Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-10 PacketPage 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, October 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Agenda 6:00 PM INVOCATION – Greg Foster, City of Milton Firefighter CALL TO ORDER 1) ROLL CALL 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by the Mayor) 3) APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Add or remove items from the agenda) (Agenda Item No. 10-1257) 4) PUBLIC COMMENT 5) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the October 4, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes. (Agenda Item No. 10-1258) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk) 2. Approval of a Task Order with Street Smarts, Inc. for Environmental Special Studies for Intersection Improvements for Arnold Mill Road at New Providence Road in the Amount of $9,404.96. (Agenda Item No. 10-1259) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 3. Approval of a Task Order with Street Smarts, Inc. for Environmental Special Studies for Intersection Improvements for Birmingham Highway at Providence Road in the Amount of $9,404.96. (Agenda Item No. 10-1260) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) MILTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 18, 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 Parks and Recreation Event License Agreement between the City of Milton and Mike Kipniss for the use of a Baseball Field at Bell Memorial Park. (Agenda Item No. 10-1261) (Cyndee Bonacci, Parks and Recreation Director) 5. Approval of a Parks and Recreation Event License Agreement between the City of Milton and the Crabapple Community Association for the use of City Property for the Crossroads at Crabapple Antique and Art Festival. (Agenda Item No. 10-1262) (Cyndee Bonacci, Parks and Recreation Director) 6. Approval of a Temporary Access Agreement between Birmingham United Methodist Church and the City of Milton for the 2010 Milton Roundup. (Agenda Item No. 10-1263) (Cyndee Bonacci, Parks and Recreation Director) 7. Approval of a Temporary Access Agreement between Kohl’s and the City of Milton for the 2010 Mayor’s Run. (Agenda Item No. 10-1264) (Cyndee Bonacci, Parks and Recreation Director) 8. Approval of a Contract between City of Milton and Appen Newspapers, Inc. for Milton Roundup Advertising for $1,130.90. (Agenda Item No. 10-1265) (Jason Wright, Communications Manager) 9. Approval of a Contract Modification between the City of Milton and AT&T. (Agenda Item No. 10-1266) (David Frizzell, IT Manager) 10. Approval of a Resolution Adding Republic Services of Georgia to the List of Approved Solid Waste Haulers for the City of Milton. (Agenda Item No. 10-1267) (Matt Marietta, Fire Marshal) 11. Approval of a Resolution Adding GW Lovelace Hauling to the List of Approved Haulers Pursuant to the Milton Solid Waste Management Ordinance. (Agenda Item No. 10-1268) (Matt Marietta, Fire Marshal) 6) REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS (None) 7) FIRST PRESENTATION (None) 8) PUBLIC HEARINGS (None) MILTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 18, 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. 9) ZONING AGENDA 1. ZM10-03/VC10-02 – Requested by Global Payments, Inc. located on Deerfield Parkway along the west side for a distance of approximately 674.41 feet (11.62 acres). To Modify Condition 2.a (99Z-011, 99U-008, 99VC-007) to replace the current conditional site plan, which was marked received by the Fulton County Environment and Community Development Department on December 11, 1998 with a new site plan received by the City of Milton Community Development Department on September 7, 2010. To delete zoning condition 3.b., parking shall be shared with adjacent property zoned C-1 (Community Business), pursuant to 99Z-012, currently Zoned) O-I (Office-Institutional) Pursuant to 2007Z-019. To request a concurrent variance to reduce the subject property’s minimum on-site parking requirement from 122 spaces to 100 spaces (Section 64-1410). (Agenda Item No. 10-1253) (Discussed at September 13, 2010 Work Session) (First Presentation on October 4, 2010 Council Meeting) (Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) 2. Public Hearing for Possible Rescission and Reconsideration of Previous Council Denial of Zoning Case RZ10-01 pursuant to Order of Remand. (Agenda Item No. 10-1269) (Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) 10) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Approval of An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 58, Utilities, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances to Establish Commercial Car Wash Water Recycling Requirements; to Repeal Conflicting Provisions; To Provide for Severability; to Provide for an Effective Date; and for Other Purposes. (Agenda Item No. 10-1254) (Discussed at September 13, 2010 Work Session) (First Presentation on October 4, 2010 Council Meeting) (Ken Jarrard, City Attorney) 2. Approval of An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 62, Vehicles for Hire, Article II, Taxicabs, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances. (Agenda Item No. 10-1255) (First Presentation on October 4, 2010 Council Meeting) (Ken Jarrard, City Attorney) 3. Approval for the Removal of Billy Lovelace Hauling from the List of Approved Solid Waste Haulers for the City of Milton Due to Non-Compliance with the Ordinance. (Agenda Item No. 10-1140) (Public Hearing Deferred on May 17, 2010) MILTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 18, 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. (Public Hearing Deferred on June 21, 2010) (Public Hearing Held on August 16, 2010) (Matt Marietta, Fire Marshal) 11) NEW BUSINESS 1. A Resolution to Adopt the North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan. (Agenda Item No. 10-1270) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 2. Approval of Agreement for Sale of Real Property between the City of Milton, Georgia and Wooden Cross Investments, LLC, for property located at 13690 Highway 9, Milton, Georgia 30004. (Agenda Item No. 10-1271) (Ken Jarrard, City Attorney) 12) MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 13) STAFF REPORTS 14) EXECUTIVE SESSION (If needed) 15) ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 10-1272) The minutes will be Provided electronically City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway Suite 107C Milton, Georgia 30004 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Carter Lucas, PE – Public Works Director Date: September 27, 2010 Agenda Item: Approval of a Task Order with Street Smarts, Inc for Environmental Special Studies for Intersection Improvements for Arnold Mill Road at New Providence Road in the Amount of $9,404.96 Background: Street Smarts was selected as one of our on call planning and engineering consultants and they were approved by Mayor and Council on October 20, 2008. Street Smarts was selected for this task as the most qualified, already bid, on call consultant for this study. Task order 09-SSI-03 scoped that the Air Quality Special Study would review and summarize the existing analyses in the report for GDOT. The concept reports developed under Task Order 09-SSI-03 contains new traffic numbers and updated existing, opening, design years. The threshold for a CO Analysis is 10,000 AADT and a LOS of D or worse. Based on the data provided below, a CO Analysis will be needed for this intersection. Arnold Mill Rd – AADT = 26,100 and LOS in the Design year is D for the intersection New Providence Rd – AADT = 4,500 and LOS in the Design year is D for the intersection The initial approval of task order 09-SSI-03 was delayed due to GDOT providing Project Framework Agreements. The Historic Resources and Archaeological services were not included. The original documents that were going to be used for Historic Resources and Archaeology for this intersection have now expired and must be updated. Discussion: The work to be completed under this Agreement (the “Work”) is referenced in the Contract. Individual project work will be defined by task orders. This task order is subject to the terms and conditions of the Street Smarts - City master agreement dated November 12, 2008 and shall serve as authorization by the City of Milton to (“Consultant”) to perform the services described therein. The Street Smarts task order for design services for the intersection includes: 1. Air Quality Special Study 2. Historical Resources and Archeology Update The schedule for this project will not be impacted due to these additional tasks. City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway Suite 107C Milton, Georgia 30004 The budget for this work will be from Capital Grant Fund (GDOT HPP Funds) and 80% is reimbursable from Federal Funds through GDOT. Legal Review: Street Smarts, Inc. Task Order REV 09-SSI-03 – Paul Higbee, Jarrard & Davis on 9/24/10 Attachments: 1. Task Order REV 09-SSI-03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH STREET SMARTS, INC. DATED ___________________ REVISION TO TASK ORDER 09-SSI-03 CONCEPT STUDY FOR ARNOLD MILL ROAD AT NEW PROVIDENCE ROAD INTERSECTION 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 to Street Smarts, Inc. (referred to herein alternately as “Consultant” and “Street Smarts”) 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: Description of PROJECT: The PROJECT consists of additional environmental studies for intersection improvements to SR 140 Arnold Mill Rd. @ CR 27 New Providence Rd. in North Fulton County, G.M.D. 121. Description of Professional Services: The services to be furnished by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall be those necessary to complete the documents described herein and provide both hard copy and electronic files for the PROJECT. Documents shall be prepared in accordance with the GDOT, GASHPO standards and CITY standards as to design criteria, procedures, and format. The CONSULTANT shall prepare all documents in the usual format used by the CITY. The CONSULTANT shall provide all materials required for the preparation of the documents as contemplated by the AGREEMENT and this Task Order. The CONSULTANT shall procure the CITY's written approval to proceed with each phase of the PROJECT. Failure to procure such approval prior to CONSULTANT’s initiation of work on a phase will result in the CONSULTANT assuming all costs for that phase until written approval to proceed has been obtained from the CITY. The PROJECT shall amend Phase II - Environmental Document of the original Task Order 09-SSI-03 and shall consist of the following activities: ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Prepare Categorical Exclusion for: P.I. 00000533 - SR 140/Arnold Mill Road @ CR 27/New Providence Road The data collection will be utilized to finalize the Air Quality special studies and cultural resources services as well as prepare a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the project following the guidelines in Section III. 4.0 of the GDOT Environmental Procedures Manual and based on the updated project concept. Air Quality The scope of work for this supplement consists of completing for the study intersection, a Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis and Determination for PM2.5 Hot-Spot Analysis in order to fulfill NEPA Requirements for Air Quality. The CO Microscale Analysis will use the CAL3QHC Microscale Model Software and will calculate emissions factors using the MOBILE 6.2 computer program (released November 2003). The Determination for PM2.5 Hot-Spot Analysis will consist of a Letter of Determination submitted through the Georgia Department of Transportation to a multi-agency group for concurrence. Cultural Resources The cultural resource services will be provided according to the following scope and any other such information as may have been provided in the August 25, 2010 letter from Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. to Mr. Keith Markland (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.): 1. Conduct background research and prepare Early Notification letters for the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (GASHPO) and other local agencies/groups interested in cultural resources of the area. 2. Conduct field surveys for historic and archeological resources located within the area of potential effect of the proposed project. The archeological survey will also include a 100 foot buffer as required by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) guidelines in the Environmental Procedures Manual. 3. Prepare a Historic Resources Survey Report, if necessary, according to GDOT/GASHPO standards. 4. Prepare an Archeological Negative Findings Short Form according to GDOT/GASHPO standards. 5. Prepare a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected or an Assessment of Effects Report according to GDAT/GASHPO standards. Assumptions: 1. Street Smarts will provide current design files, traffic and signal data (including percent truck traffic), and Level-of-Service (LOS) data. 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 CONTRACT 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 CONSULTANT shall prepare a schedule showing milestone completion dat es (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 CONSULTANT agrees that all reports, plans, drawings studies, specifications, estimates, maps, computations, computer diskettes and printouts and any other data prepared under the terms of this TASK ORDER shall become the property of the City. This data shall be organized, indexed, bound and delivered to the City no later than the completion date provided in the Schedule for completion. The City shall have the right to use this material without restriction or limitation and without compensation to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished by or on behalf of the City pursuant to this TASK ORDER. The CONSULTANT shall correct or revise, or cause to be corrected or revised, any errors or deficiencies in the designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished for this TASK ORDER. All revisions shall be coordinated with the CITY prior to issuance. The CONSULTANT shall also be responsible for any claim, damage, loss or expense that is attributable to errors, omissions, or negligent acts related to the designs, drawings, and specifications pursuant to this TASK ORDER. The fee shall be paid as provided in the CONTRACT 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: ______________________________ Attachment A – Fee Schedule City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway Suite 107C Milton, Georgia 30004 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Carter Lucas, PE – Public Works Director Date: September 27, 2010 Agenda Item: Approval of a Task Order with Street Smarts, Inc for Environmental Special Studies for Intersection Improvements for Birmingham Highway at Providence Road in the Amount of $9,404.96 Background: Street Smarts was selected as one of our on call planning and engineering consultants and they were approved by Mayor and Council on October 20, 2008. Street Smarts was selected for this task as the most qualified, already bid, on call consultant for this study. Task order 09-SSI-04 scoped that the Air Quality Special Study would review and summarize the existing analyses in the report for GDOT. The concept reports developed under Task Order 09-SSI-04 contains new traffic numbers and updated existing, opening, design years. The threshold for a CO Analysis is 10,000 AADT and a LOS of D or worse. Based on the data provided below, a CO Analysis will be needed for this intersection. Birmingham Hwy – AADT = 18,740 and LOS in the Design year is A/A (AM Peak) and F/A (PM Peak) for the roundabout Providence Rd – AADT = 8,900 and LOS in the Design year is A/A (AM Peak) and F/A (PM Peak) for the roundabout The initial approval of task order 09-SSI-04 was delayed due to GDOT providing Project Framework Agreements. The Historic Resources and Archaeological services were not included. The original documents that were going to be used for Historic Resources and Archaeology for this intersection have now expired and must be updated. Discussion: The work to be completed under this Agreement (the “Work”) is referenced in the Contract. Individual project work will be defined by task orders. This task order is subject to the terms and conditions of the Street Smarts - City master agreement dated November 12, 2008 and shall serve as authorization by the City of Milton to (“Consultant”) to perform the services described therein. The Street Smarts task order for design services for the intersection includes: 1. Air Quality Special Study 2. Historical Resources and Archeology Update City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway Suite 107C Milton, Georgia 30004 The schedule for this project will not be impacted due to these additional tasks. The budget for this work will be from Capital Grant Fund (GDOT HPP Funds) and 80% is reimbursable from Federal Funds through GDOT. Legal Review: Street Smarts, Inc. Task Order REV 09-SSI-04 – Paul Higbee, Jarrard & Davis on 9/24/10 Attachments: 1. Task Order REV 09-SSI-04 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH STREET SMARTS, INC. DATED ___________________ REVISION TO TASK ORDER 09-SSI-04 CONCEPT STUDY FOR BIRMINGHAM HIGHWAY AT PROVIDENCE ROAD INTERSECTION 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 to Street Smarts, Inc. (referred to herein alternately as “Consultant” and “Street Smarts”) 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: Description of PROJECT: The PROJECT consists of additional environmental studies for intersection improvements to SR 372 Birmingham Hwy. @ CR 27 Providence/New Providence Rd. in North Fulton County, G.M.D. 121. Description of Professional Services: The services to be furnished by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall be those necessary to complete the documents described herein and provide both hard copy and electronic files for the PROJECT. Documents shall be prepared in accordance with the GDOT, GASHPO standards and CITY standards as to design criteria, procedures, and format. The CONSULTANT shall prepare all documents in the usual format used by the CITY. The CONSULTANT shall provide all materials required for the preparation of the documents as contemplated by the AGREEMENT and this Task Order. The CONSULTANT shall procure the CITY's written approval to proceed with each phase of the PROJECT. Failure to procure such approval prior to CONSULTANT’s initiation of work on a phase will result in the CONSULTANT assuming all costs for that phase until written approval to proceed has been obtained from the CITY. The PROJECT shall amend Phase II - Environmental Document of the original Task Order 09-SSI-04 and shall consist of the following activities: ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Prepare Categorical Exclusion for: P.I. 00005448 - SR 372/Birmingham Hwy @ CR 27/Providence Road The data collection will be utilized to finalize the Air Quality special studies and cultural resources services as well as prepare a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the project following the guidelines in Section III. 4.0 of the GDOT Environmental Procedures Manual and based on the updated project concept. Air Quality The scope of work for this supplement consists of completing for the study intersection, a Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis and Determination for PM2.5 Hot-Spot Analysis in order to fulfill NEPA Requirements for Air Quality. The CO Microscale Analysis will use the CAL3QHC Microscale Model Software and will calculate emissions factors using the MOBILE 6.2 computer program (released November 2003). The Determination for PM2.5 Hot-Spot Analysis will consist of a Letter of Determination submitted through the Georgia Department of Transportation to a multi-agency group for concurrence. Cultural Resources The cultural resource services will be provided according to the following scope and any other such information as may have been provided in the August 25, 2010 letter from Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. to Mr. Keith Markland (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.): 1. Conduct background research and prepare Early Notification letters for the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (GASHPO) and other local agencies/groups interested in cultural resources of the area. 2. Conduct field surveys for historic and archeological resources located within the area of potential effect of the proposed project. The archeological survey will also include a 100 foot buffer as required by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) guidelines in the Environmental Procedures Manual. 