after the cell towers were in place, as opposed to the new, proposed cell towers in Milton being built in already established residential areas. I think it makes a difference, in that the prices of homes built prior to a tower being installed would definitely be affected in a negative way, as opposed to a buyer choosing a home where a cell tower was already in place. Sincerely, Art Worley A1" C Town & Country REAL ESTATE 14205 Highway 92, Suite 109 Woodstock, GA 30188 (770)475-4913 • Fax(770)569-5756 Each office independenliv owned and operated gF.Ao1* March 23, 2010 City Council Members City of Mifton, Georgia 30004 To Whom It May Concern, Art & Polly Worley www.artworley.com I am a resident of the City of Milton and have lived and worked here as a residential realtor for the past 25 years. In my professional opinion, I believe it would be very detrimental to the value of residential real estate to be in close proximity to a cell tower, in the City of Milton or elsewhere. It is difficult to calculate an exact devaluation figure or percentage, but I have seen over and over again homes that do not sell if they have a cell tower, power lines or similar utility structures within view of the property. It is definitely a "deal [tiller" and very detrimental to the home's value. I would be happy to discuss this issue further upon your request. Sincerely, Art Worley Town & Country REAL ESTATE 14205 Highway 92, Suite 109 Woodstock, GA 34188 (770) 475-4913 . Fax (770) 569-5756 Farb nffirp lRdAnnnrka tiv nwnarl and nnaratF l Public Remarks #:332BT72 Sold Broker, JENNO6 City: ROSWELL tate: GEORGIA Subdivision: Litchfield Hundred $1,299, 900 Area: 33 Map, 600G4 County: Zip: 30075 FULTON Int -114 ft+ Ceil Claire Yr Built: Age Desc. Nbrhd - Sidewalk Now/Under 2006 Construction Lvis BdrLake:ms Maths Hit Bth Waterfront., Upper 4 4 0 OTHER Main 1 1 1 Stories: 2 CrElem: SWEET 5 1 5 1 Stories APPLE Total 5 Lower 4 Style: Rus�c,Middle: ELKINS Tradittonal POI NTE High: ROSWELL Directions. 400N to Holcomb Bridge. Wast toward RnsAell on 92 to King Rd. Rt on King Rd. to dead and at Cox Rd. Left on Cox to 2nd Litchfield entra nce or. Buck -sport and fallow aigns t new section Highlands fudge -style eAerior w1rusbc bearr,ed entrance & front wrap around cored stone porch. Front cherry paneled library, oversized rnstr vvlfplc, step up sifting area and true custom doset�dressing room. Kitdetail is fabulous fb`ful backsplash, exposed beam ceiling in eating area. Private/Confidential Remarks Stacked stone fplc in keeping rm which opens to covered porch wlfplc. 3UILDER INCEN ITVES, CALL AGENT FOR DETAILS. 678-461-0884 Features Bedroom: Bdrsm On Main Lev, Sitting Room Master Bath: Double Vanity, Sep Tub/Shower, Whirlpool T€b Kitchen: B rea kfa st Area, Breakfast Bar, Cabinets Shin, Counter Top - Dining: Seats 12¢, Separate Setting, Other Stave, Island, Keeping Room Dng Rm Const: Brick 4 Sides, Sthne House Faces: Unknovlr Tennis or. Prop: No Pool: Abne Parkin 3 Car Gara e. Ijtchen Ler.", SidelRear E Road: Paved. Public Parking: g # FP: 4 Maintain Rooms: Family Room, L'braryl:lffica, Media Room, Recreation Room. Separato Eden Basement: SatVStubbeu, Daylight, Full Home Warranty. Yes Lot Size: 1 Up To 2 Acres Lot Desc: CU-Qa-Sac; Private Back-vard. Wooded Green Building Certification: Other Descriptive Info ", ation Nbrhd - Club House Int - g ft+ Ceil upper Nbrhd - Playgromnd Int -114 ft+ Ceil Claire Nbrhd - Swinutling Poul int - 2 -Story foyer Nbrhd - Sidewalk ':rit - DSL Available Nbrhd - Tennis Lighted Int - Hardwood Floors App] - Dishwasher Int - Trey Ceilings Appl - Double Ovens hA - Walk-in Closet(sj Appl - Garbage Disposal Ext - Deck A.ppl - Gas GvniRnUiCtop Ext - Front Pomh ,app] - Gas Water Heater Ext - lrrlgatlon System Appl - Microwave Ext - tither Appl - Self -Clean Oven Ext - Prof Landscaping Legal, Financial &`fax Information Tax ID: LandLot: €00311004 Plat BooklPage: 287128 DLeed Book/Page-, 410 Hcap - bone Fptr. - in GreatlFam Room FpIC - In Keeping Room FpIc - 8n Master Bedroom Heat - Forced Alr Heat - Gas Heat - Zoned Coni - Gelling 'Fares Cool - Central Electric Cool -Zoned Enrgy - Attic Vent Fares Enrgy - C;9ck Thermostat Lai Dimensions: I +acres HERS Index: Enrgy - High Ef"f System Enrgy - Ther mai Pane VVdws Water - Public Water Sewer - Septic Tank Laundry - Laundry Room Laundry - Upstairs Dock - None Distract: 2 SectionlGMD: 2 Lot: 42 Block, nia TaxlTax Yr: Sq Ft: 4,946 Sq Ft Source: Tax $0'/2008 Record Special: Cert Prof. Ovvrer Finance: N Home Bldr CPH&: Annl Master Assoc Fee Desc: $0 SwirrfTennis: $7001 A.nifl Assoc Fee: $7001 includes Initiiatlan Requsred SvnrniTennis Fee: $ Ovmer Second: Assumable: No Assessment DuelConternplated: HOA Phone: of 6 % i f ."071 i _.29 €'?I�] Mgtnt Co: Wignit Phone: Office Information Owner Name: Builder Agent LicenseM 165953 List Agent ID: CLOSES0 Co -List Agent 1D: MAJHERB Firm License#: H-14253 office: List Date: Days to Exp: 8121!2006 Duplicate FMLS 4: Said Information A1g€nt Eonail: Owner Phone: 678-461-0884 Show Inst: Anytsrw Accu Selling Cornrnission: 3 VRC: No Agent: SUZANNE B CLOSE Phone/Fax: - 770-594-45041678-461-0150 Co -Agent: ^, PhonelFax: 770-594-4979/618-401-0150 Phone]Fax: #678-461-87001 678-461-0150 Selling Agent/Broker may present offers directly to Seller?- N WD Date: WD DOM: Exp Hate: Exp DOM: 8/21/2007 Closing Date: Binding Agreerr�nt Date: Sale Price: $1?Q0{]00 Due Diligence Ends, Closing 5131 Original List Price: Drop Closing !Date: 5/311200 Q01* 255 Tata! DOM: 255 $1.299.900 WOLF %, 92% Costs Paid by Seiler: Terms: COW-UNIN5 Seo] Agent: _'. Sell Agit !b: •'_l Y NDYF. Lender Mediated: Sell Office: HN8H10 Sun, Apr 11, ..: .• ,,;i ..;n;ati-)n. r:ga,L'ik:s ofe ir:.'n dM: ` ; :.: :.:. i.:-�; r- : , ,si.;�r f -� .O[aJ.= Requested By - 201001.28 �:_rll [:!•;i f! -1I.1 I71� I!u+. Ilii i3lf:,rd rl3r: �^d �,nrs 3j;�ul•�5:"••� 1'E�f f.IB�; fi7rc,ig f17� :,L*flil r'1iISPr�CtiPf, by hi7d+Ot :. PIN the appropriate professianais. cz� 2r,10-:-2010 FIM',L5 - 4 of 6 4!1112010 1:29 PM Residentias- Detached $1,099,000 #:3518080 Sold Broker. Area: 13 Map:600G4 JENN06 1255 Cashiersy'Jx; f W City: ROSWELL State: County: gip: `x'075 GEORGIA FULTON Subdivision: Yr Built: Age Oesc: Litchfield Hundred 2006 NewfUnder Nbrhd - Swimming Poral Construction Lvls Bdrms Baths Hlf Bth Lake. NONE Waterfront: 0 Upper 4 4 0 Stories: 2 OrElem: Main 1 ; 1 + Stories CRABAPPLE Lower 0 1 0 CROSS NG f-13 1 Style: Middle: ELKINS Appi - Gas OvnlRn9,Ctop Traditional POINTE Appi - Gas Water Beater High: ROSWELL Directions: Hwv 92 west io King Rd- Turn rtand go to Cox rd- Turn left to Lithfielf Hundred- Follow Jenny Pruitt New Harms markers. ... r Residentias- Detached $1,099,000 #:3518080 Sold Broker. Area: 13 Map:600G4 JENN06 1255 Cashiersy'Jx; f W City: ROSWELL State: County: gip: `x'075 GEORGIA FULTON Subdivision: Yr Built: Age Oesc: Litchfield Hundred 2006 NewfUnder Nbrhd - Swimming Poral Construction Lvls Bdrms Baths Hlf Bth Lake. NONE Waterfront: 0 Upper 4 4 0 Stories: 2 OrElem: Main 1 ; 1 + Stories CRABAPPLE Lower 0 1 0 CROSS NG Total 5 6 1 Style: Middle: ELKINS Appi - Gas OvnlRn9,Ctop Traditional POINTE Appi - Gas Water Beater High: ROSWELL Directions: Hwv 92 west io King Rd- Turn rtand go to Cox rd- Turn left to Lithfielf Hundred- Follow Jenny Pruitt New Harms markers. Public Remrks SALE OF A L 1FETINIE'•f On remaining inventory of Luxury Estate Homes in one of Rosw ell's hestsv&nitennis neighborhoods. Sale begins 61261?008. This Estate borne reduced $200,000. Contact agent for details. Pr"lvatelCorlfielential Remarks Agents must accompany clients or register at the sales office- if not co-op fee is 1 %;- Features Bedroom: Bdrm On Main Lev, Master On Main Faster Bath: Double Vanity, Sep Tub/Shower, Whirlpool Tub Kitchen Brea kfast Area.. Breakfast Bar, Cabinets Stain, Island, Keeping Dining: Separate Dng Rm Setting. mer Room, Counter Top - Stone Const: Brick 4 Sides, Stone Clouse Faces: Unknown Tennis on Prop: No Pool: None Parking- 4 Car Gerage, Aifachad 'Road: P'a;ed, Public Main4n# FA: 4 Rooms: Bonus Room, Family Room, LibraryiOfFice, Media Room, Separate Den, Separate LVrg Rm Basement: Bath1Slubbed, Daylight, Full Horne Warranty: Yes Lot Size: 1 Up To 2 Acres Let Besc: CuVl7e-Sac, Level, Leval Drivamay, Private Lot Dimansions: 1-0 Backyard, Wooded acres Green Building Cer?ifscatlon; Other Descriptive information Nbrhd - Club House int -10 ft+ Cell Main Nbrhd - Playground Int - 9 ft + Ceil Louver Nbrhd - Swimming Poral Int - 9 ft+ Ceii Upper Nbrhd - Street Lights Ext -tic Nbrhd - Tennis Lighters Ext - Prof Landscaping Appi - Double Ovens Ext - Patio Apps - Dishwasher Ext - irrigation System Appl - Garbage Disposal Hcap - Other Appi - Gas OvnlRn9,Ctop Fpkc - in Master Bedroom Appi - Gas Water Beater Fplc - In Other Room Legal, Financial & Tax Information Fplc - In Keeping Room Heat - Forced Air Meat - Cas Cost - Central E :sctric Cool - Fan Gael -Zoned Enrgy - Att;c Vent Fans Enrgy - Clack Therrmstat Enrgy - Extra Insulation Enrgy - High Eff System Tax ID: LandLot: 1003&1004 District: 2 Plat BookiPage: 287!128 peed BooklPage: Gi0 HERS Index. 