3. Prepare a Historic Resources Survey Report, if necessary, according to GDOT/GASHPO standards. 4. Prepare an Archeological Negative Findings Short Form according to GDOT/GASHPO standards. 5. Prepare a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected or an Assessment of Effects Report according to GDAT/GASHPO standards. Assumptions: 1. Street Smarts will provide current design files, traffic and signal data (including percent truck traffic), and Level-of-Service (LOS) data. 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 CONTRACT 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 CONSULTANT shall prepare a schedule showing milestone completion dates (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 CONSULTANT agrees that all reports, plans, drawings studies, specifications, estimates, maps, computations, computer diskettes and printouts and any other data prepared under the terms of this TASK ORDER shall become the property of the City. This data shall be organized, indexed, bound and delivered to the City no later than the completion date provided in the Schedule for completion. The City shall have the right to use this material without restriction or limitation and without compensation to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished by or on behalf of the City pursuant to this TASK ORDER. The CONSULTANT shall correct or revise, or cause to be corrected or revised, any errors or deficiencies in the designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished for this TASK ORDER. All revisions shall be coordinated with the CITY prior to issuance. The CONSULTANT shall also be responsible for any claim, damage, loss or expense that is attributable to errors, omissions, or negligent acts related to the designs, drawings, and specif ications pursuant to this TASK ORDER. The fee shall be paid as provided in the CONTRACT 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: ______________________________ Attachment A – Fee Schedule 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: October 5, 2010 Meeting Date: October 18, 2010 Agenda Item: Approval of a parks and recreation event license agreement between the City of Milton and Mike Kipniss for the use of a baseball field at Bell Memorial Park Background: Mike Kipniss has requested the use of a baseball field at Bell Memorial Park this fall for additional practices for a team of freshman students who attend Milton High School. Discussion: Mr. Kipniss contacted me in August regarding the possibility of using field space at Bell Memorial Park for a team of freshman wanting to get in extra practice prior to the spring baseball season. Once I received the field schedule from HYA, I allotted time not being used by HYA for a field rental for Mr. Kipniss. He will pay the field rental rate of $75 per 2 hour practice monthly and will be required to pay a $100 security deposit which will be refunded after the rental season is complete as long as no damages are incurred during his use of the field. Practice times are Sundays from 6:30-8:30 p.m. and Wednesdays from 7:15-9:15 p.m. beginning September 26, 2010 and ending November 14, 2010. He will also coordinate use with HYA regarding field maintenance issues. Attachments: Approval of a parks and recreation event license agreement between the City of Milton and Mike Kipniss for the use of a baseball field at Bell Memorial Park CITY OF MILTON PARKS AND RECREATION EVENT LICENSE AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual promises made herein, this License is entered into on this 2* day of S A , L, VV,( , 20 1' i by and between, the City of Milton, Georgia (hereinafter the "City") and Mike Kipniss (hereinafter "Licensee"): 1. Licensed Use: The City, in exchange for good and valuable consideration described herein, hereby authorizes Licensee to use Field 42 at Sell Memorial Park (the "Premises"), for Baseball Practice (the "Event(s)") on Sundays from 6:30-8:30 p.m. and Wednesdays from 7:15-9:15 p.m. beginning Sunday, September 26, 2010 with the exception of Sunday, October 3, 2010 and ending on Sunday, November 14, 2010. This License shall be limited to the Premises and Event(s) described above, provided that Licensee shall have reasonable access over the City's property to the Premises for the purpose of conducting the Event(s). The Licensee shall conduct all set-up and cleanup activities related to the Event(s) during the term of the Event(s) specified herein and shall vacate the Premises immediately upon termination of the Event(s). The City may terminate this License immediately for convenience at any time by providing a written notice of termination to Licensee. a. Licensee, as partial consideration for this License, shall be responsible for hosting the Event(s) in accordance with the terms and conditions described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. As further consideration for this License, Licensee shall pay to the City $75 per day in advance of use on a monthly basis. Licensee shall be responsible for the safe operation of any equipment utilized by Licensee. If keys for any City facility have been provided to Licensee, Licensee shall be responsible for unlocking and inspecting facilities and reporting any safety concerns to the City in a timely fashion. Upon completion of the services, Licensee shall be responsible, if applicable, for locking the City facility and securing any City equipment used by Licensee. b. Licensee shall immediately comply with all directives of the City in regard to health, safety and security matters at the Premises and with all pertinent rules and regulations relating to the City's property, except as are more specifically modified by this License Agreement. This provision shall be enforceable by the City, and failure of Licensee to comply with the terms thereof shall be grounds for immediate termination of this License and vacation, of the Premises by Licensee and guests of the Event(s). c. Licensee shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the City, its officers, boards, commissions, elected officials, employees and agents from any and all claims, suits, actions, liability, judgments, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, resulting from: i. Any and all loss and/or damage to the City or its property caused by the Licensee and/or by any guest of the Event(s); ii. Injury to personal property or the person of, or the death of, any individual as a result of the Event(s); and iii, Any other occurrence that results from the Event(s). 2. Miscellaneous Provisions: a. In the event Licensee refuses or neglects to provide any of the items herein stated, or fails or refuses to make any of the payments as provided herein or to proceed with the Event(s), the City shall have no obligation to perform under this License. b. The Contractor shall pay reasonable attorney's fees to the City should the City be required to incur attorney's fees in enforcing the provisions of this Agreement, but only to the extent caused in whole or in part by negligent, reckless or intentional acts or omissions of the Contractor. c. Time is of the essence. d. This License shall not be changed, modified or varied except by a written statement signed by all parties hereto. Neither party may assign this License. Each of the individuals who execute this Agreement agrees and represents that he is authorized to execute this License on behalf of the respective entity. Accordingly, the City and Licensee both waive and release any right to contest the enforceability of this License based upon the execution and/or approval thereof. IN WITNESS HEREOF the parties hereto have set hands and seals the day and year first above written: For the City: For the Licensee: Mike Kipniss, Team Parent 2 CITY OF MILTON PARK AND RECREATION EVENT LICENSE AGREEMENT Exhibit "A" Licensee: Mike Kipniss, team parent Term: September 26 — November 14, 2010 (Excluding Sunday, October 3,2010) Program/Activity/Event: Baseball Practice Location: Field #2, Bell Memorial Park Day(s) andTime(s): Sundays, 6:30-8:30 p.m. and Wednesdays, 7:15-9:15 p.m. Fees Due to City of Milton: $75 per day of use; $100 security deposit (refunded after use) Payments Made: Monthly in advance of use Additional requirements: Must coordinate meeting with HYA representative, Scott Stachowski, regarding proper use of field and lights Conditions: If inclement weather occurs and use of the field is not available, the paid fee would be applied to another future night of use 3 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: October 5, 2010 Meeting Date: October 18, 2010 Agenda Item: Approval of a parks and recreation event license agreement between the City of Milton and the Crabapple Community Association for the use of City property for the Crossroads at Crabapple Antique and Art Festival Background: The City of Milton is the location for the annual Crossroads at Crabapple Antique and Art Festival held on October 2, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and set-up beginning on Friday, October 1, 2010. Discussion: Crossroads at Crabapple is held in Crabapple on property along Mid-Broadwell and Broadwell Road. City right-of-way and City property are utilized in this area for the event to be successful. This agreement allows the event planners and volunteers to access and utilize City property during the event. This purpose of this agenda item is to ratify the agreement. The agreement was executed by the Crabapple Community Association prior to the event on October 2, 2010. Attachments: A parks and recreation event license agreement between the City of Milton and the Crabapple Community Association for the use of City property for the Crossroads at Crabapple Antique and Art Festival. CITY OF MILTON PARKS AND RECREATION EVENT LICENSE AGREEMENT In onsideration of the mutual promises made herein, this License is entered into on this e2 9' day of 20 / 0 by and between, the City of Milton, Georgia (hereinafter the "City") and the a apple Community CrAssociation (hereinafter "Licensee"): 1. Licensed Use: The City, in exchange for good and valuable consideration described herein, hereby authorizes Licensee to use the public right of way and the Crabapple Community Center property (the "Premises"), for the Crossroads at Crabapple Antique and Art Festival (the "Event(s)") on Friday, October 1 and Saturday, October 2, 2010. This License shall be limited to the Premises and Event(s) described above, provided that Licensee shall have reasonable access over the City's property to the Premises for the purpose of conducting the Event(s). The Licensee shall conduct all set-up and cleanup activities related to the Event(s) during the term of the Event(s) specified herein and shall vacate the Premises immediately upon termination of the Event(s). The City may terminate this License immediately for convenience at any time by providing a written notice of termination to Licensee. a. Licensee, as partial consideration for this License, shall be responsible for hosting the Event(s) in accordance with the terms and conditions described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. As further consideration for this License, Licensee shall pay to the City $0.00. Licensee shall be responsible for the safe operation of any equipment utilized by Licensee. If keys for any City facility have been provided to Licensee, Licensee shall be responsible for unlocking and inspecting facilities and reporting any safety concerns to the City in a timely fashion. Upon completion of the services, Licensee shall be responsible, if applicable, for locking the City facility and securing any City equipment used by Licensee. b. Licensee shall immediately comply with all directives of the City in regard to health, safety and security matters at the Premises and with all pertinent rules and regulations relating to the City's property, except as are more specifically modified by this License Agreement. This provision shall be enforceable by the City, and failure of Licensee to comply with the terms thereof shall be grounds for immediate termination of this License and vacation of the Premises by Licensee and guests of the Event(s). c. Licensee shall be solely and completely responsible for any and all costs associated with the failure to clean- up the premises in accordance with this license or repair of damages resulting directly or indirectly from the Event(s). d. Licensee shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the City, its officers, boards, commissions, elected officials, employees and agents from any and all claims, suits, actions, liability, judgments, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, resulting from: i. Any and all loss and/or damage to the City or its property caused by the Licensee and/or by any guest of the Event(s); ii. Injury to personal property or the person of, or the death of, any individual as a result of the Event(s); and iii. Any other occurrence that results from the Event(s). 2. Miscellaneous Provisions: a. In the event Licensee refuses or neglects to provide any of the items herein stated, or fails or refuses to make any of the payments as provided herein or to proceed with the Event(s), the City shall have no obligation to perform under this License. b. The Licensee shall pay reasonable attorney's fees to the City should the City be required to incur attorney's fees in enforcing the provisions of this Agreement, but only to the extent caused in whole or in part by negligent, reckless or intentional acts or omissions of the Licensee. c. Time is of the essence. d. This License shall not be changed, modified or varied except by a written statement signed by all parties hereto. Neither parry may assign this License. Each of the individuals who execute this Agreement agrees and represents that he is authorized to execute this License on behalf of the respective entity. Accordingly, the City and Licensee both waive and release any right to contest the enforceability of this License based upon the execution and/or approval thereof: IN WITNESS HEREOF the parties hereto have set hands and seals the day and year first above written: For the City: For the Licensee: - a Sally Rich -161b, Crabapple Community Association 0) CITY OF MILTON PARK AND RECREATION EVENT LICENSE AGREEMENT Exhibit "A" Licensee: Sally Rich -Kalb on behalf of the Crabapple Community Association Term: Friday, October 1 -- Saturday, October 2, 2010 Program/Activity/Event: Crossroads at Crabapple Antique and Art Festival Location: City Right of Way, Crabapple Community Center property Limitations: No permanent changes to the Premises are permitted Licensee Documentation on File: 501c3 incorporation; Certificate of Liability Insurance; Special event permit application; Banner permit application McHugh Insurance, Inc. 24 Milton Ave. PO Box 1312 Alpharetta, GA 30009-1312 Email: rich gmehu hinsuranee.com 1, Policy Review - You are responsible for reviewing and explaining the .overage to the client, including any options, available or not from ' our office. The terms hereon are net fully described, and no assumption snoui.7a made as to the adequacy of coverage of the risk to the client. 2. You are not an Agent of the insurer, acid as such, cannot hind coverage ror make any commitments on behalf of the insurer, nor of us. This policy cannot be assigned to another without the written consent of the Insurer of the Agent. 3. Cancellation - At binding, you commit t any provisions contained herein such as Minimum Earned Premiums. There are no flat canceilatoins allowed. CSR REFERENCE NO. 8055283A DATE ISSUED_ July 29, 2014 PRODUCER:McHugh Insurance, Inc. _.-----•----..-.. P.O. Box 1312 Atpharetta, GA 34239-1312 APPLICANT' Crabapple Merchant Association APPLICANT Crossroads at Crabapple LOCATION: , GA COMPANY: Catlin Specialty Insurance Company - COVERAGE: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABiLiTY POLICY PERIOD: 10/3/2010 TO 10!5/2010 12:01 A.M. STANDARD TIME ATTHE LOCATION ADDRESS OF THE NAMED INSURED. THIS INSURANCE QUOTE IS VALID FOR 30 DAYS LIMITS OF LIABILITY: $$2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $100,000 $5,000 General Aggregate (Other than Prod/Comp Cps) Products/Completed Operations Aggregate Personal and Advertising 'injury Limit Each Occurrence Limit Damage to Premises Rented to ou. Limit Medical Expense Limit DEDUCTIBLE-. $250. Bl 1 PD - Per Claim CAUSE OF LOSS: RATING INFO: 43244 / Special Event 2,000 COINSURANCE: % WITHour TERRORISM PREMIUM: $400.00 FEES: $100,00 TAX: $20.00 TOTAL: $520.00 IMCLUDES TERRORISM 17 400 MP PREMIUM; $400.00 TRIA Prem: $100.00 FEES: $100.00 TAX: $24.00 TOTAL; $624.00 PREMIUM CHECKS MUST BE ISSUED BY THE PRODUCING OFFICE. INSURED CHECKS CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED TO BIND COVERAGE. TERMS_ I CONDITIONS: - (a) 25% MINIMUM EARNED PREMIUM AT INCEPTION. (b)ENDORSEMENTS ! NOTABLE EXCLUSIONS. PNAP 001 Fraud Warning Notice PNAP 002 Privacy Policy PNAP 003 U.S Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") ASAP DDQ Policyholder Disclosure Notice of Terrorism Ins Coverage ASAP 001 Common Policy Declarations ABAP 302 Schedule of Forms Endorsements ASAP 401 In Witness Endorsement (OR ABAP401VA if in Virginia) SSMP 640 Organic Pathogen Exclusion IL0017 Common Policy Conditions IL0021 Nuclear Energy Liability Exclusion Endorsement (Broad Form) IL0985 Disclosure Pursuant To Terrorism Risk ins. Act TRIA Accepted - Use IL0990 in MO , BAP 900 Service of Suit (does not apply to AR, AZ,CA, CO, DC, FL, IN, ME, MS, NY, OH, OR, UT see state forms) SSAP 402 Minimum Earned Premium Endorsement SSGL 001 General Liability Coverage Part Declarations SSGL 404 Liability Deductible Endorsement SSGL 601 Contractors Coverage Limitations SSGL 613 Subcontractors Warranty SSGL 623 Asbestos & Silica Exclusion SSGL 624 Subsidence Of Land Exclusion SSGL 628 Employment Related Practices Exclusion SSGL 629 Other Insurance (Excess Coverage) SSGL 630 Amendment Of Liability Premium Conditions CG0001 - Commercial General Liability Coverage Form (Occurrence Version) CG2149 - Total Pollution Exclusion Endorsement CG2170 - Cap On Losses From Certified Acts of Terrorism OR CG2173 - Exclusion of Certified Acts of Terrorism - CG 2144 Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises or Project CG 2116 Exclusion - Designated Professional Services "Any and all professional exposures." SSGL 601 Contractors Coverage Limitations SSGL 610 participants Exclusion (c) ATTACHMENTS i SUBJECT TO: Completed and Signed Application, showing Contact name & number Completed and Signed TRIA Form ' 3 Year Loss Runs (if applicable) Satisfactory inspection Completed and Signed Application including Prior Career and Loss Information (d) ALL OTHER, TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY PER FORM PREMIUM PAYMENT IS DUE ON THE 15TH OF THE 14ONTH FOLLOWING THE INVOICE BATE OF SIY401NG UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED. THE FOLLOWING FINANCE QUOTE IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. NO FINANCING WILL BE SET UP WITHOUT A SIGNED FINANCE AGREEMENT. PLEASE REQUEST AN AGREEMENT FROM YOUR UNDERWRITER OR THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, FINANCE INFORMATION: Payments: E:l �7 0 4 3r�"ra J .XC�I%Mj mH r 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: October 5, 2010 Meeting Date: October 18, 2010 Agenda Item: Approval of a temporary access agreement between Birmingham United Methodist Church and the City of Milton for the 2010 Milton Roundup Background: The City of Milton will be hosting the annual Milton Roundup at Birmingham United Methodist Church on Saturday, October 23, 2010 from 12-6 p.m. The City has hosted the event at BUMC previously in 2007 and 2008. Discussion: This agreement will allow the City to utilize the parking, baseball field, open field areas, amphitheatre and Cloister area for the activities relating to the event. It will allow City staff, volunteers, vendors, sponsors and the general public to access the site for the event. The City will provide a certificate of liability coverage to BUMC listing them as a certificate holder. Attachments: A temporary access agreement between Birmingham United Methodist Church and the City of Milton for the 2010 Milton Roundup. TEMPORARY ACCESS LICENSE AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual promises made herein, this License is entered into on this _____ d ay of __________________, 2010 by and between, the City of Milton, Georgia (hereinafter the ”Licensee”) and Birmingham United Methodist Church (hereinafter referred to as the “Licensor”): 1. Licensed Use: The Licensor, in exchange for a Golden Horseshoe Sponsorship and five (5) vendor spaces for the 2010 Milton Roundup and other good and valuable consideration set forth herein, hereby authorizes Licensee to use: All parking areas, softball field, open fields, Cloister area, and amphitheatre area (the “Premises”); for vehicular, equipment, personnel, and public access for: the 2010 Milton Roundup (the “Event”); being conducted by the Licensee at the Premises on: Saturday, October 23, 2010 from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. with some initial set-up beginning on Friday, October 22, 2010 (the “Term”). This License shall be limited to the Premises and Term described above. The Licensee shall vacate the Premises immediately upon termination of the Term and leave the premises in the same condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted, as prior to the term. Licensor shall have no duty or obligation to Licensee other than to make the premises available “as is” to Licensee. Licensee shall be solely responsible for traffic control, security and emergency medical services on the premises during the term. Licensee shall, to the extent, if any, allowed by law, indemnify and hold Licensor harmless from any claim, action, litigation or damages arising out of Licensee’s licensed use of the premises not attributable to the negligence of the Licensor. 2. Miscellaneous Provisions: This License shall not be changed, modified or varied except by a written statement signed by all parties hereto with the same formalities as in the execution of this License. Neither party may assign this License. Each signatory who executes this License hereby agrees and represents that he is authorized to execute this License on behalf of the respective entity. Accordingly, the Licensor and Licensee both waive and release any right to contest the enforceability of this License based upon the execution and/or approval thereof. The licensee will provide the licensor a certificate of liability insurance coverage with the licensor listed as a certificate holder/additional loss payee. IN WITNESS HEREOF the parties hereto have set hands and seals the day and year first above written: For the City: _______________________________ For Birmingham United Methodist Church: ___________________________________ 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: October 5, 2010 Meeting Date: October 18, 2010 Agenda Item: Approval of a temporary access agreement between Kohl’s and the City of Milton for the 2010 Mayor’s Run Background: The City of Milton will be hosting the annual Milton Mayor’s Run on Saturday, October 16, 2010 beginning at 8 a.m. at the rear entrance to Kohl’s along Deerfield Parkway. Discussion: This agreement will allow the City to utilize the onsite parking area, the side access entrance, and the area along the rear of the building along Deerfield Parkway for the start and end of the race. It will allow City staff, volunteers, vendors, sponsors and the general public to access the site for the event. The City will provide a certificate of liability coverage to Kohl’s listing them as a certificate holder. Attachments: A temporary access agreement between Kohl’s and the City of Milton for the 2010 Mayor’s Run. TEMPORARY ACCESS LICENSE AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual promises made herein, this License is entered into on this _6 day of October , 2010_ by and between, the City of Milton, Georgia (hereinafter the "Licensee") and _Kohl's (hereinafter referred to as the "Licensor"): 1. Licensed Use: The Licensor, hereby authorizes Licensee to use: [Kohl's Department store parking lot] (the "Premises"); for vehicular, equipment, and personnel access for: [Mayor's run] (the "Event"); being conducted by the Licensee at the Premises on: [ 10/16/2010 6:00 am -10:00 am] (the "Term"). This License shall be limited to the Premises and Term described above. The Licensee shall vacate the Premises immediately upon termination of the Event. 2. Miscellaneous Provisions: This License shall not be changed, modified or varied except by a written statement signed by all parties hereto with the same formalities as in the execution of this License. Neither party may assign this License. Each signatory who executes this License hereby agrees and represents that he is authorized to execute this License on behalf of the respective entity. Accordingly, the Licensor and Licensee both waive and release any right to contest the enforceability of this License based upon the execution and/or approval thereof. IN WITNESS HEREOF the parties hereto have set hands and seals the day and year first above written: For the City: For Kohl's store 1264 iff Ca Abell Store Manager City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Christopher J. Lagerbloom, City Manager Date: Submitted on October 1, 2010 for the October 18, 2010 Council Meeting Agenda Item: Approval of a contract with Appen Newspapers, Inc. (Milton Herald) City Manager’s Office Recommendation Ratify the contract with Appen Newspapers, Inc. (Milton Herald) for Milton Roundup advertising. Background The Milton Roundup will be held October 23, 2010. This contract allows for full-page advertisements for three weeks prior to the event, plus an Appen sponsorship for two weeks of advertisements in the Alpharetta-Roswell Revue & News. Discussion Presented before you is a contract with Appen Newspapers, Inc. (Milton Herald) for advertisements regarding the Milton Roundup. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the contract and based on Mayor and Council direction in previous public meetings has authorized Mayor Lockwood to execute the document. It comes before the Council at this meeting for ratification. Funding and Fiscal Impact The contract is based on a one-time cost of $1,130.90 (Appen will match cost to cover the donated advertising). Alternatives: No advertising for event or smaller, less noticeable advertising. Concurrent Review: Cyndee Bonacci, Special Events Coordinator Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager To l�eiozr�'� Advertising Agreement Date: q fact 1 [ Decision Maker: J a -son h Company: Address: C _ Phone: Email: Ad Size/Color: rj Cost : 3/ Date contract begins: Frequency/Schedule Publication(s) I.A0pbn Newsp rs, I% . p 770-442-3278 If 770-4i;-1,1 6 1 AppcnInc. com 319 North Alain Street. Alph,tretua, GA .30009 Fax: --- W --W qro,, �Acr&t CA +� Publication codes, AB = Answerbook FH = Forsyth Herald GH = Gwinnett Herald JCH = Johns Creek Herald MH = Milton Herald ` NW = Northside Woman RER = Real Estate Report RN = Revue & News WE= Web -� 2-01 2- Oht+ / F -Q jPu t- ?a -W = -131 Q. 4D AAA V 3 -411 1'- 9© NOTES- �45..0 Js . tAe� W;? ArPpe1r1► L In Y14L°lo C 4 I Payment Method will he: ►a Check _ Credit Card_ _ .— Exp Date _ Security Code Rd cost to be run on credit card prior to ad publicahofr each week Credit requested (All accounts must prepay tinril credit is approved by accounting dept., please complete credit application and allow 5 business days for processing) A finance charge of 1.5 % per month (annual rate of 18%) is added on any account balance that is not paid within net 36 days. By submitting your advertisement for publication. you agree that the newspaper small have no liability for errors or omissions in the text of the advertisement as submitted by you. You turther agree to indemnify the newspaper for liability arising from the text submitted to it. For any error in the text caused by the newspaper. or any error in the publication date, the newspaper's liability shall be limited to the cost of the advertisement or republication thereof, and the newspaper shall have no liability for any nonsequential, direct or general damages of any nature. In the event of default the applicant agrees to pay all third party collection fees. court casts and reasonable attorney fees incurred with the collection of the applicant's debt. The undersigned hereby personally and unconditionally guarantees the prompt payment of the above advertising agreement and agrees to pay and peOr) rm as a p rimary oblig or, including but not I i mited to the d ue and pro pt payment of the above obligations. I also consent to receive advertising related and othersales related comr:ounlcation sen e e papers, inc via regular mail, email, telephone and fax. J�t&,, jai J Print Name & Positioo within comps y Sid atu Date Sales Rep: [n-dct,+lt ir..:ri rrcws and targeted advert i.. Xorth Fulton, ForsNrth and t stir r,,,..r t Counties 1; Ir:rrttraI Cumming 1 Duluth , t:rcckl Milton I Rosn•cll I `;r •; s -,2c City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: David Frizzell Date: Submitted on October 4th, 2010 for the October 18th, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Item: Approval of a contract modification between the City of Milton and AT&T City Manager’s Office Recommendation Approve a contract modification that will combine services provided by AT&T to a single circuit Discussion Currently the City of Milton has a single T1 circuit and a single 10MB circuit providing internet access. The T1 circuit is redundant, but has a managed firewall. The 10MB circuit uses a legacy firewall that is outdated and needs to be replaced. The change requested here will de-activate the T1 circuit and move the managed firewall service to the 10MB circuit. Funding and Fiscal Impact The cost for both circuits has been budgeted. There will no change in cost for the new configuration. Concurrent Review Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager AT&T Business Solutions Network solution for City of Milton September 20, 2010 This proposal incorporates the rates, terms and conditions set forth in the AT&T Service Guide located at http://new.serviceguide.att.com, http://www.serviceguide.att.com/ABS/ext, http://www.att.com/abs/serviceguide, or in the AT&T Acceptable Use Policy located at www.att.com/aup, and in the AT&T Business Communications Service Agreement located at http://www.business.att.com/agreement, each as amended from time to time. This document contains proprietary and confidential AT&T information that City of Milton is required to maintain as confidential. City of Milton may not disclose to any third party without the advance written consent of AT&T and an AT&T approved written non-disclosure agreement. © 2006 AT&T All Rights Reserved. ATT Business Solutions 2 Current AT&T solution: Managed Internet Service, Managed Firewall security - Existing 36 month term (signed 3/2010) *Does not include taxes/regulatory fees ________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Solution: Managed Internet Service, Managed Firewall Security - Requires extension of term to new 36 month agreement. All custom language will remain. *Does not include taxes/regulatory fees _______________________________________________________________________________________ Service Termination options *Each component must be kept in service for no less th an 12 months, or liability is 50% of remaining term. Estimated 30 months @ $589/month @ 50% **Each component must be kept in service for no less than 12 months, or liability is 50% of remaining term. Estimated 30 months @ $450/month @ 50% Service Component Specification Total Monthly Cost* Install Managed Internet Service 1.5 mbps (T1) $589 n/a Managed Internet Service 10 mbps (Ethernet) $1,844 n/a Managed Firewall Cisco ASA (Small) $450 n/a Total Monthly Pricing $2,883 Service Component Specification Total Monthly Cost* Install Managed Internet Service 10 mbps (Ethernet) $1,083 n/a Managed Firewall Cisco ASA (medium) $1,800 Waived Total Monthly Pricing $2,883 Service Component Specification Estimated Termination liability Managed Internet Service 1.5 mbps (T1) $8,835* Managed Firewall Cisco ASA (Small) $6,750** Total estimated termination $15,585 AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 1 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 AT&T Managed Internet Service Pricing Schedule Customer AT&T AT&T Sales Contact Primary Contact City of Milton, GA 13000 Deerfield Pkwy Milton, GA 30004 USA AT&T Corp. BRANDON S PILIERO 575 MOROSGO DR NE ATLANTA, GA 30324 Telephone: 4044954235 Fax: 8667466238 Email: bp4252@asemail.att.com Branch Manager: Rick Satterfield Sales Strata: ABS Sales Sales Region: Southeastern Customer Contact (for notices) AT&T Contact (for notices) AT&T Solution Provider or Representative Information (if applicable) Name: David Frizzell Title: 13000 Deerfield Pkwy Milton , GA 30004 United States Telephone: 6782422500 Fax: Email: david.frizzell@cityofmiltonga.us Customer Account Number or Master Account Number: 575 MOROSGO DR NE ATLANTA, GA 30324 With a copy to: AT&T Corp. One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921-0752 ATTN: Master Agreement Support Team Email: mast@att.com Name: Company Name: Telephone: Fax: Email: Agent Code: This Pricing Schedule is part of the Agreement between AT&T and Customer referenced above. This Pricing Schedule shall replace and supersede in its/their entirety the following AT&T Managed Internet Service (“MIS”) Service Order Attachment(s) and/or Pricing Schedule(s) between AT&T and Customer: MIS223337 Customer (by its authorized representative) AT&T (by its authorized representative) By: By: Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 2 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 1. SERVICES • AT&T Managed Internet Service • AT&T Private Network Transport (PNT) Service is an option of MIS and can be ordered as an MPLS PNT feature under Section I, Tables 28 and 29. • AT&T’s Acceptable Use Policy is located at http://www.att.com/aup or such other AT&T-designated location. 