0 Water - Public Water Sewer - Septic Tank Laundry - Hall Laundry - Laundry Room Dock - Nona SectlonIGMD: 2 Let: 46 Bloch: nla TaxlTax Yr: ' Sq Ft Source: Not $012005 q F#; E7 Xmilable 5peclal: None Owner Finance: N Domer Second: Assumable: No CPRS: Ann[ Master Assoc Fee Desc: $0 Assessment DuelConternplated; SwimlTennis: $7001 Annl Assoc Fee: $700 ; Initiat'sar! HOA Phone: Required Required Fee: $ Mgmt Co: Mgmt Phone: Nigrat Erroil: Office Informaticni Owner Mame: Rosen Cus orn Owner Phone: 678--461-088.1 Show Inst: Anytime Access Humes =Agent License#: 165953 Selling Commission, 3% CIRC: No •—PhonefFax: LlstAgentiD:CLO5E5B Agent: 770-594-4994 167z3-461-0150 Co -List Agent 117: SWENCENl1 Co -Agent: PhonefFax:770-594-4993 16 78-461 -0150 Firm LlcL-nse#: H-94253 PhonefFax: # 678-461-87001 678-431-0150 Office: Selling AgentlBroker rwy present offers directly to Seller?: N List [late: Clays to Exp: WD Date: WD DOM: Exp Date: Exp DOM: 612&12(307 1111512008 Duplicate FMLS #_ Sold Information Sale Price: $1066-030 Due Diligence Ends: Closing [late: 1012/2008 S' d'sn nt Date; 911612CK38 Original List Price: $1,298.900 Prop dosing Date: 10/2J2008 DOM; 446 ota M- 81 SP/OLP %: 829a Costs Paid by Seller: 0 Terms: COW-UNIN5 Sell Agent lD: MAJHEF?B Sell Agent: _ isiiwJ, Lender Mediated: Sell Office: HNBH07 Sun, Apr 1l, Requested 13y: P `Itr �,._ ❑i:.�; •, -••. •.;inr;�.aa::a. re���„��_. ❑i s�u.ce, ,r1..lu::.ng t�r.it i�ot limi:zs: to �ys:a� � lockage, is 2010 01:28 �1�esned r+AS b,: r-i.:r r.. �, 'N,:. �i ! •_ V pe ticVt by and or with ;:rt. ^ci nc ter: d ::e .. riSied rP� a�ign rsonai ins er. r PM he :: r•rr,n-nIc i?i•:7fr3....:,!�, i- ;n 2_201C+ FF:"'_r AiC: 6 of 6 4/11/2010 11,29 PNf Residential Age Desc: Detached Demographic 2flOB #-3907980 a:: t:: _: Broker: ATFH02Area: 13 1295 Cashiers W a Media: ca City: ROSWELL State: County: Waterfront: 0 GEORGIA FULTON Public Remarks $929.000 ' Map- 6000-4 Zip: 3GO75 Subdivision: Litchfield Yr Built: Age Desc: Hundred Demographic 2flOB Newftlnder Bedroom: odrrn On Wri Lev Construc*�on Lvls Bdrms $aths 1iif M Lake: Waterfront: 0 Upper 4 4 4 NONE Main 1 I 1 Stories. 2 Elem: SWEET Lower a 0 r7 Stories APPLE Total 5 5 1 Style: Biddle: ELKI NS # Fly: " Traditional POO NTE Basement: 'Daylight, Exterior Erity, Full High: ROSWELL Directions: From 400 go Weston 92 to King Road, rake a right At dead end, t3ke left onto Cox Rd, then right at 2nd Litchfield antrance at Buckspor[- i urn Ight on Ad son, right on Cashiers Way Priced below recent appraisal. Vr4hat a remarkable price to be able to ow,, this b7d Fred King hm- All hrdv�ds on rrain w/secortd ivi rrsr & 3 other hdrms up & guest rm on main. Lr g flit open to a vhd great rm vlfp, great for entertaining. Out door fpic on covered porch- Private/Confidential Remarks Call Agent for SHowng €nstructons � �' @ �t� C� '� I ; _ ; Features Bedroom: odrrn On Wri Lev Master Hath: Double Vanity. Carden Tub. Sep TublShower, Whirlpool Tub Kitchen: Breakfast Area, Keeping Room, Pantry, Counter Top - Stone Dining: Separate ON Rrn Setting: mer Const: Bfiok 4 Sides, Stone House Faces: South Tennis on Trop: No Pool: None Parking: 3 Car Garage Road: Paved # Fly: " Rooms: Bonus Room, Computer. Great Room, Library] OT -lice, Loft, OLi er, Separate Lvng Rm Basement: 'Daylight, Exterior Erity, Full Home Warranty: Yes Lot Size: 1 Up To 2 Acres Lot Desc: Level, Level Orivev,ay, Private Backyard, Wooded Lot Dimensions: 0 Green RuJiding CeYtii;cation: HERS Index: 0 Other Descriptive infon-nation -.... Nbrhd - Street Lij4hts 'int - [ISL Available Hcap - None Laundry - Laundry Room Nbrhd -Tennis Lighted Int - His & Her Closets Fpir. -teras Starter Laundry - Upstairs Appl - Double Ovens int - Hardwood Floors Fplc - In Living Room Dock - Norte Appi - Dishwasher int - Cable Modem i=ptc - 1n ,easter Bedroom Appl - Garbage Disposal Int - Rear Stairs Fplc - In Keeping Room Appl - Gas 0vn1RnglGtop int - Trey Ceilings Heat - Gas Appl -?Microwave int - Walk -Irl Closet(s) Cool - Centcal Electric Appl - Gas Water Veater Ext - Front Porch Enrgy - High Elf System Int - f 0 ftp C 01 lritaM Ext - Prof Landscaping Water - Pub9a Water Int - 2 -Story Foyer Ext - Irrigation System Sewer - Septic Tanis Legal, Financials & ax Information Tax Id: . LandLot: 940-1,012 rXstrict: 2 SecihonIGMD: 2 Lot: 37 Block: 0 Plat Book,Page: Deed Book/Page- 0/0 TaxlTax Yr: Sq Ft: 4,729 Sq Ft Source: Tax 259114E $412[30& Record Special: Mone Owner Finance. N Owner Second,. Assumable: No No CPHS: Anni ?Master Assoc Fee Desc: $0 Assessment DuelConternplated. No 6,Arriffennis: $70D I Anna Assoc Fee: $70001 Includes Initiation Required .S.v4rri/Tannis Fee: $0 HCA Phone: Mgrnt Co: Mgmt Diene: Mgrnt Ernail: Office information Owner Name: Builder Owner Phone. 878-461-W184 Show Inst: Anytime Access, Lockbox ,Agent License#: 165953 Selling Commission: 3 VRC: Nb --' List Agent ID: CLOSESB Agent. PhoneEFax: 404-924-6814 1404-924-5815 I. of 411;./2010 1.29 PM 2 of 6 4/11/2010 1:29 PM Co-List Agent ID: SPENCEW Co-Agent: _ s; r `.3?EN :- PhonelFax: --- --- --- 77&,642-1760 r 77D-640-0562 Firm License#: H-57502 Phone/Fax: # 4D4-237-50001 404237-5401 ❑ffk;e: - 30THESYS N; Selling AgentlBroker my present offers directly to Seller?: 1V — t.ist Date: [says to Exp: WD Date: WD DON{: Exp Date: Exp DONT: Duplicate FN#LS #: Sold Information Sale Price: $ Due Diligence Ends: Closing Date: Binding Agreement Date: Original List Price; S995,00D Prop Closing Date: SPlOLP %: 01% Costs Paid by Seller: Terms: Sell Agent ID: Sell Agent: Lender Mediated: Sell Office: Sun, Apr 11, Th,- 3G,:.1F--'y c; 311 :r,::rn.3-�oii. regard's 3 a ;r.•.ir: . ine!,,Fd ng b:rt n•.�t limited L sguart N-AAage, is Requested By: 2010 011:2$ dk•an,ed r.=_:sab'e but no: Jug=.rlr'!C + an ShOUfd he 1-R.-Meed ehrpugrt persanal r.A ci PM r r-. apr.i.,rii:.._ ,:i._:es_;: n, G 032-20M '.AL` GR7n. < _._... -- - 2 of 6 4/11/2010 1:29 PM STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON ORDINANCE NO. 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. WHEREAS, the Purchasing Policies of the City of Milton currently require that all contracts for services, with certain limited exceptions, be procured through a procurement process; WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton recognize that the specialized nature of professional services often results in the need to procure such services without utilizing a competitive procurement process; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton thus desire to amend the City's Purchasing Policies to allow for the procurement of professionals services without the utilization of a competitive procurement process; BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Milton, Georgia as follows: Section I: Article II, Scope, of the Purchasing Policies of the Financial Management Program contained in Ordinance No. 06-11-05, approved by the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton on November 21, 2006, is hereby amended to read as follows: `7, SCOPE The scope of this purchasing policy covers the procurement of ALL MATERIALS AND SERVICES, except as otherwise provided below remarding Professional Services as define below, without regard to the past method by which the material or service has been or is customarily procured. The policy covers all contractual and purchase agreements between the City of Milton and another company or person. The procurement function includes the initial agreement/purchase, renewals, changes and/or re -negotiations. This policy establishes the specific responsibility and authority of the procurement of materials and services. For clarification purposes, these purchasing policies are not required to be followed by organizations providing services, directly or indirectly to the City through service orientation contract personnel. Those contractual agreement of service oriented in nature were procured in conjunction with the creation of the City. However, as part of the audit process, the organizations providing services, either directly or indirectly to the City shall have their internal controls and accounting processes evaluated and a measure of assurance given as a requirement of completion of the City's annual audit. Professional Services shall not be subject to the biddinz or other co etitive Procurement requirements of these Purchasing policies,provided that contracts for Pro essional Services shall be suh'ect to the approval requirements of Article UC 6 b of these Purchasin Policies. The City may, in its sole discretion utilize competitive procurement methods in the procurement of Professional Services. For the purposes of this Paragraph, the term "Professional Services" shall mean services requiring a specialized bachelor's degree or a graduate degree and also requiring licensin or cern ication hy a Georgia statewide authorizinz entity, including, but not limited to en ineerin and architectural services accountinz services and legal services." Section II: This Ordinance Number shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton. Any and all existing or pre-existing ordinances covering the same matters as embraced in