2. PRICING SCHEDULE TERM AND EFFECTIVE DATES Pricing Schedule Term Term Start Date 36 Months Effective Date of this Pricing Schedule Effective Date of Rates and Discounts Effective Date of this Pricing Schedule 3. MINIMUM PAYMENT PERIOD Portion of Monthly Service Fees Applicable to Minimum Payment Period Service Components Minimum Payment Period 50% All Service Components Until end of Pricing Schedule Term, but not less than 12 months per component AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 3 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 4. RATES (US Mainland, HI and Alaska† only) † Service in Alaska requires a separate AT&T Addendum for Service in Alaska. The rates stated in this Pricing Schedule apply to Service locations and/or Service Components in Alaska only in the event that a Service Component and/or Service location is not listed in the Addendum for Service in Alaska. In the event of the conflict between this Pricing Schedule and the Addendum for Service in Alaska, the Addendum for Service in Alaska controls. NOTE 1: MIS w/ Managed Router Option 2 available only as described in the Service Guide. NOTE 2: If Customer orders the MPLS PNT feature under Section I, Tables 28 and 29 as part of the MIS service, Customer will be billed for PNT transport and uplifts and all applicable taxes will be stated on the Customer’s invoice. NOTE 3: The charges for the Class of Service (CoS) feature set forth in Section I, Table 23 through 25 are waived for Sites at which Customer also maintains AT&T Business Voice over IP (VoIP) Service. (*) = not available with MPLS PNT ICB = available only on an Individual Case Basis. N/A = Not Available Section I: AT&T Managed Internet Service Access Bandwidth - Table 1: Tiered T-1, NxT-1, E-1 And Frame - Flat Rate Billing Option Access Method Speed MIS Monthly Service Fee List Price MIS w/ Manage d Router Monthly Service Fee List Price MIS w/ Managed Router Option 2 Monthly Service Fee List Price Discount N/A 56/64 Kbps $190 $260 N/A N/A T-1 128 Kbps $225 $295 $285 N/A T-1 256 Kbps $280 $350 $340 N/A T-1 384 Kbps $335 $405 $395 N/A T-1 512 Kbps $390 $460 $450 N/A T-1 768 Kbps $410 $480 $470 N/A T-1 – Frame* 1024 Kbps $425 $495 $485 N/A T-1 T-1 $470 $540 $530 40.0 % E-1* E-1 $470 $540 N/A N/A 2xT-1 3 Mbps $850 $1,145 N/A N/A 3xT-1 4.5 Mbps $1,100 $1,395 N/A N/A 4xT-1 6 Mbps $1,250 $1,545 N/A N/A 5xT-1 7.5 Mbps $1,480 $2,360 N/A N/A 6xT-1 9 Mbps $1,715 $2,595 N/A N/A 7xT-1 10.5 Mbps $1,915 $2,795 N/A N/A 8xT-1 12 Mbps $2,190 $3,070 N/A N/A v.2.3.06 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 4 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 2: Burstable T-1 Discount: : N/A Sustained Usage Undiscounted MIS Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Option 2 Monthly Service Fee up to 128 Kbps $270 $340 $330 128.01 - 256 Kbps $340 $410 $400 256.01 - 384 Kbps $405 $475 $465 384.01 - 512 Kbps $470 $540 $530 512.01 Kbps - 1.544 Mbps $565 $635 $625 v.2.3.06 Table 3: DNS Services Option Monthly Service Fee Additional Primary DNS (available in increments of up to 15 zones with a maximum of 150 Kilobytes of zone file data) $100 per DNS increment Additional Secondary DNS (available in increments of up to 15 zones with a maximum of 150 Kilobytes of zone file data) $100 per DNS increment v.07.01.04 Table 4: ATM And Tiered T-3 Discount: N/A Access Method Speed MIS Monthly Service Fee List Price MIS w/Managed Router Monthly Service Fee List Price MIS w/Managed Router Option 2 Monthly Service Fee List Price ATM* 2 Mbps $590 $885 $840 ATM* 3 Mbps $850 $1,145 $1,100 ATM* 4 Mbps $1,075 $1,370 $1,325 ATM* 5 Mbps $1,125 $1,420 $1,375 ATM* 6 Mbps $1,250 $1,545 $1,500 ATM* 7 Mbps $1,415 $2,295 $2,000 ATM* 8 Mbps $1,565 $2,445 $2,150 ATM* 9 Mbps $1,715 $2,595 $2,300 ATM*/T-3 10 Mbps $1,840 $2,720 $2,425 ATM*/T-3 15 Mbps $2,465 $3,345 $3,050 ATM*/T-3 20 Mbps $3,090 $3,970 $3,675 ATM*/T-3 25 Mbps $3,725 $4,605 $4,310 ATM*/T-3 30 Mbps $4,350 $5,230 $4,935 ATM*/T-3 35 Mbps $4,990 $5,870 $5,575 ATM*/T-3 40 Mbps $5,615 $6,495 $6,200 T-3 45 Mbps $6,250 $7,130 $6,835 v.2.3.06 Table 5: Burstable T-3 Discount: N/A Sustained Usage Undiscounted MIS Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Option 2 Monthly Service Fee up to 6.0 Mbps $1,515 $1,810 $1,765 6.01 - 7.5 Mbps $1,790 $2,670 $2,375 7.51 - 9.0 Mbps $2,065 $2,945 $2,650 9.01 - 10.5 Mbps $2,290 $3,170 $2,875 10.51 - 12.0 Mbps $2,515 $3,395 $3,100 12.01 - 13.5 Mbps $2,740 $3,620 $3,325 13.51 - 15.0 Mbps $2,965 $3,845 $3,550 15.01 - 16.5 Mbps $3,150 $4,030 $3,735 16.51 - 18.0 Mbps $3,340 $4,220 $3,925 18.01 - 19.5 Mbps $3,525 $4,405 $4,110 19.51 - 21.0 Mbps $3,715 $4,595 $4,300 21.01 - 45.0 Mbps $7,515 $8,395 $8,100 v.2.3.06 Table 6: Flexible Bandwidth Billing Option - Burstable T-3 Discount applied to MIS, MIS w/Managed Router, & MIS w/Managed Router Option 2: N/A Incremental Usage Fee Discount: N/A Tiered Bandwidth Minimum Commitment MIS Undiscou nted Monthly Fee MIS w/ Managed Router Undiscou nted Monthly Fee MIS w/ Managed Router Option 2 Undiscount ed Monthly Fee Undisco unted Increme ntal Usage Fee Per Mbps 2 Mbps $590 $885 $840 $355 3 Mbps $850 $1,145 $1,100 $340 4 Mbps $1,075 $1,370 $1,325 $325 5 Mbps $1,125 $1,420 $1,375 $270 6 Mbps $1,250 $1,545 $1,500 $250 7 Mbps $1,415 $2,295 $2,000 $245 8 Mbps $1,565 $2,445 $2,150 $235 9 Mbps $1,715 $2,595 $2,300 $230 10 Mbps $1,840 $2,720 $2,425 $225 15 Mbps $2,465 $3,345 $3,050 $200 20 Mbps $3,090 $3,970 $3,675 $190 25 Mbps $3,725 $4,605 $4,310 $180 30 Mbps $4,350 $5,230 $4,935 $175 35 Mbps $4,990 $5,870 $5,575 $175 40 Mbps $5,615 $6,495 $6,200 $170 45 Mbps $6,250 $7,130 $6,835 N/A v.2.3.06 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 5 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 7: MIS Access Redundancy Option (MARO) - Burstable T-1 with Shadow Billing Option Discount: N/A Sustained Usage MIS w/Managed Router Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee MIS w/Managed Router Option 2 Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee Up to 56 Kbps For MARO Redundant Link Service Only (Shadow Billing) $170 $160 up to 128kbps $340 $330 128.01 - 256 Kbps $410 $400 256.01 - 384 Kbps $475 $465 384.01 - 512 Kbps $540 $530 512.01 Kbps - 1.544 Mbps $635 $625 v.2.20.06 Table 8: MARO Burstable T-3 with Shadow Billing Option Discount: N/A Sustained Usage MIS w/Managed Router Monthly Service Fee MIS w/Managed Router Option 2 Monthly Service Fee Up to 56 Kbps For MARO Redundant Link Service Only (Shadow Billing) $800 $790 up to 6.0 Mbps $1,810 $1,765 6.01 – 7.5 Mbps $2,670 $2,375 7.51 – 9.0 Mbps $2,945 $2,650 9.01 – 10.5 Mbps $3,170 $2,875 10.51 - 12.0 Mbps $3,395 $3,100 12.01 - 13.5 Mbps $3,620 $3,325 13.51 - 15.0 Mbps $3,845 $3,550 15.01 - 16.5 Mbps $4,030 $3,735 16.51 - 18.0 Mbps $4,220 $3,925 18.01 - 19.5 Mbps $4,405 $4,110 19.51 - 21.0 Mbps $4,595 $4,300 21.01 - 45.0 Mbps $8,395 $8,100 v.2.3.06 Table 9: MARO Features - Monthly Service Fees Option Monthly Service Fee List Price Service Component Discount Alternate Backbone Node Option - additional charges via Private Line, per Service Component T-1: $500 N/A NxT1: $500 per T-1 T3: $5,000 OC-3 $12,000 CPE Redundant Configuration Option - Per Service Component T-1: $120 N/A NxT-1: $350 T3: $540 OC-3: $2,435 Backbone Node Redundancy Option - additional charges via Private Line, per Redundant Link $500 per T-1 Redundant Link N/A $5,000 per T-3 Redundant Link $12,000 per OC-3 Redundant Link Outbound Load Balancers (2) (Dual Managed Customer Routers) T1 & NXT1:$350 T3 & OC3: $875 N/A v.2.3.06 Table 10: MIS and MARO Features - Installation Fees (ICB Only) Discount: 0.0 % Option Undiscounted Installation Fee List Price MIS, MIS w/Managed Router, & MIS w/ Managed Router Option 2 MARO - Outbound Load Balancers (2) (Dual Managed Customer Routers) $1000 v.2.6.06 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 6 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 11: MIS Tele – Installation Discount: 100.0 % MIS Speed Undiscount ed MIS Undiscounted MIS w/ Managed Router Undiscounted MIS w/ Managed Router Option 2 56 Kbps $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 128 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 NxT-1 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Tiered/Full T-3 $5,000 N/A N/A Tiered OC- 3, OC-12, OC- 48 $10,000 N/A N/A Ethernet $1,500 $1,500* N/A 10 Gig Ethernet $10,000 $10,000** $10,000** *Available for MIS speeds of 100 Mbps and below and with electrical interfaces only. ** Subject to availability v.10.01.08 Table 12: On-Site Installation Discount: 0.0 % MIS Speed Undiscounted MIS w/ Managed Router Only Undiscounted MIS w/ Managed Router Option 2 Only 56 Kbps $999 $999 128 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps $999 $999 NxT-1 $999 $999 Tiered/Full T-3 $1,000 $1,000 Tiered OC-3, OC-12, OC-48 $10,000 $10,000 Ethernet $1,500 N/A v.11.08.08 Table 13: ATM and Tiered OC-3 (ICB Only)* Discount: N/A Speed Undiscounted MIS Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Option 2 Monthly Service Fee 2 Mbps $590 $885 $840 3 Mbps $850 $1,145 $1,100 4 Mbps $1,075 $1,370 $1,325 5 Mbps $1,125 $1,420 $1,375 6 Mbps $1,250 $1,545 $1,500 7 Mbps $1,415 $2,295 $2,000 8 Mbps $1,565 $2,445 $2,150 9 Mbps $1,715 $2,595 $2,300 10 Mbps $1,840 $2,720 $2,425 15 Mbps $2,465 $3,345 $3,050 20 Mbps $3,090 $3,970 $3,675 25 Mbps $3,725 $4,605 $4,310 30 Mbps $4,350 $5,230 $4,935 35 Mbps $4,990 $5,870 $5,575 40 Mbps $5,615 $6,495 $6,200 60 Mbps $7,825 $9,005 $8,450 155 Mbps (not available with ATM) $17,800 $18,980 $18,425 v.2.3.06 Table 14: Burstable OC-3 (ICB Only) Discount: N/A Sustained Usage Undiscoun ted MIS Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Option 2 Monthly Service Fee Up to 35.0 Mbps $5,990 $6,870 $6,575 35.01 to 45.0 Mbps $7,515 $8,395 $8,100 45.01 to 55.0 Mbps $8,765 $9,945 $9,390 55.01 to 65.0 Mbps $10,025 $11,205 $10,650 65.01 to 75.0 Mbps $11,290 $12,470 $11,915 75.01 to 85.0 Mbps $12,550 $13,730 $13,175 85.01 to 100.0 Mbps $14,440 $15,620 $15,065 100.01 to 125.0 Mbps $17,590 $18,770 $18,215 125.01 to 155.0 Mbps $21,365 $22,545 $21,990 v.2.3.06 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 7 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 15: Flexible Bandwidth Billing Option - Burstable OC-3 (ICB Only) Discount applied to MIS, MIS w/Managed Router, & MIS w/ Managed Router Option 2: N/A Incremental Usage Fee Discount: N/A Tiered Bandwidt h Minimum Commitm ent Undiscou nted MIS Monthly Fee Undiscoun ted MIS with Managed Router Monthly Fee Undisco unted MIS with Manage d Router Option 2 Monthly Fee UndiscountedI ncremental Usage Fee Per Mbps 35 Mbps $4,990 $5,870 $5,575 $175 40 Mbps $5,615 $6,495 $6,200 $170 45 Mbps $6,250 $7,130 $6,835 $170 60 Mbps $7,825 $9,005 $8,450 $160 70 Mbps $8,875 $10,055 $9,500 $155 80 Mbps $9,925 $11,105 $10,550 $150 90 Mbps $10,975 $12,155 $11,600 $150 100 Mbps $12,025 $13,205 $12,650 $145 120 Mbps $14,125 $15,305 $14,750 $145 144 Mbps $16,225 $17,405 $16,850 $140 155 Mbps $17,800 $18,980 $18,425 N/A v.2.3.06 Table 16: Tiered OC-12 (ICB Only) Discount: N/A Speed Undiscounted MIS Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Monthly Service Fee 622 Mbps $50,700 $52,505 v.2.3.06 Table 17: Burstable OC-12 (ICB Only) Discount: N/A Speed Undiscounted MIS Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Monthly Service Fee Up to 75.0 Mbps $11,290 $12,470 75.01 to 150.0 Mbps $18,750 $19,930 150.01 to 225.0 Mbps $26,215 $27,395 225.01 to 300.0 Mbps $33,665 $35,470 300.01 to 375.0 Mbps $40,040 $41,845 375.01 to 450.0 Mbps $46,415 $48,220 450.01 to 525.0 Mbps $52,715 $54,520 525.01 to 622.0 Mbps $60,850 $62,655 v.2.3.06 Table 18: Flexible Bandwidth Billing Option - Burstable OC-12 (ICB Only) Discount applied to MIS & MIS w/Managed Router: N/A Incremental Usage Fee Discount: N/A Tiered Bandwidth Minimum Commitment Undiscount ed MIS Monthly Fee Undiscounted MIS with Managed Router Monthly Fee Undiscounted Incremental Usage Fee Per Mbps 70 Mbps $8,875 $10,055 $155 80 Mbps $9,925 $11,105 $150 90 Mbps $10,975 $12,155 $150 100 Mbps $12,025 $13,205 $145 120 Mbps $14,125 $15,305 $145 144 Mbps $16,225 $17,405 $140 155 Mbps $17,800 $18,980 $140 200 Mbps $20,975 $22,780 $130 250 Mbps $24,515 $26,320 $120 300 Mbps $28,050 $29,855 $115 350 Mbps $31,600 $33,405 $110 400 Mbps $35,140 $36,945 $110 450 Mbps $38,675 $40,480 $105 500 Mbps $42,215 $44,020 $105 550 Mbps $45,750 $47,555 $100 600 Mbps $49,290 $51,095 $100 622 Mbps $50,700 $52,505 N/A v.2.3.06 Table 19: Tiered OC-48 (ICB Only) Discount: N/A Speed Undiscounted MIS Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Monthly Service Fee 2.5 Gbps $196,000 $199,055 v.2.3.06 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 8 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 20: Burstable OC-48 (ICB Only) Discount: N/A Sustained Usage Undiscounted MIS Monthly Service Fee Undiscounted MIS w/Managed Router Monthly Service Fee Up to 1250 Mbps $121,500 $124,555 1251 to 1350 Mbps $130,975 $134,030 1351 to 1450 Mbps $140,450 $143,505 1451 to 1550 Mbps $149,925 $152,980 1551 to 1650 Mbps $159,400 $162,455 1651 to 1750 Mbps $168,875 $171,930 1751 to 1850 Mbps $178,350 $181,405 1851 to 1950 Mbps $187,825 $190,880 1951 to 2050 Mbps $197,300 $200,355 2051 to 2150 Mbps $206,775 $209,830 2151 to 2250 Mbps $216,250 $219,305 2251 to 2350 Mbps $225,725 $228,780 2351 to 2450 Mbps $235,200 $238,255 v.2.3.06 Table 21: Flexible Bandwidth Billing Option - Burstable OC-48 (ICB Only) Discount applied to MIS & MIS w/Managed Router: N/A Incremental Usage Fee Discount: N/A Tiered Bandwidth Minimum Commitment Undiscou nted MIS Monthly Fee Undiscounte d MIS with Managed Router Monthly Fee Undiscounted Incremental Usage Fee Per Mbps 600 Mbps $49,290 $51,095 $100 622 Mbps $50,700 $52,505 $100 700 Mbps $56,365 $58,170 $100 800 Mbps $63,440 $65,245 $100 1250 Mbps $101,250 $104,305 $100 1550 Mbps $125,000 $128,055 $100 1850 Mbps $148,750 $151,805 $100 2150 Mbps $172,500 $175,555 $100 2450 Mbps $196,000 $199,055 N/A v.2.3.06 Table 22a: Flexible Bandwidth Billing Option - Ethernet Discount applied to MIS & MIS w/Managed Router: 93.0 % Incremental Usage Fee Discount: 93.0 % Tiered Bandwidth Minimum Commitment MIS Undiscounte d Monthly Fee MIS with Managed Router Undiscounted Monthly Fee Undiscounted Incremental Usage Fee Per Mbps 0.5 Mbps $390 $460 $940 1.0 Mbps $425 $495 $510 1.5 Mbps $470 $540 $380 2 Mbps $590 $885 $355 3 Mbps $850 $1,145 $340 4 Mbps $1,075 $1,370 $325 5 Mbps $1,125 $1,420 $270 6 Mbps $1,250 $1,545 $250 7 Mbps $1,415 $2,295 $245 8 Mbps $1,565 $2,445 $235 9 Mbps $1,715 $2,595 $230 10 Mbps $1,840 $2,720 $225 15 Mbps $2,465 $3,345 $200 20 Mbps $3,090 $3,970 $190 25 Mbps $3,725 $4,605 $180 30 Mbps $4,350 $5,230 $175 35 Mbps $4,990 $5,870 $175 40 Mbps $5,615 $6,495 $170 45 Mbps $6,250 $7,130 $170 50 Mbps $6,770 $7,815 $165 60 Mbps $7,825 $9,005 $160 70 Mbps $8,875 $10,055 $155 75 Mbps $9,410 $10,595 $155 80 Mbps $9,925 $11,105 $150 90 Mbps $10,975 $12,155 $150 100 Mbps $12,025 $13,205 $145 120 Mbps $14,125 $15,305 $145 144 Mbps $16,225 $17,405 $140 150 Mbps $17,065 $18,250 $140 155 Mbps $17,800 $18,980 $140 200 Mbps $20,975 $22,780 $130 250 Mbps $24,515 $26,320 $120 300 Mbps $28,050 $29,855 $115 350 Mbps $31,600 $33,405 $110 400 Mbps $35,140 $36,945 $110 450 Mbps $38,675 $40,480 $105 500 Mbps $42,215 $44,020 $105 550 Mbps $45,750 $47,555 $100 600 Mbps $49,290 $51,095 $100 622 Mbps $50,700 $52,505 $100 700 Mbps $56,365 $58,170 $100 800 Mbps (ICB) $63,440 $65,245 $100 900 Mbps (ICB) $70,875 $73,930 $100 1000 Mbps (ICB) $78,250 $81,305 N/A v.10.01.08 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 9 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 22b: Flexible Bandwidth Billing Option – MIS 10 Gig Ethernet Discount applied to MIS: N/A Incremental Usage Fee Discount: N/A Tiered Bandwidth Minimum Commitment MIS Undiscounted Monthly Fee Undiscounted Incremental Usage Fee Per Mbps 1.5 Gbps $119,625 $79.75 2.0 Gbps $161,000 $80.50 2.5 Gbps $196,000 $80.25 3.0 Gbps $240,000 $80.00 3.5 Gbps $279,125 $79.75 4.0 Gbps $318,000 $79.50 4.5 Gbps $356,625 $79.25 5.0 Gbps $390,000 $78.00 5.5 Gbps $433,125 $78.75 6.0 Gbps $471,000 $78.50 6.5 Gbps $508,625 $78.25 7.0 Gbps $539,000 $77.00 7.5 Gbps $583,125 $77.75 8.0 Gbps $620,000 $77.50 8.5 Gbps $656,625 $77.25 9.0 Gbps $684,000 $76.00 9.5 Gbps $719,625 $75.75 10.0 Gbps $755,000 $75.50 v.10.01.08 Table 23: Class Of Service Option - Tiered T-1, T-3 and Burstable Service - Monthly Service Fees Discount: 0.0 % Speed Class of Service Monthly Fee – List Price (w/ or w/out Managed Router, including Managed Router Option 2, except as indicated) 56 Kbps† $225 128 Kbps† $225 256 Kbps† $225 384 Kbps† $225 512 Kbps† $225 768 Kbps $225 1024 Kbps* $225 1.5 Mbps $225 2xT-1 (3 Mbps) $225 3xT-1 (4.5 Mbps) $225 4xT-1 (6 Mbps) $225 5xT-1 (7.5 Mbps) $225 6xT-1 (9 Mbps) $225 7xT-1 (10.5 Mbps) $225 8xT-1 (12 Mbps) $225 10 Mbps $825 15 Mbps $1,075 20 Mbps $1,325 25 Mbps $1,575 30 Mbps $1,825 35 Mbps $2,100 40 Mbps $2,350 45 Mbps $2,750 155 Mbps‡ $2,750 (†) no real-time class available (‡) unmanaged only v.6.1.06 Table 24: Class Of Service Option - Flexible Bandwidth Billing Option - Monthly Service Fees Discount: 0.0 % Speed Undiscounted MIS w/ or w/out Managed Router including Managed Router Option 2* Monthly Service Fee Up to 1.5 Mbps $225 2.0 Mbps $285 2.01 - 3.0 Mbps $360 3.01 - 4.0 Mbps $435 4.01 - 5.0 Mbps $510 5.01 - 6.0 Mbps $575 6.01 - 7.0 Mbps $640 7.01 - 8.0 Mbps $705 8.01 - 9.0 Mbps $765 9.01 to 10.0 Mbps $825 10.01 to 15.0 Mbps $1,075 15.01 - 20.0 Mbps $1,325 20.01 - 25.0 Mbps $1,575 25.01 - 30.0 Mbps $1,825 30.01 - 35.0 Mbps $2,100 35.01 - 40.0 Mbps $2,350 40.01 – 45 Mbps $2,750 45.01 – 155 Mbps $5,000 200 - 250 Mbps $5,400 300 - 350 Mbps $5,800 400 - 600 Mbps $6,200 622 Mbps $7,000 700 – 1000 Mbps $7,800 1.5 Gbps $7,900 2.0 Gbps $8,000 2.5 Gbps $8,100 3.0 Gbps $8,200 3.5 Gbps $8,300 4.0 Gbps $8,400 4.5 Gbps $8,500 5.0 Gbps $8,600 5.5 Gbps $8,700 6.0 Gbps $8,800 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 10 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 6.5 Gbps $8,900 7.0 Gbps $9,000 7.5 Gbps $9,100 8.0 Gbps $9,200 8.5 Gbps $9,300 9.0 Gbps $9,400 9.5 Gbps $9,500 10.0 Gbps $9,600 *Subject to availability v.10.01.08 Table 25: Class Of Service Option - Installation Fees Discount: 0.0 % Class of Service Undiscounted Installation Fee $1,000 v.2.3.06 Table 26: MIS+NCS Option (ICB Only) Discount: N/A Feature Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee MIS Only MIS + NCS Site License Fee (3 yr) $1,200 MIS + NCS Site License Fee (5 yr) $1,050 MIS + NCS Tier 1 Support $100 v.2.3.06 Table 27: MIS + NCS Installation Fees (ICB Only) Discount: 0.0 % Feature Undiscounted Installation Fee List Price MIS MIS + NCS Site Preparation Fee $2,500 v.2.3.06 Table 28: MPLS PNT Feature Discount:N/A Access Method Speed Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee MIS, MIS w/Managed Router, and MIS w/ Managed Router Option 2 Private Line Fractional T-1 (56K – 768K)** Fractional T-1 (56K – 768K)** $200 Private Line NxT-1 (2 through 8) Private Line NxT-1 (3 Mbps – 12 Mbps) $200 Private Line T1 T-1 (1.54 Mbps) $200 Private Line T3 2 Mbps (Hi-Cap Flex T3) $1,000 Private Line T3 3 Mbps (Hi-Cap Flex T3) $1,000 Private Line T3 4 Mbps (Hi-Cap Flex T3) $1,000 Private Line T3 5 Mbps (Hi-Cap Flex T3) $1,000 Private Line T3 6 Mbps (Hi-Cap Flex T3) $1,000 Private Line T3 7 Mbps (Hi-Cap Flex T3) $1,000 Private Line T3 8 Mbps (Hi-Cap Flex T3) $1,000 Private Line T3 9 Mbps (Hi-Cap Flex T3) $1,000 Private Line T3 10 Mbps (Hi-Cap Flex T3) $1,000 Private Line T3 15 Mbps (Hi Cap Flex T3 or Fractional T3) $1,000 Private Line T3 20 Mbps (Hi-cap Flex T3, or Fractional T3) $2,000 Private Line T3 25 Mbps(Hi-cap Flex T3, or Fractional T3) $2,000 Private Line T3 30 Mbps (Hi-cap Flex T3, or Fractional T3) $2,000 Private Line T3 35 Mbps (Hi-cap Flex T3, or Fractional T3) $2,000 Private Line T3 40 Mbps (Hi-cap Flex T3, or Fractional T3) $2,000 Private Line T3 45 Mbps (Full T3) $2,000 Private Line T3 6-45 Mbps (Burstable T3) $2,000 Private Line OC3 OC-3 (35-155 Mbps) Flat rate, Burstable, or Hi-Cap flex $5,000 Private Line OC12 OC-12 (70-622 Mbps) Flat rate, Hi-Cap Flex, or Burstable $10,000 Private Line OC48 OC-48 (600-2500 Mbps) Flat rate, Hi-Cap Flex or Burstable $20,000 Ethernet 512 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps $200 Ethernet 2 - 15 Mbps $1,000 Ethernet 15.01 – 45 Mbps $2,000 Ethernet 45.01 - 155 Mbps $5,000 Ethernet 155.01 - 622 Mbps $10,000 Ethernet 622.01 - 1000 Mbps $20,000 ** (1024K not available with MPLS PNT) v.10.12.07 