this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and all ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. ORDAINED this the day of 92010 Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: Sudie AM Gordon, Interim City Clerk City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Carter Lucas, PE – Public Works Director Date: Submitted on April 19, 2010 for the April 26, 2010 Council Meeting Agenda Item: Approval of an ordinance to revise Chapter 48, Article IV. Traffic Calming and Control of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances Background Staff is recommending a series of changes to the traffic calming ordinance. In November 2008 Street Smarts, Inc. was contracted by the city to review the existing traffic calming ordinance and make recommendations on potential changes to the ordinance. The changes were intended to update the ordinance to current standards and simplify the ordinance where possible. As a result of the recommendations from Street Smarts, Inc. as well as reviews by City Council, DRB and staff the following ordinance is presented for approval. Discussion Enclosed with your packet is a clean version of the proposed ordinance. The revisions are being presented in two parts, an ordinance which will cover the legislative issues and a policy and procedures manual. Most of the changes that you will see to the existing ordinance are being included in the proposed policy and procedures manual which is intended to be presented at the April 26, 2010 meeting. The following table highlights several items that have been the point of discussion during the previous meetings and how those items have been addressed in the proposed ordinance. The final recommendations are as follows: Item Existing Ordinance Proposed Ordinance Speed Threshold 85% speed greater than 10mph over the posted speed limit. (85% of the vehicles are traveling 10mph or less over the posted speed limit) 50% of the traffic volume exceeds the posted speed limit Based on the data we have for the subdivisions that have requested a review the proposed threshold appears to equate to an 85th percentile speed of 6 mph to 7 mph over the posted speed limit Item Existing Ordinance Proposed Ordinance City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 2 Cost Share 75% city – 25% applicant 50% city – 50% applicant Comment: The cost share would be those costs associated with design and construction of the base traffic calming details presented in the Policy and Procedures Manual. The applicant has the option to upgrade the details provided they pay any additional costs associated with design, construction and maintenance. Applicant Petition Current ordinance is conflicting in that it states both 65% and 75% support for the measures in different sections of the ordinance. It does allow an HOA to approve the measures in lieu of the petition process. Where a mandatory HOA exists and the HOA has the authority to make such decisions the HOA may act on behalf of the subdivision in the approval of traffic calming measures. Where that entity does not exist the petition will need the approval of 67% (2/3 majority) of the study area. Comment: After discussions with several HOA’s staff agrees that where the HOA is mandatory and has been given the authority to act on behalf of the subdivision they should be allowed to exercise that right. Where one does not exist the petition will need to be approved by 67% of th e properties within the study area. Study Area Referred to as the “impacted area” in the existing ordinance it includes all property owners along the roadway where the traffic calming devices are to be installed as well as those street segments where vehicles may be diverted to avoid the traffic calming measures and all cul-de-sacs that obtain access from those street segments where the traffic calming measures have been proposed. The study area is a subdivision or neighborhood and includes affected street property owners and property owners fronting adjacent side streets within subdivision or neighborhood where Public Works considers it likely that motorist must travel through the proposed traffic calming measure in order to access their lots. Comment: The definition remains essentially the same except that the study area is limited to a subdivision or neighborhood and it does not include streets where traffic may be potentially diverted. To include those streets where traffic may be diverted added unnecessary confusion to the process. Where traffic may go to avoid a traffic calming measure may not be easily determined, speed control rather than volume control is the goal of the program. Staff also feels that due to the configuration of the majority of our neighborhoods the elimination of these streets will not significantly alter the defined study area. Legal Review City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 3 Concurrent review with Legal by Paul Higbee – Jarrard & Davis for form and content. Attachment 1. Ordinance to amend Chapter 48 Article IV. Traffic Calming and Control of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances. ORDINANCE NUMBER: STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON 1ST READING: APRIL 12, 2010 2ND READING: APRIL 26, 2010 A ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 48, ARTICLE IV. TRAFFIC CALMING AND CONTROL OF THE CITY OF MILTON’S CODE OF ORDINANCES WHEREAS, the City of Milton is authorized by O.C.G.A. 32-4-92 to perform all acts which are necessary, proper, or incidental to the efficient operation and development of the municipal street system; and, WHEREAS, on June 7th, 2007 the City of Milton adopted a Community Services Policy which included traffic calming procedures; and, WHEREAS, the City of Milton wishes to amend and update their traffic calming procedures; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Milton, Georgia while in regular session on the 26th day of April 2010 at 6:00 p.m. that Chapter 48, Article IV. Traffic Calming and Control of City of Milton code of ordinances is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Chapter 48, Article IV. Traffic Calming as attached hereto. SO ORDAINED AND EFFECTIVE ON THIS 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010. __________________________________________ JOE LOCKWOOD, MAYOR Attest: Sudie Gordon, Interim City Clerk (Seal) ATTACHMENT A ARTICLE IV. TRAFFIC CALMING DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 48-235. Traffic Calming Warrants. (a) For the purposes of the traffic calming program, a traffic calming measure may be warranted on a residential street if any of the following are found during a traffic study: (1) 50 % or more of the total traffic is exceeding the posted speed limit; or (2) For pedestrian and other safety related problems, confirmation will be made based on: a. Crash reports; b. Inadequate roadway geometry (poor sight distance, etc.); c. School locations; and d. Other safety parameters. Sec. 48-236. Local Residential Street Defined. The city shall only support the installation of traffic calming devices on local residential streets within the city. A local residential street shall be defined as follows: (1) Those streets classified by the city as primarily used for direct access to property and connections to higher order systems; and, (2) Those streets where the adjacent land use is deemed residential in nature; and, (3) Those streets with posted speed limits of 25 mph or 30 mph; and, (4) Those streets with an average daily traffic count of 400 to 4,000 vehicles per day (VPD). Volumes above 4,000 VPD would be considered a major road per the MUTCD for traffic control purposes, and volumes below 400 VPD would not typically provide enough benefit to warrant the expenditure of public funds for installation and the increased maintenance costs. Sec. 48-237. Policy; Introduction. (a) In order to enhance the quality of neighborhood life and the safety of the city's residents, the Public Works Department is establishing this traffic calming program. The goals of this program are: (1) Reduction of traffic speed to a safe and appropriate limit. (2) Encourage community participation. (3) Encouragement and enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems. (4) Limiting traffic calming to local residential streets. (5) Ensuring emergency vehicle access. (6) Use of effective, efficient, economical, and environmentally sound traffic calming solutions. (7) Multi-discipline input from engineers, planners, police, and fire. (8) Continued monitoring of speeds, traffic volumes, and accidents. (b) The Public Works Department shall review applications for traffic calming measures in accordance with this ordinance and the City of Milton Traffic Calming Policy as may be periodically amended. (c) It is extremely important to realize that the approach taken by the traffic calming progr am is a systematic one. While each situation may be somewhat unique, the same definitions and criteria, as outlined in this article, are applied. Also, the transportation system of the city should be considered as a whole. Solving one local problem should not cause another problem to appear somewhere else. (d) The traffic calming program is to be used only for local residential streets, as defined in section 48-236. (e) Keeping with the general guidelines and recommendations as set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Institute of Transportation Engineers aids in the recognition and understanding of traffic control devices. Standardization of these devices will help ensure that any given traffic calming measures including the use of speed humps will be equally recognizable and require the same action on the part of the motorist regardless of where they are encountered. Secs. 48-238--48-256. Reserved. DIVISION 2. PROCESS Sec. 48-257. Traffic Calming Process. The city's traffic calming process shall be defined in the City of Milton Traffic Calming Policy. Sec 48-258. Petition Approval Percentage. (a) Prior to the development of conceptual plans at least 67 percent (2/3 majority) of the homeowners in the study area must vote in favor of the installation of traffic calming measures. Where a neighborhood or other defined study area has a mandatory homeowners' association or other legal mechanism which may legally represent their position on such matters, this entity may replace the petition process as approved by the Public Works Director after consultation with the city attorney. (b) The study area shall be as defined in the Traffic Calming Policy. Sec. 48-259. Fee. Prior to the development of any conceptual plan the Applicant shall pay a fee to the Public Works Department . Said fee shall be in an amount established by the Public Works Department and approved by the Mayor and City Council. Secs. 48-260--48-280. Reserved. Sec. 48-281. Neighborhood Cost Share. (a) Basic installation of the traffic calming devices will be shared by the city (50 percent) and the Applicant (50 percent). If the community chooses upgrades or enhanced versions of a traffic calming device, the community will pay the entire cost of design, co nstruction, maintenance and other related charges above those of the basic device, as defined by the traffic calming details provided in the traffic calming policy. (b) Any landscaping, including maintenance, will be paid entirely by the applicant. (c) Easement and right-of-way acquisition shall be provided by the applicant (d) Repair and routine maintenance of all traffic calming devices, excluding landscape maintenance and design enhancements, will be the city's responsibility. Sec. 48-283. Removal of Traffic Calming Devices. (a) If the Applicant decides that they no longer want the previously installed traffic calming devices, they must follow the same procedure to obtain 67 percent or HOA approval as defined in Section 48-258 for installation. (b) Active traffic calming devices should remain in place at least 12 months before removal. If devices are removed, the road and right-of-way must also be brought back to city standards. (c) Removal shall be done by a qualified contractor at no cost to the city, where the Applicant assumes all related cost in the removal of traffic calming devices. (d) The city reserves the right to remove traffic calming devices for any reason. Upon approval of the City Manager, the Public Works Director may order the Applicant to remove a traffic calming measure in accordance with Section 48-283(c). Sec. 48-284. Permit Required. Any work completed by the applicant within the right-of-way shall require a right-of- way encroachment permit as directed by the Public Works Department. Sec. 48-285. Variance Request. Variance requests to the requirements of these regulations shall be submitted in a form as prescribed by the Public Works Director, along with such fees as shall be established by the Mayor and City Council. Each variance request shall be coordinated with all other affected city departments. The Public Works Director shall be authorized to approve variance requests related to design and construction standards established in the City of Milton Traffic Calming Policy. All other variance requests shall be heard by the mayor and city council in accordance with standard operating procedures. Sec. 48-286. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by a decision of any City of Milton staff member in the application of this ordinance shall have the right to appeal that decision to the Mayor and City Council within 30 days of the date of the decision. Secs. 48-287--48-301. Reserved. City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Carter Lucas, PE – Public Works Director Date: Submitted on April 14, 2010 for the April 26, 2010 Council Meeting Agenda Item: Approval of a Resolution to Adopt the City of Milton Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual Background Staff has recommended a series of changes to the traffic calming ordinance. Part of the proposed change is to split the current document into an ordinance, which has been submitted separately, and policy and procedures manual, attached hereto. Adoption of the standard policies and procedures will allow that document to be more easily modified in the future. Discussion Attached hereto is a copy of the Traffic Calming Policies and Procedures Manual to be used in conjunction with the revised Traffic Calming Ordinance. The intent of the manual is to separate those day-to-day type activities from the ordinance to allow the document to be more flexible. The majority of the manual consists of information that exists in the current ordinance but was moved out of the most recently proposed changes to that ordinance. The remainder of the manual is information and construction details that have been developed throughout this review process. Legal Review None. Attachments 1. City of Milton Traffic Calming Policies and Procedures Manual. STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON RESOLUTION NO.________ A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE CITY OF MILTON TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Milton, Georgia while in Regular called Council meeting on the 26th day of April, 2010 at 6:00p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. That the Traffic Calming Policy for the City of Milton, attached hereto and incorporated herin by reference as Exhibit “A,” is hereby adopted and approved; and, SECTION 2. That all resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. That this Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. RESOLVED this 26th day of April, 2010. Approved: ______________________ Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie Gordon Interim City Clerk (Seal) City of Milton Georgia Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual April 26, 2010 City of Milton Public Works Department 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107G Milton, Georgia 30004 (679) 242-2500 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 201.0 Table of Cones I. Introduction... ..... ..................................................................... __ ...... ...... .......... .............. 3 II. Application......................................................................................................... 3 III. Traffic Calming Process.............................................................................................................4 IV. Applicant Petitions....................................................................................................................5 Appendix A— Passive Traffic Calming Measures......................................................................6 A-1. Radar Trailer..................................................................................................................7 A-2. Narrowing Lanes............................................................................................................7 A-3. One Way Treatment......................................................................................................8 A-4. On -Street Parking..........................................................................................................8 A-5. Gateway and Pavement Treatments.............................................................................9 A-6. Increased Patrolling and Target Enforcement.............................................................10 A-7. Neighborhood Safety and Awareness Programs (Neighborhood Watch)...................11 Appendix B —Active Traffic Calming Measures......................................................................12 B-1. Standard Speed Hump ................................... ......................................................... .....13 B-2. Intersection Hump.......................................................................................................14 B-3. Neighborhood Traffic Circles (Roundabouts)..............................................................16 B-4. Splitters (short medians).............................................................................................18 B-5. Chicanes (deflectors)...................................................................................................20 B-6. Chokers (neck-downs)................................................................................................22 B-7. Curb Extensions..................................................................................... ......... .... 