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 11 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 29: MPLS PNT UniLink Feature Discount: N/A Access Method Speed Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee MIS PNT and MIS PNT with Managed Router Private Line T-1 T-1 (1.54 Mbps) Burstable T1 $200 Private Line T-3 2- 45 Mbps (Flat Rate, Hi-Cap Flex or Burstable T3) $2,000 Private Line OC-3 OC-3 (35-155 Mbps) Flat rate, Burstable, or Hi-Cap flex $5,000 Private Line OC- 12 OC-12 (70-622 Mbps) Flat rate, Hi- Cap Flex, or Burstable $10,000 Private Line OC- 48 OC-48 $20,000 Ethernet 512 Kbps – 1.5 Mbps $200 Ethernet 2 - 45 Mbps $2,000 Ethernet 45.01-155 Mbps $5,000 Ethernet 155.01-622 Mbps $10,000 Ethernet 622.01-1000 Mbps $20,000 v.10.12.07 Table 30: MultiCast Monthly Service Fee N/A MultiCast Monthly Service Fee ICB Table 31: MultiCast Installation N/A MultiCast Installation Fee ICB Section II: AT&T Business in a BoxSM Table 1: Service Component Replacement – Next Business Day Shipped (5x8) Monthly Charges Discount: 0.0 % Service Component/Device Undiscounted Monthly Service Charge Base Unit 12 Port $50 Base Unit 24 Port $70 8 Port POE Add-On $30 24 Port POE Add-On $75 8 Port Analog Module Add-On $35 v.5.14.09 Table 2: On-Site Maintenance (24X7X4) Monthly Charges Discount: 0.0 % Option Undiscounted Monthly Service Charge Base Unit 12 Port $75 Base Unit 24 Port $95 8 Port POE Add-On $35 24 Port POE Add-On $85 8 Port Analog Module Add-On $40 v.5.14.09 Table 3: Life-Cycle Management Charges - Service Charges Discount: 0.0 % Per Site / Per Occurrence during Standard Business Hours (Monday- Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm, local time) Undiscounted Service Charge List Price Move, Addition, Change to Service $260 Delete Service $500 v. 5.14.09 Table 4: Class Of Service Option - when ordered with AT&T BVoIP Services only Discount: 100% Class of Service Monthly Service Fee $225 v.1.9.09 Section III: Managed Firewall Service Pricing - ICB Table 1: Monthly Fees for Router and Server Based Firewalls Option Monthly Service Fee List Price Service Component Discount Router Based Firewall Option $300 N/A Server Based Firewall Option $2,500 N/A v.11.27.02 Table 2: Installation Fees for Router and Server Based Firewalls Option Tele-Installation Fee - List Price Discount To be Applied To The List Price Router Based Firewall $2500 N/A Server Based Firewall $5000 N/A v.04/29/02 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 12 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 3: Server Based High End Firewall Monthly Discount: N/A Options Monthly Service Fees List Price Undiscounted Hi Availability/Load Balancing (Cluster of 2 Firewalls) $6250 Undiscounted Additional Firewalls in High Availability Cluster (Up to 5 total) $2,500 per additional firewall 04/29/02 Table 4: Server Based High End Firewall Installation Options Undiscounted Installation Fees List Price Additional Service Component Discount Managed Firewall - Hi Availability/Load Balancing (Cluster of 2 Firewalls) $12,500 N/A Additional Firewalls in High Availability Cluster (above cluster of 2, up to a total of 5) $5,000 per additional firewall N/A v.04/29/02 Table 5: Server Based Firewall Options - ICB (i) Monthly Service Charges Discount: N/A Server Based Firewall Options Undiscounted Monthly Service Fees List Price Triple Homed Option (DMZ) (Server Based) $500 Double Homed Option (Unprotected DMZ) $0 URL Screening (Websense) Managed Firewall URL Screening 100 User $100.00 Managed Firewall URL Screening 500 User $350.00 Managed Firewall URL Screening 1000 User $500.00 Managed Firewall URL Screening 3000 User $900.00 Managed Firewall URL Screening 5000 User $1,250.00 100 Mb Ethernet Support - Managed Firewall 100Mb Ethernet $200.00 Support For Customer-Provided Strong Authentication Server $50.00 Managed Firewall - Support For Extranet $750.00 Managed Firewall - Support For Remote User VPN $0 Firewall to Firewall VPN - (AT&T $500 Managed Firewall Location) Firewall to Firewall VPN - (Customer Managed Firewall Location) $1000 Firewall Availability Reporting $500 Managed Firewall - Support For Hardware Encryption Acceleration $500 v.02/05/04 (ii) Installation Charges Discount: N/A Firewall Options Undiscounted Installation Fees List Price Triple Homed Option (DMZ) (Server Based) $0 Double Homed Option (Unprotected DMZ) $200 URL Screening (Websense) Managed Firewall URL Screening 100 User $350.00 Managed Firewall URL Screening 500 User $350.00 Managed Firewall URL Screening 1000 User $350.00 Managed Firewall URL Screening 3000 User $350.00 Managed Firewall URL Screening 5000 User $350.00 100 Mb Ethernet Support - Managed Firewall 100Mb Ethernet $200.00 Support For Customer Provided Strong Authentication Server $250.00 Managed Firewall - Support for Extranet $500.00 Managed Firewall - Support for Remote User VPN $1000.00 Firewall to Firewall VPN - (AT&T Managed Firewall Location) $500 Firewall to Firewall VPN - (Customer Managed Firewall Location) $1000 Firewall Availability Reporting $500 Managed Firewall - Support For Hardware Encryption Acceleration $500 v.02/05/04 Table 6: Triple Homed Option - Router based Discount: N/A Option Undiscounted Installation Fee Triple Homed Option $500 v.11/27/02 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 13 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 7: On-Site Maintenance/Service Level Response Time Options - Monthly Service Charges Discount: N/A Maintenance/Service Level Response Time Undiscounted Monthly Service Charge 5 days/week, 8 hours/day, Next Business Day Standard - available at no additional charge 5 days/week, 8 hours/day, 4 Business Hours $150.00 7 days/week. 8 hours/day Next Business Day $300.00 7 days/week, 24 hours/day, 4 Business Hours $500.00 v.04/29/02 Table 8: MFS -- CP Option - Monthly Charges Option Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee List Price Service Component Discount Small Office $500.00 10.0 % Medium Office $2,000.00 10.0 % Medium Office High Availability $4,000.00 10.0 % Large Office High Availability $7,000.00 10.0 % Large Office High Availability GigE $7,500.00 10.0 % Extra-Large High Availability GigE $15,000.00 10.0 % v.08/28/02 Table 9: MFS -- CP Option - Installation Charges Option Undiscounted Installation Fees List Price Service Component Discount Small Office $2,500.00 100.0 % Medium Office $2,500.00 100.0 % Medium Office High Availability $4,500.00 100.0 % Large Office High Availability $10,500.00 100.0 % Large Office High Availability GigE $11,000.00 100.0 % Extra-Large High Availability GigE $18,500.00 100.0 % v.08/28/02 Table 10: MFS -- CP Options - Monthly Charges Option Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee List Price Service Component Discount Virtual Private Network Option $500.00 10.0 % DMZ Option $700.00 10.0 % Extranet Option $700.00 10.0 % v.07/29/02 Table 11: MFS -- CP Options - Installation Charges Option Undiscounted Installation Fees List Price Service Component Discount Virtual Private Network Option $500.00 100.0 % URL Filtering Option $1,000.00 100.0 % DMZ Option $500.00 100.0 % Extranet Option $500.00 100.0 % v.07/29/02 Table 12: Managed Firewall Service - CN Option Monthly Prices - Standard AT&T CPE AT&T CPE Type of CN Appliance Number of Users Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee List Price Service Component Discount Small 1 - 25 $500 N/A Small 26 - 50 $550 N/A Small 51 - 100 $600 N/A Medium 1 - 50 $1,825 N/A Medium 51 - 100 $1,975 N/A Medium 101 - 250 $2,095 N/A Medium Unlimited $2,500 N/A Large 1 - 50 $2,640 N/A Large 51 - 100 $2,820 N/A Large 101 - 250 $2,960 N/A Large Unlimited $3,500 N/A v.08.05.05 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 14 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 13: Managed Firewall Service - CN Option Monthly Prices - High Availability AT&T CPE AT&T CPE Type of CN Appliance Number of Users Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee List Price Service Component Discount Medium (Cluster of 2 Firewalls) Unlimited $3,750 N/A Large (Cluster of 2 Firewalls) Unlimited $5,500 N/A v.08.05.05 Table 14: Managed Firewall Service - CN Option Installation Charges - Standard and High Availability AT&T CPE Type of CN Appliance Category of CN Appliance Undiscounted Installation Fees List Price Service Component Discount Small Standard $1,000 N/A Medium Standard $5,000 N/A Medium High Availability $8,250 N/A Large Standard $5,000 N/A Large High Availability $8,250 N/A v.10.05.05 Table 15: Managed Firewall Service - CN Option CN Appliance Options - Monthly Prices Service Option Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee List Price Service Component Discount Professional Resource - ICB $2,000 N/A Capacity Upgrade Management - ICB $2,000 N/A Managed DMZ Support $500 N/A Support for Customer Provided Authentication $50 N/A Firewall to Firewall VPN $500 N/A Managed Extranet Support $750 N/A Managed Complex Policy: 30-100 firewall rules - ICB $50 N/A Managed Extra Complex Policy: over 100 firewall rules - ICB $250 N/A v.10.05.05 Table 16: Managed Firewall Service - CN Option CN Appliance Options - Installation Prices Service Option List Price Service Component Discount Professional Resource - ICB $5,000 N/A Capacity Upgrade Management - ICB $5,000 N/A Managed DMZ Support $500 N/A Support for Remote User VPN Configuration $1,000 N/A Support for Customer Provided Authentication $250 N/A Firewall to Firewall VPN $500 N/A Managed Extranet Support $500 N/A Managed Complex Policy: 30-100 firewall rules - ICB $500 N/A Managed Extra Complex Policy: over 100 firewall rules - ICB $1,000 N/A v.10.05.05 Section IV: Managed Intrusion Detection Service ("MIDS") - ICB Table 1: MIDS Standalone Option - Monthly Service Fees Discount: N/A MIDS Option Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee List Price Stand Alone Managed Intrusion Detection Service (MIDS) 10 MB $2,700 Stand Alone Managed Intrusion Detection Service (MIDS) 100 MB $3,200 Table 2: MIDS Standalone Option - Installation Fees Discount: N/A MIDS Option Undiscounted Installation Fee List Price Stand Alone Managed Intrusion Detection Service (MIDS) 10 MB $7,500 Stand Alone Managed Intrusion Detection Service (MIDS) 100 MB $7,500 v.04.29.02 AT&T Managed Internet Service – Pricing Schedule AT&T MA Reference No. ______________ CSM100927152051 AT&T and Customer Confidential Information Page 15 of 15 eCRM ID ps_mis_all_with_security_svcs_20060528_gcsm.rtf v.05/14/09 Table 3: MIDS Bundled Option - Monthly Service Fees Discount: N/A MIDS Option Undiscounted Monthly Service Fee List Price Bundled with MFS-SB Managed Intrusion Detection Service (MIDS) 10 MB $2,250 Bundled with MFS-SB Managed Intrusion Detection Service (MIDS) 100 MB $2,750 v.04.29.02 Table 4: MIDS Bundled Option - Installation Fees Discount: N/A MIDS Option Undiscounted Installation Fee List Price Bundled with MFS-SB Managed Intrusion Detection Service (MIDS) 10 MB $3,000 Bundled with MFS-SB Managed Intrusion Detection Service (MIDS) 100 MB $3,000 v.04.29.02 Section V: Additional Service Fees Moving Fee (during hours) $1,000 per location Additional Moving Fee (outside standard operating hours – 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) Additional $500 per location v.7.1.04 City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Matt Marietta Date: Submitted on October 6, 2010 for the October 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Item: Approval for the Addition of Republic Services of Georgia to the List of Approved Solid Waste Haulers for the City of Milton City Manager’s Office Recommendation Approve a non exclusive contract that will allow the addition of Republic Services of Georgia the City of Milton’s Approved Solid Waste Hauler list in accordance with the enacted Solid Waste Collection Services ordinance. Discussion Republic Services of Georgia has agreed to comply with the Milton Solid Waste Ordinance to provide residential services for the residents in the City of Milton. Furthermore, the company has heretofore been operating in the City of Milton and on the Approved Hauler’s List under the brand names United Waste, Allied Waste and Robertson Sanitation. They have met the requirements and wish to consolidate their program under the one corporate umbrella. Funding and Fiscal Impact If the business is successful in establishing itself in Milton, then they would comply with the quarterly infrastructure maintenance fee, which will help offset the cost of road repairs in the City. Concurrent Review Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager RESOULTION NO. STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON A RESOLUTION ADDING REPUBLIC SERVICES TO THE LIST OF APPROVED HAULERS PURSUANT TO THE MILTON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE The Mayor and Council of the city of Milton hereby resolves: SECTION 1. That the City of Milton has properly enacted an ordinance to regulate solid waste management within its corporate boundaries. SECTION 2. Republic Services of Georgia seeks to provide solid waste management services in the City of Milton in compliance with the Milton Solid Waste Ordinance. SECTION 3. Republic Services of Georgia is hereby added to the list of approved haulers to provide solid waste service within Milton’s corporate limits. BE IT RESOLVED, on this 18th day of October, 2010 at 6:00 pm by the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia. _______________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie Gordon, City Clerk (Seal) City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Matt Marietta Date: Submitted on October 6, 2010 for the October 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Item: Approval for the Addition of GW Lovelace Hauling to the List of Approved Solid Waste Haulers for the City of Milton City Manager’s Office Recommendation Approve a non exclusive contract that will allow the addition of GW Lovelace Hauling to the City of Milton’s Approved Solid Waste Hauler list in accordance with the enacted Solid Waste Collection Services ordinance. Discussion GW Lovelace Hauling has agreed to comply with the Milton Solid Waste Ordinance to provide residential service within the City limits. Funding and Fiscal Impact If the business is successful in establishing itself in Milton, then they would comply with the quarterly infrastructure maintenance fee, which will help offset the cost of road repairs in the City. Concurrent Review Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager RESOULTION NO. STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON A RESOLUTION ADDING GW LOVELACE HAULING TO THE LIST OF APPROVED HAULERS PURSUANT TO THE MILTON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE The Mayor and Council of the city of Milton hereby resolves: SECTION 1. That the City of Milton has properly enacted an ordinance to regulate solid waste management within its corporate boundaries. SECTION 2. GW Lovelace seeks to provide solid waste management services in the City of Milton in compliance with the Milton Solid Waste Ordinance. SECTION 3. GW Lovelace Hauling is hereby added to the list of approved haulers to provide solid waste service within Milton’s corporate limits. BE IT RESOLVED, on this 18th day of October, 2010 at 6:00 pm by the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia. _______________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie Gordon, City Clerk (Seal) Page 1 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 PETITION NUMBER(S): ZM10-03/VC10-02 PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS Deerfield Parkway (West Side – 514 feet of frontage) DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2/2, 1113, 1114 OVERLAY DISTRICT State Route 9 EXISTING ZONING O-I (Office-Institutional) Z99-011, VC99-007, U99-008 ACRES 11.62 EXISTING USE Undeveloped APPLICANT Global Payments, Inc 10 Glenlake Parkway Atlanta, GA 30328 OWNER Crescent Resources, LLC 3500 Lenox Road, Suite 840 Atlanta, GA 30326 REPRESENTATIVE Harold Buckley, Jr. Alston & Bird LLP 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION ZM10-03 – APPROVAL CONDITIONAL OF CONDITION 2.a. AND TO DELETE CONDITION 3.b. VC10-02 – APPROVAL CONDITIONAL INTENT To modify condition 2.a (99Z-011, 99U-008, 99VC-007) to replace the current conditional site plan, which was marked received by the Fulton County Environment and Community Development Department on December 11, 1998 with a new site plan received by the City of Milton Community Development Department on September 7, 2010. To delete zoning condition 3.b., Parking shall be shared with adjacent property zoned C-1 (Community Business), pursuant to 99Z-012, currently zoned O-I (Office- Institutional) pursuant to 2007Z-019. To request a concurrent variance to reduce the subject property’s minimum on-site parking requirement from 122 spaces to 100 spaces (Section 64-1410). Page 2 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 LOCATION MAP Page 3 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 CURRENT ZONING MAP Page 4 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 SITE PLAN SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 Page 5 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 SITE PLAN DATED DECEMBER 11, 1998 Page 6 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 Proposed Building Elevation Page 7 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 Subject Site from Deerfield Parkway Page 8 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 SUBJECT SITE The subject site is currently zoned O-I (Office Institutional) pursuant to Z99-011/U99-088/VC99- 007 which originally contained 11.62 acres which was approved for a 223,000 square foot office with no more than 6 s tories and 781 parking spaces. Since the time of the 1999 zoning a portion of the property to the west was rezoned to C-1 (Community Business) pursuant to Z00-009 to construct the Wal-Mart retail store. In addition, a small triangular parcel was included in the legal description of RZ00-045 and again rezoned pursuant to RZ07-019 for O-I (Office-Institutional). The applicant is including a porti on of the property on the northern portion of the submitted revised site plan as it was a part of the existing zoning pursuant to Z99-011/U00-008/VC99-007. The extra portion will not be purchased for the proposed development. Prior to a Land Disturbance Permit, a minor subdivision plat will be required to subdivide the parcel into the ultimate 8.5 acres to be developed by the applicant. According to the applicant’s letter of intent, the development will include a 40,500 square foot data center which will include 10,000 square feet of data center space, 10,000 square feet of office space, 4,000 square feet of network monitoring operations, and 16,500 square feet of data infrastructure storage and support space. The overall height will be for the rear of the building will be 28 feet