24 B-8. Modified Intersections................................................................................................25 B-9. Median Barriers. ..................................................................................... ......... _27 Appendix C — Standard Traffic Calming Details......................................................................29 C-1. Speed Cushion........................................................................................................... C-1 C -Z. Speed Hump....................................................................... .. C-2 C-3. Speed Table/Raised Crosswalk.................................................................................. C-3 C-4. Chicane/Center Islands................................................................... ............... C-4 Appendix D — Traffic Calming Forms.......................................................................................30 D-1. Application................................................................................................................. D-1 D-2. Petition........................................................................................................... Page 1 2 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual i 1. I. Introduction In order to enhance the quality of neighborhood life and the safety of the city's residents, the Public Works Department is establishing this traffic calming program. The program is committed to balancing the needs of our residential neighborhoods with the operational mobility needs of the city road system. The goals of this program are: ■ Reduction of traffic speed to a safe and appropriate limit. ■ Encourage community participation. ■ Encouragement and enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems. ■ Limiting traffic calming to local residential streets. r Ensuring emergency vehicle access. ► Use of effective, efficient, economical, and environmentally sound traffic calming solutions. • Multi -discipline input from engineers, planners, police, and fire. • Continued monitoring of speeds, traffic volumes, and accidents. The Public Works Department shall review applications for traffic calming measures in accordance with this policy and the City of Milton Code of Ordinances, Chapter 48, Article 1V (Traffic Calming), as may be periodically amended. It is extremely important that the approach taken by the traffic calming program is a systematic one. While each situation may be somewhat unique, the same definitions and criteria, as outlined in this policy, are applied. Also, the transportation system of the city should be considered as a whole. Solving one local problem should not cause another problem to appear somewhere else. The traffic calming program is to be used only for local residential streets, as defined in the ordinance. Keeping with the general guidelines and recommendations as set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Institute of Transportation Engineers, aids in the recognition and understanding of traffic control devices. Standardization of these devices will help ensure that any given traffic calming measures including the use of speed humps will be equally recognizable and require the same action on the part of the motorist regardless of where they are encountered. II. Application The application form is required to be submitted to the Department of Public Works to begin the traffic calming process. Applicants should provide detailed information on the description of traffic concerns and any additional pictures or sketches to identify problem areas. The completed application must be returned to the Public Works Department at address below, where it will be processed. The application form is located in Appendix D. City of Milton Department of Public Works Traffic Calming Program 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107G Milton, Georgia 30004 Page 1 3 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 201.0 III. Traffic Calming Process This section describes the process which will be followed to evaluate a request for traffic calming measures. A Homeowners' Association (HOA), or if no HOA exists, a neighborhood group, or individual (referred to herein as "Applicant") will submit an application form to the Department of Public Works to determine if traffic calming measures along a stretch of roadway may be warranted. An application form is included in Appendix D. The applicant must be an individual with the authority to act on behalf of the subdivision or neighborhood. 2. Public Works will make a field review of the area to determine what studies should be conducted to determine if the roadway is eligible based on the requirements established by the Traffic Calming Ordinance. 3. The project will be reviewed in accordance with the warrant criteria established in the ordinance. The Applicant will be informed in writing of the results of the study. a. If the results of the study indicate traffic calming measures are not warranted, the applicant will be notified why it is not eligible and the process ends. The Applicant must wait a minimum of six months to request another traffic calming study. b. If the results of the study indicate that traffic calming measures are warranted, an application fee in the amount of $540 and the Applicant petition are due to Public Works at this time. The application is a non-refundable fee. 4. Applications will generally be processed on a first come - first serve basis based on the time at which the completed applicant petition and application fee are received. The Public Works Department reserves the right to adjust project priorities based on available funding. 5. If the results of the study indicate that traffic calming measures are warranted then Public Works will schedule a meeting with the Applicant to discuss the study findings, suggested concept solutions, and the overall traffic calming process. 6. Public Works will develop a design and construction cost estimate based on the City's approved traffic calming construction details (See Appendix C) and conceptual solutions discussed with the Applicant. 7. If the Applicant proposes to deviate from the approved construction details or proposes alternate details, the Applicant shall be responsible for all construction and design costs associated with the implementation of those details. The final design must be approved by Public Works prior to construction. 8. Where the applicant proposes to use alternate materials on the City's approved construction details, the applicant shall be responsible for all design and construction Page 1 4 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual costs above the base cost established for the appropriate construction detail. All materials must be approved by Public Works prior to inclusion. 9. Police and Fire have veto power on any solution that may create an issue for emergency vehicles. 10, Public Works will confirm that there are adequate funds in the Department's budget and may prioritize petitions based on available funding. Once notified that the application has been approved to proceed to construction, the applicant shall have 45 days to submit their share of the estimated construction costs. Application shall be void if the required funds are not submitted within 45 days unless otherwise approved by Public Works. 11. When City funds are utilized, standard city procurement procedures will be followed to implement the traffic calming measures. 12. Within 6 months of project installation, Public Works staff may conduct follow-up studies to measure project effectiveness. IV -Applicant Petitions The city requires that there be wide support from the community for implementing traffic calming measures in its neighborhood. Prior to the development of conceptual plans at least 67 percent (213 majority) of the homeowners in the study area must sign a petition in favor of the installation of traffic calming measures. Prior to the submission of the petition the applicant should confirm the extents of the designated study area with the Public Works Department. Where a neighborhood or other defined study area has a mandatory homeowners' association or other legal mechanism which may legally represent their position on such matters, this entity may replace the petition process as approved by the Public Works Director after consultation with the city attorney. The study area is defined as a subdivision or neighborhood and includes affected street property owners and property owners fronting adjacent side streets within the subdivision or neighborhood where Public Works considers it likely that motorist must travel through the proposed traffic calming measures in order to access their lots. When a mandatory homeowners' association or other legal mechanism may represent the applicant, a letter is required stating that the HOA has the authority to make financial decisions on behalf of the neighborhood or subdivision. The letter should formally record the applicant's support for the installation of traffic calming measures in the neighborhood, to be constructed within the public right-of-way and conform to the design and safety standards for such devices as determined by the City of Milton Department of Public Works. The letter should also affirm that the applicant will be financially responsible for at least 56 percent of the basic installation costs for the traffic calming measures. The letter will be reviewed by the City Attorney. The completed petition or letter must be returned to the Public Works Department where it will be validated. The petition form is located in Appendix D. Page 15 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedui-i 201.0 Appendix A Passive Traffic Calming Measures The primary use of passive measures is to reduce the speed of traffic while raising awareness of the traffic problems in residential areas. These methods are less costly than active devices, as they do not affect the geometry of the roadway or require extensive construction. Passive traffic calming measures include radar trailers, re -striping, and installing signs. General advantages of passive geometry traffic calming measures: ■ Pose no restrictions for bicycles or pedestrian traffic. ■ Does not affect intersection capacity or operation. ■ Cheaper than active traffic calming devices. • Raise awareness of drivers to speeding problems. ■ No impacts to transit or emergency services. ■ Can be done regardless of the grade of the road. General disadvantages of passive traffic calming measures: • Not necessarily enforceable. • Not always effective over time. Page 16 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 2ov.) A -'I. Radar Trailer Description: The City of Milton is considering the operation of a number of portable radar speed meters capable of measuring vehicle speed and graphically displaying the speed of the motorist. Primary Purpose: Reduce vehicle speeds by raising the awareness of the driver to their speed Advantages: ■ Possible speed reduction for short intervals at the radar trailer location. ■ Opportunity to collect volume and speed data, dependent upon equipment. Disadvantages: ■ Not an enforcement tool. • Minimal effectiveness on reducing traffic speeds over time. A-2. Narrowing Lanes Description: Striping is used to narrow travel lanes to 10 -foot widths. Primary Purpose: Reduce vehicle speed by creating the perception of a narrower road. Generally, speeds are lower in 1 0 -foot wide lanes than in 12 -foot wide lanes. Advantages: ■ Re -striping can include bike lanes or bike -friendly shoulders. This reduces the vehicular lane width while also providing a safe place for bikes to travel. Striping to include bike lanes also reduces the potential for driver to drive outside the lane. • Striping is easily modified when done with a concurrent asphalt resurfacing program. Disadvantages: ■ Citizens do not always perceive striping to be an effective traffic calming technique. Page 1 7 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual I 201.0 A-3. One Way Treatment Description: One-way treatment involves having streets or roadways upon which vehicular traffic is allowed to travel in one direction only. Primary Purpose: Increase the safety of a roadway by reducing the number of conflicting movements. One-way treatment is not a traffic calming method, but can be used to manage traffic flow in an area. Advantages: • Increases the safety of the roadway by reducing the number of conflicting movements. • One way treatment of a roadway is enforceable. Disadvantages: • Changing a street from a two-way operation to a one-way operation takes a lengthy implementation process. • Changing a street from a two-way operation to a one-way operation may impact emergency services or transit systems. ■ Changing a street from a two-way operation to a one-way operation requires the consideration of the impact on the local system. Steps should be taken to ensure that making a roadway one way will not move the problem elsewhere or create new problems. ■ Works best in a system comprised of parallel roads. • Residents may be unconvinced by changing traveling behaviors within the subdivision. Other Considerations: ■ Emergency services and transit routes should be considered when changing from two- way operation to one-way operation. Their opinions will be solicited and weighed appropriately. A-4. On -street Parking Description: On street parking provides designated parking spots on the sides of roadways. Primary Purpose: Page 18 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 2010 On -street vehicular spaces provide both additional parking and traffic calming benefits. Drivers tend to travel more slowly when driving past a lane of parked cars due to a reduction in the perceived travel way. Advantages: • May reduce the speeds of the through traffic. • Increase pedestrian safety — on -street parking provides a greater buffer between the sidewalk and the traveling vehicular lanes. Disadvantages: ■ Common perception that on -street parking is not aesthetically pleasing. • Possible difficulty seeing pedestrians crossing at mid -block locations. Other Considerations: • Parking spaces should be prohibited at least 100' from an intersection and at least 10' on both sides of a fire hydrant. • Create a wide single lane where on -street parking would be promoted. A-5. Gateway and Pavement Treatments GATEWAY TREATMENT I. . ;.. Description: Gateway treatments are decorative entrances indicating transition from one area to another. Pavement treatments involve decorative pavement in the form of different colors and textures. Primary Purpose: Visually alert the driver that they are entering a new area, such as a residential area from an arterial road. Gateway treatments can include signs, decorative walls, arches, pillars, hedgerows, etc. Pavement treatments can include colored concrete, stamped concrete, or bricks. Advantages: • Versatile and easily individualized for each specific neighborhood. ■ Aesthetically pleasing. Page 19 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 2010 • Easy to implement with active traffic calming devices. Disadvantages: ■ Limited utility in speed reduction. • Maintenance and replacement costs can be costly and difficult to address. Other Considerations: • Gateway treatments should not obscure proper sight distance, therefore making the intersection less safe. Structures are not permitted in the public right-of-way. A-6. increased Patrolling and Target Enforcement Description: Police can intensify coverage for an area of concern, most commonly to enforce speed limits and stop signs. Primary Purpose: Increase the awareness to the traveling public of law enforcement and to encourage them to obey traffic laws. Advantages: • Citizens perceive as achieving results with an increased police presence. ■ Decrease in traffic violations in the general area. Disadvantages: • Police generally do not have the staff to regularly patrol most residential areas. ■ Time that police officers spend patrolling for traffic violators is not directly spent in reducing violent crime. • Many residential roads have insufficient geometric alignment for radar enforcement. • Increasing patrols and enforcement only reduces speeds in the general area during the period of intensified attention. Once the intensity subsides, the traffic violators typically return to their previous habits. • Enforcement applies to all residents in violation. Other Considerations: ■ If heavy truck traffic is an issue, citizens can request that the road be added to the truck route prohibition list. Page 1 10 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 1 2010 A-7. Neighborhood Safety and Awareness Program (Neighborhood Watch) Description: Teach techniques motorists, pedestrians, and parents can use to help address speeding issues, and increase awareness of their driving habits. Unique programs can be developed for specific cases, such as crime awareness or parking enforcement. Primary Purpose: Increase the awareness and activity of the neighborhood. Frequently, it is members of the neighborhood who are the most flagrantly violating traffic ordinances (i.e. stops signs or the speed limit). Advantages: • Involves the neighborhood actively and regularly in the solution. • Easily combines with other traffic calming techniques. Disadvantages: • Citizens do not always perceive neighborhood watch programs as effective traffic calming techniques. • Program effectiveness is proportional to the level of neighborhood association involvement. Page 1 11 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 2010 Appendix B Active Traffic Calming Measures The primary purposes of active traffic calming devices are to reduce the speed of traffic, improve bike and pedestrian safety, and raise awareness of traffic problems in a residential area. These methods are more expensive than passive devices because they often affect the geometry of the roadway, which requires extensive construction and maintenance. Active traffic calming devices include speed humps, traffic circles, and splitters. General advantages of active traffic calming devices: • Effective at solving specific traffic issues, especially speeding • Raises awareness of drivers to speeding problems General disadvantages of active traffic calming devices: • May pose restrictions for bicycle traffic • May negatively impact transit or emergency services • Higher cost than passive traffic calming measures Page 1 12 Traffic Calming Policy and. Procedures Manual 2t31fi B-1, Standard Speed Humps Description: The standard speed hump is a 22 -foot long, four to six inch high, and constructed of asphalt or concrete, extending the entire width of the roadway which causes vertical displacement of the vehicle. The hump consists of two 6 foot long ramps flanking a 10 foot flat section. Humps can be colored and/or textured to add aesthetic appeal. Primary Purpose. Reduce vehicle speeds by providing vertical displacement of the vehicle that result in a jolt if the vehicle's speed is too high. Advantages: Reduces vehicle speeds — encouraging 25 mph vehicle speeds. Pose no restrictions for bicycles. Do not affect intersection capacity or operation. Disadvantages: • Potentially increase traffic noise from braking and acceleration of vehicles, particularly buses and trucks Transit Service Impacts: 22 -foot speed humps create a minor impact to transit scheduling. Emergency Services_ Impacts: When speed hump designs are selected for any street, one should consider whether it is used as a primary response route. Minor impacts to response time may occur. Other Considerations: • Speed humps should not be considered on grades of eight percent or greater. Page 1 13 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 2 l.fi B-2. Intersection Hump Intersection Hump '_j;' wi• a ,L' W 1 i:13: Description: Similar to the speed hump, the intersection hump slopes are all straight lines and are typically constructed out of concrete with a surface treatment or patterning. The top of the intersection hump is flat, and the one pictured above extends beyond the boundary of the intersection providing a spot close to the curb for pedestrians to safely cross. The structure does not extend into the gutter areas for necessary drainage concerns. Primary Purpose: Reduce vehicle speeds at intersections by providing vertical displacement of the vehicle that result in a jolt if the vehicle's speed is too high. They may also provide a place for pedestrians to safely navigate the intersection. At an intersection where an all -way stop is unwarranted, an intersection hump forces motorists to navigate the intersection more slowly, making them more likely to yield the right-of-way to other motorists and pedestrians. Advantages: • Reduce vehicle speeds — encourage 25 mph vehicle speeds. ■ Pose no restrictions for bicycles. • Increase pedestrian safety by providing a distinct location for drivers to yield right-of- way. • Increase intersection safety by providing a distinct location for drivers to yield right-of- way to other legs of the intersection. Disadvantages: • Potentially increase traffic noise from braking and acceleration of vehicles particularly buses and trucks. Noise from tires hitting the structure. Page 1 14 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manuali3.t Perception from real estate industry that speed tables affect property values negatively. Advertises "a speeding problem." Transit Service Impacts: ■ Intersection humps do not significantly impede transit services. Emergency Services Impacts: ■ When intersection hump designs are selected for any street, one should consider whether it is used as a primary response route. Intersection humps may cause difficulty with the turning radii of large vehicles. Other Considerations: • Intersection humps should not be considered on grades of eight percent or greater. Intersection hump may also pose challenges with surface water management. Page 1 15 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 20 1 t; B-3. Neighborhood Traffic Circles (Roundabouts) TRAFFIC CIRCLE b Description: Traffic circles or roundabouts consist of a landscaped island in the center of the intersection with appropriate signage and marking. A driver enters a traffic circle by turning right, after yielding to any traffic coming from the left. Ali turns from a roadway intersection that has a traffic circle are right in, right -out. Primary Purpose: Reduce speeds through intersections and assist drivers in proper yielding. Advantages: • Increase operational safety by reducing the number of conflicting movements. • Reduce speeds in the intersection. ■ Cannot be ignored like an intersection controlled by stop signs. • May improve intersection capacity and operation. • Accommodates intersections with a wide range of access points (i.e. three to five way intersections) and can include driveways in the intersection. Disadvantages: Provides a potential obstruction for collision. Maintenance costs increase over all -way stop due to increased landscaping and/or pavement. Transit Service Impacts: Traffic circles can be designed such that buses can navigate left turns by going the wrong way through a traffic circle. On roads with high average daily traffic that would make such maneuvers infeasible, traffic circles should be designed large enough for buses to navigate. Page 1 16 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 2010 Emergency Services impacts: • Traffic circles can be designed such that emergency service vehicles can navigate left turns by going the wrong way through a traffic circle. On roads with high average daily traffic that would make such maneuvers infeasible, traffic circles should be designed large enough for emergency service vehicles to navigate. Other Considerations: • Driveways can directly access the traffic circle. • Installation of a traffic circle typically requires modifying the existing corners. While this work can typically be done within the right of way, it impacts perceived property. • Visibility of the device should be optimized through the use of raised pavement markers, striping, and signs. Page 1 17 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 2010 B4. Splitters (short median) SPLITTER Description: Splitter islands divert traffic laterally, often narrowing the roadway, while providing one-way flow for short intervals. Splitters are frequently landscaped for aesthetic appeal. Splitters must maintain a 20ft wide lane for emergency services Primary Purpose: Reduce though traffic speeds. Advantages: ■ Reduce speeds on roadways through lateral deflection and roadway narrowing. ■ Provide areas for landscaping and improving the aesthetic value of the neighborhood. ■ Provide locations for safer mid -block pedestrian crossings. • Allowable on grades of eight percent or higher. Disadvantages: Create obstructions for potential collision • Expensive design that may require right-of-way to be acquired for concept • Maintenance costs increase due to increased landscaping and/or pavement Transit Service Impacts: ■ There is no significant impact to transit services. Emergency Services Impacts: ■ There is no significant impact to emergency services. Other Considerations: Page 1 18 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 2010 - w-- .....r.wacv • Driveways with access directly to the splitter are not allowable. If there is hardship in the placement of splitters due to driveway locations, chicanes could be considered. • Installation of a splitter island requires modifying the adjacent property. While this work can usually be done within the right of way, it impacts perceived property. • Visibility of the device should be optimized through the use of raised pavement markers, striping, and signs. Page 1 19 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 201.0 B-5. Chicanes (deflectors) CHICANES Description: Chicanes change the physical characteristics of a roadway section from an existing straight alignment to a series of horizontal curves, causing horizontal displacement of the vehicle. Primary Purpose: Reduce vehicle speeds by providing horizontal deflection and a narrowed vehicle travel path, as well as potentially reducing sight distance that is too great for desired speed. Advantages: Reduce vehicle speeds with less impact on emergency service vehicles. Pose no restrictions for bicycle. Allowable on grades of eight percent or higher. Disadvantages: • Existing driveways can limit placement • Create obstructions for potential collision • Maintenance costs increase due to increased landscaping and pavement ■ May pose challenges with surface water management Transit Service Impacts_ There is no significant impact to transit services. Emergency Services Impacts: • There is no significant impact to emergency services. Other Considerations: Page 120 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 2010 Visibility of the device should be optimized through the use of raised pavement markers, striping, and signs. Page 121 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual Z0© B-6. Chokers (neck -downs) Description: Chokers narrow a street at an intersection or mid -block by construction of a wider sidewalk, landscape strip, or gateway treatment. Alternatively, lanes can be reduced to 10' by moving the curb lines. Primary Purpose: Reduce vehicle speeds by providing horizontal deflection and a narrowed vehicle travel path, as well as potentially reducing sight distance that is too great for desired speed. Advantages: • Reduce vehicle speeds with less impact on emergency service vehicles. ■ Provide shorter pedestrian crossing distances and better motorist -pedestrian visibility. • Discourage truck traffic. ■ Allowable on grades of eight percent or higher. Disadvantages: ■ Existing driveways can limit placement ■ Create obstruction for potential collision • Potentially impede bicycle safety and mobility • Maintenance costs increase due to increased landscaping and pavement ■ May pose challenges with surface water management • May result in the loss of curbside parking Transit Service Impacts: ■ There is no significant impact to transit services. Page 122 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual. Emergency Services Impacts: ■ There is no significant impact to emergency services. Other Considerations: ■ Visibility of the device should be optimized through the use of raised pavement markers, striping, and signs. Page 1 23 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 01-() B-7. Curb Extensions CURB EXTENSIONS Description: Curb extensions narrow the roadway to make pedestrian crossing faster and safer. They can be installed either at intersections or mid -block. Primary Purpose: Improve pedestrian safety by reducing the street crossing distance and increasing sight distance. Curb extensions are similar to chokers (neck -downs) and chicanes, but their primary purposes differ. Advantages: ■ Reduce pedestrian crossing distance and time. • Make pedestrian crossing points more visible to drivers. • Prevent vehicles from passing other vehicles that are turning at an intersection. ■ Provide transition from a through lane to on street parking, dependent upon road width_ • Visually enhance the street through landscaping or textured treatment. Disadvantages: • May reduce the amount of on -street parking. ■ Makes accommodating full bicycle lanes difficult. Transit Service Impacts: 40 Enhance service by moving the curb so riders step directly between the sidewalk and bus door. Emergency Services Impacts: There is no significant impact to emergency services. Page 1 24 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 201.0 B-8. Modified Intersections MODIFIED INTERSECTION Description: Barriers that restrict movement may be located at problem intersections. Pictured above is a right -in, right -out intersection that restricts all left turn movements to and from the minor road. Other possibilities include increasing or decreasing the curb radii to encourage different turning speeds at the intersection. Primary Purpose: Control traffic flow though neighborhoods. Advantages: • Improve safety by reducing the number of conflicting movements in that intersection. • Reduce local street volumes. • Reduce the need for future traffic control. • Restrict vehicular access while retaining bicycle and pedestrian access. • Provide safer areas for pedestrians to cross the intersection. • Reduce the speeds at intersections. Disadvantages: ■ May relocate traffic to other locations where turning opportunities exist. • May inconvenience local residents who are forced to drive longer, more circuitous routes to reach their destination. • Maintenance costs increase due to increased landscaping and/or pavement. Transit Service Impacts: ■ To minimize the negative effect, transit routes should be planned to accommodate modified intersections. They should not be placed at any location where transit service performs a relevant turning movement. Page 1 25 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 1 2010 Emergency Services Impacts: Even though these barriers would restrict turns for emergency vehicles, they can be designed and installed to provide for emergency access. If desired, the modification can be constructed with breakaway posts and striping, which would allow emergency services while strongly discouraging the target movements. Other Considerations: ■ Striping is easliy violated. Page 1 26 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 1 2010 Description: Provide a physical barrier on the major street at an intersection that can effectively eliminate left turns from the major street onto the minor street as well as eliminate minor street straight - through traffic and left turn traffic across the major street. Median barriers usually consist of a concrete curbed island with a decorative landscaping and/or surface treatment. Primary Purpose: Restrict traffic flow Advantages: • Improve safety by reducing the number of conflicting movements in that intersection. • Reduce local street volumes. • Negate the need for future traffic signals. ■ Restrict vehicular access while retaining bicycle and pedestrian access. ■ Provide safer areas for pedestrians to cross the intersection. Disadvantages: May relocate traffic to other locations where left -turn opportunities exist. May inconvenience local residents who may be forced to drive longer, more circuitous routes to reach their destination. • Maintenance costs increase due to increased landscaping and/or pavement. Transit Service Impacts: • To minimize the negative effect, transit routes should be planned to accommodate median barriers. They should not be placed at any location where transit service performs a relevant turning movement. Page 1 27 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual Ll.i Emerpencv Services Impacts: Even though median barriers would restrict turns for emergency vehicles, they can be designed and installed to provide for emergency access. If desired, the median can be constructed with breakaway posts and striping or ro • I back/mountable curbing, which would allow emergency services while strongly discouraging left turns. Other Considerations: A full median with no breaks can also be used to prohibit all left turns. Page 1 28 Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 1 2010 Appendix C Standard Traffic Calming Details Speed Cushion Speed hump Speed Table/Raised Crosswalk Chicane/Center Island Page 129 3Jtl1 13AV81 � 3Nfl In of d! ,sL of lm z�n o �q V F ,SL 01 ,OS t Zv a rig V, A t g a � U O m o Na 3NVI 13Adai V m 03NMIE a zer H� _ g 4i 3NC1831N33 H 15 a ffi x W 3N" 13AY31 10 3Nf€ RAID 21 O� ❑ rL .SL 01 A5 spy d .sL ol.os 79. a d aE ❑ L?�O 3NITdilk37 � 3Jtl1 13AV81 � 3Nfl C z�n o �q V F ,SL 01 ,OS t Zv a rig V, A t g a 0 V Z i nT V jH 111 a $Ta a 3Eb •��2Ly.�w a� �dE a # do 3 ud --iia •`-� �= �i vw w� me t �v oYs .v E g v_ L�•g £�`v ��a'"e� S in s 2 � � H o` cY aid �.` �oa�� �x�$��•� �•d=`��°u� -q'�d �' �� � ��'=i„° �3a- wen �° t�Q��w3ca r �o �'c�a -_ z.Qosry+ eo � •a� �� Q�s��$„�� �0 4 �a= ���. v.« � . .� p.a. . . ? . . mea �' '�.�,Vm' �� �$w °gym •= . r � s � � m a c7 0 12' TO 14' C] SR' TO 75' O as )MI n a N3W3A'dd 3O 37 3 W o � Z 4° a ■ y a F N34YI5 O 3003 0 y x e0�z 3 i rO�i y © CL. jig w N� cW�f] H� z 0 w � o m o o K � z ° mac `o E m c � a � O E � a 6 i s72 RS CE bG S❑ G L' b ao `o M E rS Ai 5 E al x' me o S"� E„c m o� mo�Nm 3S. Eg Z�to.a a m4�a �VWv�i ���i�H�m „a. i � SIDEWALK 21n0 RO )DVS a $NAa aQ Baa _ tom r0 a` p Q6 a u� C ✓+ poll yy a qO .w CZN Y � Y --EDGE OF FV.41T y ? o S[DEWAEK ACK OF CURE M a ry O � m s�dEw.4�K ann �o r�va � a i wM iQ 30U3 a � H z 3 M a w�� z Rs Sg ,FQGE OF PVMT SIDEWALK BACK Of CURE y rJ z= Zk '�a o ort _. $ m m a 0 5 H 79 y 3 ,. mu E'.�� " i� E �6 0 5S .. m �Fho� #� i E y-�=y -m 4 �� *al " • 'amu ❑�$;�-52— mva -ate c� —9�� SenT u-�� 3 its e i � No Text Traffic Calming Policy and Procedures Manual 2010 Appendix D City of Milton Traffic Calming Forms Application Form Petition Form Page 130 City of Milton Traffic Calminq Application Form Subdivision Name: Contact Information: Name: Phone Number. Position: The Application must be filed by a person having the authority to act on behalf of the subdivision or study area. In the case of a mandatory Home Owners Association (HOA) the application must be filed by a member of the board authorized to act on behalf of the HOA. Where an HOA is not considered mandatory the application must be made by a person authorized to act on behalf of the organization. Address: Description of Traffic Concerns and Requests: This completed application form should be sent to: City of Milton Department of Public Works Traffic Calming Program 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Suite 107G Milton, GA 30004 Office use only Project Number: Date Application Received: Date Traffic Study Completed: Traffic Calming Warranted (Y1N): Date Petition Received: Email: Petition Verified (YIN): Date Concept Meeting: Date City Funding Approved: Date Funding Received: Date Construction Complete: a� Q v CJ C1] o� q.i