and the front portion with the offices will be approximately 19 feet. The development will also include an exterior loading dock for infrequent equipment deliveries, and an exterior equipment yard that will accommodate air conditioning equipment, electrical transformers and power generators. The equipment yard will be enclosed by an 8-foot screening wall that is designed to be consistent in appearance with the data center building. The facility, which will operate continuously on a 24-hour basis, plans to employ up to 150 full time equivalent employees as follows: Data Center Operations may be staffed with up to 120 monitoring operators who will be divided into three shifts, with 40 employees per shift. IT Administration may be staffed up to 30 employees who will work standard 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. office hours. When the facility eventually reaches employment capacity, there may be up to 70 employees in the facility during peak shift periods. The data center will not be open to the general public. COMMUNITY ZONING INFORMATION MEETING – September 29, 2010 The applicant’s representative was present at the CZIM meeting but there were no citizens or interested parties in attendance for this item. City Arborist Most of the site, approximately 80-90% had been previously cut within the past 15 years. Most of the trees within the center of this site were pine trees with a caliper around 12”. More significant trees were located at the south property line with a better mix of species and sizes. The western and northern portion of the property is somewhat dense with a mix of Page 9 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 trees with larger caliper along the north. Some specimen trees are shown in this area. Much of the northern area of property could be left in an undisturbed state. The proposed building and parking area will not impact any streams or specimen trees. STAFF ANALYSIS To delete zoning condition 3.b., Parking shall be shared with adjacent property zoned C-1 (Community Business), pursuant to 99Z-012, currently zoned O-I (Office-Institutional) pursuant to 2007Z-019. The applicant is requesting to delete condition 3.b. that requires shared parking with the property to the south, which is currently undeveloped. Based on the fact that the applicant is requesting a reduction of parking on the subject site, there is not a need for additional parking for the development. In addition, the site plan originally submitted for the 1999 rezoning contemplated a large office building and 781 parking space of which many were located near the property to the south (99Z-012). Staff notes that the revised site plan provides for future inter-parcel access along the south property line which is required by the Public Works Department. This is based on the fact that the parcel to the south is narrow and the location of the existing full access curb cut on Deerfield Parkway is on the applicant’s property. This requirement will be reflected in the Recommended Conditions. It is Staff’s opinion that the deletion of condition 3.b. will not have an adverse effect on the subject site or the parcel to the south. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL to delete zoning condition 3.b. VC10-02 - To request a concurrent variance to reduce the subject property’s minimum on- site parking requirement from 122 spaces to 100 spaces (Section 64-1410). The Zoning Ordinance, Section 64-1410, requires 122 parking spaces (3 spaces per 1,000 square feet). Staff notes that this standard is for general office use and the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance does not address parking standards for a data center specifically. However, International Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual indicates that trips are reduced by approximately one-third (1/3) from general office use compared to research and development. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that parking f or those trips would follow a similar pattern. The proposed data center does not require the number of employees that is required for a typical office use and the reduction of parking spaces increases the amount of undeveloped/open area on the site. The reduction of parking spaces from 122 to 100 spaces does not offend the spirit or intent of the zoning ordinance. Based on the fact that the zoning ordinance does not address data centers specifically for parking requirements, and other studies have shown similar trends makes the strict adherence to the minimum parking requirement unnecessary. By allowing the reduction parking spaces, the request does not Page 10 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties based on the fact that more undeveloped/open space will be provided and assists in preserving additional specimen trees thereby providing a more aesthetically pleasing environment to the citizens of Milton. Lastly, by granting the reduction in parking spaces the public safety, health and welfare would be secured and substantial justice is done. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL CONDITIONAL of VC10-02 to reduce the subject property’s minimum on-site parking requirement from 122 spaces to 100 spaces (Section 64- 1410). EXISTING Condition 2a. To the site plan received by the Department of Environment and Community Development Department on December 11, 1998. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Resolution 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. PROPOSED Condition 2a. To the revised site plan received by the City of Milton Community Development Department on September 7, 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. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan to the City of Milton Community Development Department on September 7, 2010 to replace the existing site plan submitted on December 11, 2010 pursuant to 99Z-011. The revised site plan contains a 40,500 square foot building to be used as a data center and 100 parking spaces. The area to the north will not be developed as the applicant will only utilize 8.5 acres of the original approved zoning. A perennial stream is located at Deerfield Parkway and bisecting the new property line on the north portion of the property. Staff notes that the applicant has shown the appropriate state and City undisturbed stream buffer as well as the City’s 25-foot non-impervious setback. There will not be any intrusion into these buffers as indicated on the site plan. The revised site plan meets the development standards with the exception of the requested reduction in parking for both the O-I (Office-Institutional) and Hwy 9 Overlay District Standards. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL CONDITIONAL of Condition 2.a. for the revised site plan submitted on June 30, 2010. Page 11 of 11 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting October 18, 2010 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Should the Mayor and City Council approve this petition, the recommended conditions (ZM10-03/VC10-02) should be revised to read as follows: 2. To the owner's agreement to abide by the following: a. To the revised site plan received by the City of Milton Community Development Department on September 7, 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. 3. To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations: b. Parking shall be shared with adjacent property zoned C-1 (Community Business), pursuant to 99Z-012. c. Provide a minimum of 100 parking spaces. (VC10-02) 4. To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedications and improvements: e. A 50-foot access easement is required to provide inter-parcel access on the south property line. Easement shall be cleared and graded prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. f. Applicant is required to meet with and coordinate driveway location with Milton Public Works prior to submission of a Land Disturbance Plan. g. Driveway entrance shall provide for the 95% queue with uninterrupted traffic flow onto the main line for combined trips with parcel to the south (RZ07-019) as approved by Milton Public Works. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY OF FULTON PETITION NO. ZM10-03/VC10-02 AN ORDINANCE TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF A RESOLUTION BY THE FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPROVED PETITIONS Z99-011, U99-008, VC99- 007 ON JUNE 2, 1999 TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF MILTON MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 18, 2010, ZM10-03, PROPERTY LOCATED ON DEERFIELD PARKWAY (WEST SIDE) IN LAND LOTS 1047, 1113 AND 1114 OF THE 2ND DISTRICT 2ND SECTION CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 11.62 ACRES. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council for the City of Milton, Georgia while in regular session on October 18, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. That the condition of a resolution by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, approved on June 2, 1999, for petition Z99-011, U99-008, and VC99-007 that approved a zoning to O-I (Office-Institutional) on Deerfield Parkway consisting of a total of approximately 11.62 acres, attached hereto and made a part herein; ALL THAT TRACT or parcel of land located in Land Lots 1047, 1113 and 1114 of the 2nd District 2nd Section of the attached legal description; and SECTION 2. That the property shall be developed in compliance with the conditions of approval as attached to this ordinance. Any conditions hereby approved (including any site plan) do not authorize the violation of any district regulations; and SECTION 3. That all ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with the terms of this ordinance are hereby repealed; and SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption by the Mayor and City Council and the signature of approval of the Mayor. ORDAINED this 18th day of October 2010. Approved: ______________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk (Seal) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ZM10-03/VC10-02 Deerfield Parkway (West Side) Should the Mayor and City Council approve this petition, the recommended conditions (ZM10-03/VC10-02) should be revised to read as follows: 2. To the owner's agreement to abide by the following: a. To the revised site plan received by the City of Milton Community Development Department on September 7, 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. 3. To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations: b. Parking shall be shared with adjacent property zoned C-1 (Community Business), pursuant to 99Z-012. c. Provide a minimum of 100 parking spaces. (VC10-02) 4. To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedications and improvements: e. A 50-foot access easement is required to provide inter-parcel access on the south property line. Easement shall be cleared and graded prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. f. Applicant is required to meet with and coordinate driveway location with Milton Public Works prior to submission of a Land Disturbance Plan. g. Driveway entrance shall provide for the 95% queue with uninterrupted traffic Flow onto the main line for combined trips with parcel to the south (RZ07-019) as approved by Milton Public Works. ZM10-03/VC10-02 REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 i IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA D SQUARED DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, ) V. ) MILTON, GEORGIA, a Municipal ) Corporation of the State of ) Georgia; the CITY COUNCIL OF THE ) CITY OF MILTON, GEORGIA, MAYOR JOE ) LOCKWOOD, KAREN THURMAN, JULIE ) ZAHNER BAILEY, WILLIAM C. LUSK, ) BURT HEWITT, JOE LONGORIA, and ) ALAN TART, individually in their ) official capacities as Members of ) the City Council of the City of ) Milton, Georgia, ) Defendants. ORDER CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 2010 -CV -186725 SEP - 17010 DEPUTY CLERK SUPERIOR COURT It appearing to the Court that the parties wish to revisit the petition for rezoning forming the basis of this lawsuit and that this can only be accomplished by a remand of the petition, the petition for rezoning is remanded to the City Council of the City of Milton, Georgia for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order and discovery is stayed for that period of time. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to determine the lawfulness of the actions of the City Council. At the end of the sixty (60) day period the discovery period shall resume with this matter proceeding accordingly absent communication to the Court otherwise in writing and agreed to by the parties. SO ORDERED this day of / A010. The Honor le Al ,rd J. Dempsek, Jr. Superior Court Fulton County CONSENTED TO �B/Y : G. Douglas Dillard, B9q. Lauren M. Hansford, Esq. DILLARD AND GALLOWAY, LLC Attorneys for D Squared Development, LLC 3500 Lenox Road, Suite 760 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 CONSENTED TO BY: Kelly Michael Hundle Es 1 Y HENDERSON & HUNDLEY PC Attorneys for Defendants 160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 430 Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 378-7417 RZ10-01 – D-Squared Development October 6, 2010 The applicant has submitted the attached landscaping plan in color and black and white versions. The City Arborist has reviewed the plan and made the following comments: Tree density, parking island trees, screening requirements, and landscape strip have all been addressed sufficiently with few minor exceptions. These can easily be addressed with further discussion with the City Arborist at the plan submittal and review stage. The City Arborist will want to discuss tree selection and placement with the project landscape architect. The applicant has also agreed to install the following benches/trash receptacles on the property as determined by the City Council. This particular model is acceptable to Staff and will be a recommended design for the State Route 9 Overlay District. VICTOR STANLEY CR-138 – 4 OR 6 FOOT BENCH VICTOR STANLEY S-35 Rendering for Bethany Bend Road at Highway 9 NORTH City of Milton, Georgia MAYS, 2010 011fild@oIIGI UIDBGIE �'a'=: (m, . 0"M-r.fm".=miff Page is too large to OCR. ORDINANCE NO._______ PETITION NO. RZ10-01 STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM C-1 (COMMUNITY BUSINESS) AND AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL) DISTRICTS TO C-1 (COMMUNITY BUSINESS) DISTRICT, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3105 BETHANY BEND BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council for the City of Milton, Georgia while in regular session on October 18, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Milton be amended, and the official maps established in connection therewith be changed so that the following property located at 3105 Bethany Bend consisting of a total of approximately .871 acre, be changed from the C-1 (Community Business) and AG-1 (Agricultural) to C-1 (Community Business) District with conditions attached hereto and made a part herein; ALL THAT TRACT or parcel of land lying and being Land Lot 831 of the 2nd District 2nd Section, Fulton County, Georgia by the attached legal description; and SECTION 2. That the property shall be developed in compliance with the conditions of approval as attached to this ordinance. Any conditions hereby approved (including any site plan) do not authorize the violation of any district regulations; and SECTION 3. That the official maps referred to, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, be changed to conform with the terms of this ordinance; and SECTION 4. That all ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with the terms of this ordinance are hereby repealed; and SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption by the Mayor and City Council and the signature of approval of the Mayor. ORDAINED this 18th day of October, 2010. Approved: ______________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ________________________________ Sudie Gordon, City Clerk (Seal) If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, it should be APPROVED C-1 (Community Business) 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) Retail Commercial and accessory uses, at a maximum density of 2,411 gross floor area per acre zoned or a total gross floor area of 2,100 square feet whichever is less and a maximum of 4 gasoline pumps, whichever is less but excluding freestanding fast food restaurants, commercial amusements (cinemas not included), package liquor sales, (restaurants may sell liquor by the drink), motels, hotels, adult entertainment establishments including adult bookstores, adult entertainment as defined in Section 64-1, check cashing stores, pawn shops, coin operated laundries, video arcades (video machines that are incidental to otherwise permitted businesses are allowed), pool halls, massage parlors, nail salons, stand alone beauty salons, stand alone barber shops, flea markets, discount retail shops, roadside vending, roadside produce stands or seasonal vending. 2) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following: a) To the revised site plan received by the Community Development Department on April 20, 2010. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, all other applicable city ordinances 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. 3) To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations: a) All new sidewalk installations along the rights-of-ways shall have a color stamped pattern to simulate a transverse double row brick paver pattern every 50 feet, to be approved by the City of Milton Design Review Board. b) Provide a black four-board-equestrian-styled fence along all sidewalks interior to the landscape strip or as approved by the Director of Community Development. c) Provide additional landscaping within the required landscape strip along the south property line as approved by the City Arborist. d) Provide new fire hydrant along Bethany Bend between the entrance and the point where the 50 foot taper begins or as approved by the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief. e) Provide one fire department connection (FDC) along Hwy 9 near the apex of the site and provide an additional FDC where pedestrian access is shown on the site plan along Bethany Bend approximately halfway between the two ends of Bethany Bend and the northern apex of the site for fire department staging off site, or as approved by the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief. f) Provide Fire Department accesses along Bethany Bend and Hwy 9 where FDCs and fire hydrants are located with a minimum width opening of the equestrian style fence of eight (8) feet or as approved by the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief. g) No outside speakers/intercoms permitted on the premises. h) All canopy lighting must be recessed. 4) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication, and improvements: a) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton or Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) prior to the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy, sufficient land as necessary to provide the following: i. Provide at least 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Bethany Bend ii. Provide at least 12 feet of right-of-way from the back of curb of all abutting road improvements, along the entire property frontage, as well as allow the necessary construction easements while right-of- way is being improved. iii. Provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements along entire property frontage of HWY 9 and Bethany Bend according to cross sections in Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances and as approved by Milton Public Works. iv. Installation/modification of the following transportation infrastructure according to GDOT Standards and Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances : a) NB Right Turn Lane on HWY 9 at new access drive b) NB Right Turn Lane on HWY 9 at Bethany Bend c) EB Right Turn Lane on Bethany Bend at new access drive b) Reserve for the City of Milton along the necessary property frontage of the following roadways, prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit, sufficient land as necessary to provide for compliance with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The location of the landscape strip with the reserved right-of-way to be determined by the Director of Community Development. i. 55 feet from centerline of HWY 9 or as may be required by GDOT ii. 45 feet from centerline of Bethany Bend a) Access to the site shall be subject to the approval of the GDOT District 7 Access Management Engineer and Milton Public Works, prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit. b) Provide a 30 foot wide cross-access easement free of any structures or utilities for future vehicular and pedestrian inter- parcel access on the south property line as approved by Milton Public Works. Revised Site Plan Submitted April 20, 2010 - RZ10-01 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 1 of 32 RZ10-01 PETITION NUMBER(S): RZ10-01 PROJECT NAME Gas Station PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 3105 Bethany Bend DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2/2 831 OVERLAY DISTRICT State Route 9 EXISTING ZONING C-1 (Community Business), AG-1 (Agricultural) PROPOSED ZONING C-1 (Community Business) ACRES 0.871 EXISTING USE Undeveloped PROPOSED USE Gas Station and Convenience Store OWNER D Squared Development LLC, Mehdi Jannatkhah ADDRESS 2489 Dallas Hwy Marietta, GA 30064 PETITIONER/REPRESENTATIVE Nathan V. Hendricks III PHONE 404-255-5161 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION – FEBRUARY 23, 2010 RZ10-01 - DENIAL VC10-01 – DENIAL INTENT To rezone from AG-1 (Agricultural) and C-1 (Community Business) to C-1 (Community Business) to develop a 2,100 square foot building with 4 pump islands at a density of 2,411 square feet per acre. * Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 2 of 32 RZ10-01 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION – FEBRUARY 23, 2010 RZ10-01 – DENIAL 6-0 VC10-01- DENIAL 6-0 After hearing many public concerns in the areas of traffic generation, public loitering, availability of similar uses in the area, alcohol sales, and pedestrian accessibility, the Planning Commission discussion included the following issues: 1) Number of times a week is fuel delivered per week: The applicant stated that it would be 2 to 3 times a week during the slow times of the day. 2) Number of employees per shift: The applicant stated 2 to 3 with a total of 8-10 employees total. 3) Potential congestion conflicts onsite: Trash emptying and deliveries will be tight according to the applicant’s engineer. 4) The need for the 5th pump: The applicant stated that it was increased economic benefit. 5) Is it possible to design the site without the concurrent variance: The applicant stated that they would consider eliminating the 5th pump and submit a revised site plan but it may not be viable to build. 6) Some of the Commissioners expressed that although eventually the parcel maybe rezoned to commercial, the proposed use is too intensive for the size and shape of the property. Since the time of the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted to the Community Development Department a revised site plan dated February 26, 2010. The revised site plan indicates a 20 foot landscape strip along Bethany Bend and an official revised letter of intent to request withdrawal of VC10-01 for the landscape strip. In addition, the site plan shows a reduction in the size of the building from 2,400 square feet to 2,100 square feet and a reduction of pumps from five (5) to four (4) pumps. Development per the revised site plan would eliminate the need for any variances. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MARCH 15, 2010 RZ10-01 – DEFERRAL TO MAY 17, 2010 7-0 VC10-01- DEFERRAL TO MAY 17, 2010 7-0 The Mayor and City Council voted to defer the item to the May 17, 2010 meeting to allow Staff to evaluate the revised site plan, the Design Review Board to make comments and the Planning Commission to make their recommendation of the revised site plan on April 27, 2010. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 3 of 32 RZ10-01 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION – APRIL 27, 2010 RZ10-01 – APPROVAL CONDITIONAL After the Mayor and City Council meeting on March 15, 2010 the applicant submitted another revised site plan on April 20, 2010 based on meetings with Community Development Department, Public Works Department and the Fire Chief. The revised site plan indicates a 2,100 square foot convenience store and four gas pumps. A concurrent variance to reduce the landscape strip is no longer needed. Included in the Staff report is a preliminary colored rendering of the building and canopy that was presented to the Design Review Board on April 13, 2010. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION – APRIL 27, 2010 RZ10-01 – DENIAL 4-2 After hearing many public concerns in the areas of traffic generation, availability of similar uses in the area, incompatibility with nearby residential u ses, sale of alcohol and inappropriate literature, parking on the site, and hours of operation, the Planning Commission discussion included the following issues: 1. Service station exclusion in condition 2.a. for the CVS development to the north and its effect on recommendations for the subject site. 2. Change from right in, right out only access on Bethany Bend to a full access driveway on the current site plan. 3. How the site will accommodate the tanker truck deliveries. 4. Number and time of gas deliveries; size, type, dispensing holes and venting of underground gas storage tank. 5. Hours of operation and delivery times. 6. Traffic counts and signal timing of the intersection. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION – MAY 17, 2010 RZ10-01 - DENIAL 3-2 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 4 of 32 RZ10-01 LOCATION MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 5 of 32 RZ10-01 CURRENT ZONING MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 6 of 32 RZ10-01 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 7 of 32 RZ10-01 REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED – APRIL 20, 2010 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 8 of 32 RZ10-01 Color Rendering of Revised Site Plan 4/20/10 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 9 of 32 RZ10-01 RENDERING SUBMITTED APRIL 19, 2010 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 10 of 32 RZ10-01 SUBJECT SITE LOOKING SOUTHEAST ON BETHANY BEND SUBJECT SITE LOOKING NORTH ON HWY 9 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 11 of 32 RZ10-01 SUBJECT SITE: The subject site contains 0.871 acre and is undeveloped. It is currently zoned C-1 (Community Business) unconditional and AG-1 (Agricultural). It is located at the southeast corner of Bethany Bend and Hwy 9. The site is located within the Neighborhood Living-Working Land Use designation on the City’s Future Land Use Map. Standards of Review (Section 64-2104) Planning Staff shall, with respect to each zoning application, investigate and make a recommendation with respect to factors 1 through 7, below, as well as any other factors it may find relevant. 1. Whether or not the proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby Property? The proposed gas pumps and 2,100 square foot convenience store is suitable based on other commercially zoned and developed sites in the area. Directly south of the proposed development is a parcel zoned C-1 (Community Business) pursuant to RZ85-194 at a density of 8,627 square feet per acre. Staff notes that the revised site plan shows future inter- parcel access when the parcel to the south is developed. In addition, there are commercial uses developed to the north, northwest, west and southwest of the subject site ranging in densities from1,341 sq. ft./acre to 18,240 sq. ft./acre. Staff notes that although there are residentially developed parcels nearby to the east and northeast, they are not adjacent to the subject site and the required landscape strips and additional buffering required for gas pumps will provide additional screening. 2. Whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property? In Staff’s opinion, the proposed 2,100 square foot convenience store and four gas pumps will not adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property if it is developed with the required development standards of the Highway 9 Overlay District which includes but are not limited to site lighting, architectural design of the building and canopy. In addition, the applicant has indicated compliance with transportation requirements such as deceleration lanes, turn lanes and required right-of-way dedication. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 12 of 32 RZ10-01 3. Whether the property to be affected by the proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned? The subject site does not have a reasonable use currently zoned primarily AG-1 (Agricultural) with a small piece of C-1 (Community Business). 4. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools? Staff does not anticipate a significant impact on public services and utilities as proposed. However the transient commercial use proposed for this development may exacerbate a difficult intersection. The applicant will provide the required transportation improvements as shown on the revised site plan. 5. Whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan? The subject site is a prominent corner of the City and is designated in the Plan as Neighborhood Living-Working. The revised site plan provides a more pedestrian friendly area based on the location of the sidewalks and beauty strips along both frontages between the curb and the sidewalk as well as the bike lane on Hwy 9. A brief description of the project is noted below. Future Land Use Plan Map: Neighborhood Living-Working Proposed use/density: Retail/Commercial – 2,411 square feet per acre The Future Land Use Plan Map suggests Neighborhood Living-Working for the subject site and the properties to the west, north, and south in a linear fashion. Retail commercial is consistent with Neighborhood Living-Working when developed near residential areas. The Plan Map suggests Residential 3-5 units per acre to the east and further northeast and to the northeast across Bethany Bend the Plan suggests Residential 1-2 units per acre. The Milton City Council adopted the Partial Plan Update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan on December 21, 2009. The proposed development Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 13 of 32 RZ10-01 is consistent with the following Plan Policies if developed with the recommended conditions: We will encourage development that is sensitive to the overall setting of the community and will contribute to our community’s character and sense of place. We will encourage development of a balanced network of commercial activity centers to meet the service needs of our citizens while avoiding unattractive and inefficient strip development. We will encourage new development to locate in suitable locations close to transportation and infrastructure resources in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas and valuable historic, archaeological or cultural resources from encroachment. b. Support development projects that provide increased density close to Windward Parkway, GA 400, and SR 9 consistent with the land use and infrastructure development policies of the City of Milton and the citizen and stakeholder expectations. In addition, the Milton Comprehensive Transportation Plan recommends that the Bethany Bend and Hwy 9 intersection be improved with adding an eastbound and westbound through lane along Bethany Bend which will help with congestion at this intersection in the future. 6. Whether there are other existing or changed conditions affecting the use and development of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the proposal? Although the site is small in size and is located within an acute triangle, the revised site plan meets the development standards of the Hwy 9 Overlay District, and development requirements for the site. The intersection is transitioning in uses from AG-1 (Agricultural) and vacant properties to commercial uses in varying densities. Staff is of the opinion that these conditions support grounds for approval of the proposed gas station and convenience store. 7. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered environmentally adverse to the natural resources, environment and citizens of the City of Milton? Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 14 of 32 RZ10-01 The proposed use will not be environmentally adverse to the natural resources, environment and citizens of the City due to the required development regulations as it pertains to detention/retention, aesthetics, and underground gas tanks and gas pumps on the site. Existing uses and zoning of nearby property Location Parcel / Zoning Petition Zoning / Name Approved Density/Min. Heated Floor Area North 1 RZ06-96 C-1 (Community Business) CVS and Undeveloped Parcel No Fast Food Restaurants Permitted 5,690.91 sq. ft./acre North 2 RZ07-10 O-I (Office Institutional) Undeveloped 5,332 sq. ft./acre Further North 3 RZ88-100 M-1 (Light Industrial) Superior Air Conditioning 1,341 sq. ft./acre Further North 4 RZ88-23 C-2 (Commercial) GLM Sod and Landscape 8,040 sq.ft./acre Further Northeast 5 N/A AG-1 (Agricultural) Bellemeade Farms Subdivision 1 unit/acre (Est. 3,000 sq.ft.) Further Southeast 6 RZ96-19 North side of Bethany Bend is R-4A (Residential) and South side of Bethany Bend is R-5 (Residential) Bethany Creek Subdivision R-4A -1.76 units/acre R-5 - 2.97 units/acre South 7 RZ85-194 C-1 (Community Business) Undeveloped 8,627 sq.ft./acre South 8 AG-1 (Agricultural) Undeveloped N/A Further South 9 RZ01-08 C-1 (Community Business) Loving Hands Animal Clinic 8,695.66 sq.ft./acre 2 stories Further South 10 RZ97-54 C-1 (Community Business) Legacy Crossing Pavilion – Montana’s Restaurant 8,249 sq.ft./acre 2 stories Further South 11 RZ95-085 C-1 (Community Business) 9 North Tire Center 3,937 sq.ft./acre Further Southwest 12 RZ99-44/U99-26 C-1 (Community Business) and Use Permit for Self-Storage Your Extra Attic Self 18,240 sq.ft./acre Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 15 of 32 RZ10-01 Storage/Retail Commercial Strip Further Southwest 13 RZ98-012 C-1(Community Business) Office Building 6,282.05 sq.ft./acre Southwest 14 RZ03-118 C-1 (Community Business) Sherwin Williams Paint Store 6,323.53 sq.ft./acre West 15 RZ99-77 C-1 (Community Business) Bethany Bend Village Shopping Center 7,846.04 sq.ft./acre 2 Stories Further West 16 RZ05-115 CUP (Community Unit Plan) Future Site of Fulton County Board of Education High School 2.81 units/acre Northwest 17 RZ04-22 C-1 (Community Business) Existing Retail Center 7,314.03 sq. ft./acre Further Northwest 18 N/A AG-1 (Agricultural) Oakstone Glen Subdivision 1 unit per acre Further Northwest 19 RZ00-52 C-1 (Community Business) Kids R Kids Day Care 4,771.25 sq.ft./acre Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 16 of 32 RZ10-01 EXISTING USES LOCATION MAP Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 17 of 32 RZ10-01 VIEW FROM SUBJECT SITE TO THE NORTHEAST ACROSS BETHANY BEND VIEW FROM SUBJECT SITE TO THE WEST ACROSS HWY 9 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 18 of 32 RZ10-01 SITE PLAN ANALYSIS Based on the applicant’s revised site plan submitted to the Community Development Department on April 20, 2010, Staff offers the following considerations: State Route 9 Overlay District BUILDING SETBACKS Section 64.776 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the following building setbacks: Front – 40 feet along Hwy 9 Front – 40 feet along Bethany Bend Rear – 0 Feet along the south property line adjacent to C-1 (Community Business) The site plan indicates compliance with the setback requirements. Staff notes that Section 64-77.2.a. addresses permitted encroachments into yards. Nonresidential districts – “Canopies shall be allowed over walkways or driveways to within 12 feet of the street right-of-way or right-of-way based on the street’s functional classification, whichever is farther from the street’s centerline. Fuel pumps and pump islands, when permitted, shall be setback as stated in this subsection for canopies.” The proposed canopy is located 20 feet from the proposed right-of-way along Highway 9 and Bethany Bend and is in compliance with the required setback. BUILDING HEIGHT Section 64-1095(n) within the State Route 9 Overlay District requires there shall be a maximum of two stories with a maximum height of 30 feet from average finished grade to bottom of the roof eave. The applicant indicates that the proposed building will be one story in height and will not exceed the maximum height. LANDSCAPE STRIPS Section 64-1090 of the State Route 9 Overlay District requires the following landscape strips: Hwy 9 – 20 foot landscape strip Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 19 of 32 RZ10-01 Bethany Bend- 20 foot landscape strip South property line – 10 foot landscape strip This section further states that for every thirty (30) linear feet of landscape strip, a minimum of one 3” caliper hardwood shade tree is required to be planted in the center of the landscape strip or as approved by the Director. The revised site plan indicates compliance with the landscape strip requirements. Section 64-1092 states that where a parking lot, parking structure or gas fueling bay fronts directly on a public street, a continuous screen of evergreen plantings shall be provided. Said screen shall be three feet in height at planting and four (4) feet minimum height at maturity and three (3) feet to eight (8) feet in width at maturity. This requirement shall be provided along Hwy 9 and Bethany Bend Road based on the location of the fueling bays and parking on the site. It appears that the site can accommodate this requirement to screen the pumps. The air and vacuum structures are located on the east side of the building outside of the landscape strip along the south property line. OTHER SITE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS The applicant has stated that the hours of operation will be from 5:30 a.m. to 12 midnight, Monday through Saturday and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 pm. on Sundays and plans to sell beer and wine on the premises. A total of 2 to 3 employees per shift will be working on site. The applicant anticipates 2 to 3 loads of fuel per week which will be delivered during off peak times within hours of operation. The underground tank is located just north of the parking spaces adjacent to the building. This location must be approved by the State Fire Marshal. Staff notes that the dumpster is located adjacent to Hwy 9. Section 64-1092 (d) states that receptacles shall be placed in the least visible location from public streets. Staff notes that the dumpster should be enclosed in such a way as to shield it from the street with acceptable architectural and landscaping materials. It is currently located away from residential areas and toward the commercially developed corridor. In addition the ordinance requires the fourth side shall be a self closing gate made from noncombustible materials. The revised site plan and associated renderings indicate compliance with the requirement of the ordinance. The dumpster is now within a structure that appears to be a part of the main structure. The Overlay District also requires a bicycle rack for the site. The site plan does not indicate one but the applicant has stated that it will be provided. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 20 of 32 RZ10-01 Section 64-1095 (d) states that all buildings shall be oriented to face a street or courtyard. Based on the fact that there are two frontages, this requirement can’t be met. The applicant submitted revised architectural renderings to the Community Development on April 19, 2010 which shows the building to have 360 degree architectural treatment. The applicant indicates a four board black horse fence along both Bethany Bend and Hwy 9 at the edge of the sidewalk. The City Arborist requests that the fence be placed interior to the landscape strip to provide a more open feel. In addition, all sidewalks shall have a color stamped pattern to simulate a transverse double row brick paver pattern every 50 feet, to be approved by the City of Milton Design Review Board. These two requirements have been the policy of the Mayor and City Council in the State Route 9 Overlay District and will be included in the Recommended Conditions. Detention areas are located underground on the subject site. Both the building and the site must comply with Section 64-1068, State Route 9 Overlay District, at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy. Staff notes that the lighting requirements are more restrictive than the Night Sky Ordinance and therefore, the more restrictive requirements will prevail. The applicant has stated that recessed lighting will be installed in the canopy and that all site lighting will meet or exceed the Hwy 9 Overlay District requirements. PARKING REQUIREMENTS The following chart illustrates the parking required by Section 64-1410 for the proposed use: Proposed Use Minimum Requirement Spaces Provided Retail Service Commercial 2,100 square feet* 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area 11 spaces 11 spaces It also appears that the site plan is in compliance with the landscape and layout requirements of Section 64-1096. ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ANALYSIS The Environmental Site Analysis (ESA) report is sufficient and satisfies the requirement of Section 64.2126. A field survey of the site was conducted by Staff to verify areas addressed in the ESA report. The proposed site does not contain Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 21 of 32 RZ10-01 wetlands, floodplains, streams, steep slopes, historical sites or sensitive plant and animal species. The City Arborist has determined that one oak, approximately 34” DBH (Diameter Breast Height) is in severe decline and is located on the site. It is Staff’s opinion that the proposed development provides open space as provided by the 20 foot landscape strip adjacent to Hwy 9, Bethany Bend and the south property line totaling 17,768 square feet or 0.408 acre which is approximately 47 percent of the total acreage (does include future right-of-way dedication). Based on the compliance with the development regulations, there will be minimal impact on adjacent and nearby properties from noise and lighting. ARBORIST COMMENTS Site is heavily wooded with 95% young growth pines. No specimen quality trees on site. One oak, around 34” is in severe state of decline…has been pruned heavily over the years for utility clearing, and has significant decay about 15’ up where tree has lost a major branch. There is no tree area worth preserving, per this plan. 1. Landscape Strip along Hwy 9….no issues with L.S. however plan states fence to be located at edge of sidewalk. Would rather see fence located at the back of the landscape strip, would provide a more open look along the road. 2. Landscape strip along Bethany…same issue as above in regard to fence location. 3. Provide additional screening above and beyond landscape strip requirements. 4. Parking Bay/Island Trees.....3 required FULTON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT The Fulton County Department of Health and Wellness recommends that the applicant be required to connect the proposed development to public water and public sanitary sewer available to the site. Since the proposed development constitutes a premise where people w ork, live or congregate, onsite sanitary facilities will be mandatory, prior to use or occupancy. This facility must comply with the Georgia Smoke free Air Act of 2005. This department is requiring that plans indicating the number and location of outside refuse containers along with typical details of the pad and approach Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 22 of 32 RZ10-01 area for the refuse containers be submitted for review and approval prior to land disturbance or building permit issuance. CITY OF MILTON FIRE MARSHAL Underground storage tanks will require separate approval from the State Fire Marshal. A fire flow report will be required. Rules of Safety Fire Commissioner 120-3-11 – Flammable and Combustible Liquids o 120-3-11-.04 o NFPA 58 2006 International Fire Code with GA Amendments Chapter 22 – Motor Fuel – Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages Location of Dispensing Devices – Section 2203 2006 International Building Code – Fire separation requirements The Fire Department met with the applicant and it was determined that one opening in the four board equestrian fencing shall be provided along both Hwy 9 and Bethany Bend for access by the Fire Department. The applicant has stated that a new fire hydrant will be installed along Bethany Bend Road as required by the Fire Department. Since that meeting, the Fire Department has determined that an additional fire hydrant may be required depending on the outcome of the engineering of the site. In addition, as necessary FDCs (Fire Department Connection) will be installed along Hwy 9 and Bethany Bend and additional breaks in the four board equestrian fencing. Staff will reflect these requirements in the Recommended Conditions. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER Right-in, right-out driveway on SR 9 to be in coordination with GDOT Entrance/site to accommodate design vehicle Raised island to be concrete (partial concrete and striping as shown), may be adjusted in size to accommodate design vehicle Allow for 4 ft of striping on all sides of island Lane widths to accommodate design vehicle Raised island to accommodate 5 ft wide pedestrian cut through AutoTurn through site Wheel path cuts into parking space next to landscape area Wheel path appears to meet WB-50 standards Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 23 of 32 RZ10-01 Auto Turn exhibit of tanker tank delivery route submitted by applicant. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 24 of 32 RZ10-01 Below are various exhibits from the applicant’s traffic study submitted to the Transportation Engineer. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 25 of 32 RZ10-01 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 26 of 32 RZ10-01 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 27 of 32 RZ10-01 Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 28 of 32 RZ10-01 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT On January 27, 2010 the applicant was present at the Community Zoning Information Meeting (CZIM) held at the Milton City Hall. There were 14 members of the community in attendance. The applicant has also met with the Bethany Creek Homeowners Association prior to the CZIM. Public Comments – Staff has several e-mails regarding this development. They are attached to this report. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT The applicant hosted a Public Participation Meeting on Friday, February 13, 2010 at the Windward Kroger Community Room. There were six citizens in attendance. The public expressed the following: Concern over truck turning movements in and out of the property as well as within the property. Discussion of the concurrent variance. (Since that time, the concurrent variance has been eliminated.) Use of the property as a gas station. Concern over the lighting to be used on the property and a request that a tree line or some sort of visual buffer planted along Bethany Bend to block any light spillage. Concern over the security of children in neighboring residential areas. Staff notes that in addition to the CZIM and Public Participation meeting, the applicant attended the Bethany Creek Homeowners Association’s Annual Meeting on January 21, 2010. CITY OF MILTON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COURTESY REVIEW - FEBRUARY 2, 2010 Screening dumpster. Applicant states that he will extend the brick façade wall to 8’ around the dumpster so it will parallel Highway 9. Roof canopy over pump islands should be pitched. Applicant states that might be difficult with a non symmetrical canopy. Did you consider an alternate design? Applicant states that the canopy does not have to adhere to building setback, but the building does. The canopy would not fit into the setbacks. CITY OF MILTON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COURTESY REVIEW – APRIL 13, 2010* 3 parking spaces on the north end don’t function correctly for maneuverability. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 29 of 32 RZ10-01 Sidewalk along Hwy 9 goes into the drive isle. Additional treatment of the dumpster. Height should be the same as the building and provide a garage-like door. Match canopy style to the building. Locate bicycle parking on the site. Relocate air and vacuum Provide the required 25% fenestration Applicant addressed issue of the DRB from the last meeting and the traffic flow has improved. CONCLUSION The proposed gas station and associated gas pumps are consistent with Plan Policies. Although the site is small and located within an acute triangle with two road frontages, the revised site plan submitted on April 20, 2010 meets the development standards required by the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance which ameliorates potential negative impacts on nearby residential uses. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL CONDITIONAL of RZ10-01 to rezone to C-1 (Community Business) to develop a gas station and convenience store. If the Mayor and City Council recommends approval , Staff provides the following Recommended Conditions. Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 30 of 32 RZ10-01 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS If this petition is approved by the Mayor and City Council, it should be APPROVED C-1 (Community Business) 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) Retail Commercial and accessory uses, at a maximum density of 2,411 gross floor area per acre zoned or a total gross floor area of 2,100 square feet whichever is less and a maximum of 4 gasoline pumps, whichever is less but excluding freestanding fast food restaurants, commercial amusements (cinemas not included ), package liquor sales, (restaurants may sell liquor by the drink), motels, hotels, adult entertainment establishments including adult bookstores, adult entertainment as defined in Section 64-1, check cashing stores, pawn shops, coin operated laundries, video arcades (video machines that are incidental to otherwise permitted businesses are allowed), pool halls, massage parlors, nail salons, stand alone beauty salons, stand alone barber shops, flea markets, discount retail shops, roadside vending, roadside produce stands or seasonal vending. 2) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following: a) To the revised site plan received by the Community Development Department on April 20, 2010. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, all other applicable city ordinances 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. 3) To the owner’s agreement to the following site development considerations: a) All new sidewalk installations along the rights-of-ways shall have a color stamped pattern to simulate a transverse double row brick paver Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 31 of 32 RZ10-01 pattern every 50 feet, to be approved by the City of Milton Design Review Board. b) Provide a black four-board-equestrian-styled fence along all sidewalks interior to the landscape strip or as approved by the Director of Community Development. c) Provide additional landscaping within the required landscape strip along the south property line as approved by the City Arborist. d) Provide new fire hydrant along Bethany Bend between the entrance and the point where the 50 foot taper begins or as approved by the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief. e) Provide one fire department connection (FDC) along Hwy 9 near the apex of the site and provide an additional FDC where pedestrian access is shown on the site plan along Bethany Bend approximately halfway between the two ends of Bethany Bend and the northern apex of the site for fire department staging off site, or as approved by the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief. f) Provide Fire Department accesses along Bethany Bend and Hwy 9 where FDCs and fire hydrants are located with a minimum width opening of the equestrian style fence of eight (8) feet or as approved by the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief. g) No outside speakers/intercoms permitted on the premises. h) All canopy lighting must be recessed. 4) To the owner’s agreement to abide by the following requirements, dedication, and improvements: a) Dedicate at no cost to the City of Milton or Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) prior to the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy, sufficient land as necessary to provide the following: i. Provide at least 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Bethany Bend ii. Provide at least 12 feet of right-of-way from the back of curb of all abutting road improvements, along the entire property Prepared by the Community Development Department for the Mayor and City Council Meeting on October 18, 2010 (Court Remand) *Based on a revised site plan submitted April 20, 2010. 10/11/2010 Page 32 of 32 RZ10-01 frontage, as well as allow the necessary construction easements while right-of-way is being improved. iii. Provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements along entire property frontage of HWY 9 and Bethany Bend according to cross sections in Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances and as approved by Milton Public Works. iv. Installation/modification of the following transportation infrastructure according to GDOT Standards and Chapter 48 Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances : a) NB Right Turn Lane on HWY 9 at new access drive b) NB Right Turn Lane on HWY 9 at Bethany Bend c) EB Right Turn Lane on Bethany Bend at new access drive b) Reserve for the City of Milton along the necessary property frontage of the following roadways, prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit, sufficient land as necessary to provide for compliance with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The location of the landscape strip with the reserved right-of-way to be determined by the Director of Community Development. i. 55 feet from centerline of HWY 9 or as may be required by GDOT ii. 45 feet from centerline of Bethany Bend a) Access to the site shall be subject to the approval of the GDOT District 7 Access Management Engineer and Milton Public Works, prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit. b) Provide a 30 foot wide cross-access easement free of any structures or utilities for future vehicular and pedestrian inter- parcel access on the south property line as approved by Milton Public Works. ZONING AGENDA (Zoning items typed verbatim.) City Clerk Gordon read the zoning rules and agenda item 10-1063. At the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month, the mayor and City Council consider a Zoning agenda. These items include rezoning petitions, modifications of zoning, use permits, and associated concurrent variances, in addition to ordinances, resolution, and text amendments. The petitions will be heard in the sequence listed on the posted agenda. I would like to acquaint you with some of the rules and procedures for this meeting. The applicant, and all those speaking in support of an application, will be allowed a total of ten (10) minutes to present the petition. The applicant may choose to save some of the time for rebuttal following the presentation by the opposition. The opposition will be allowed a total of ten (10) minutes to present its position. If time remains, the opposition will be allowed to rebut. Since the burden of proof is upon the applicant, the applicant will be allowed to make closing remarks, provided time remains with the allotted time. The City Clerk’s staff will be keeping track of time and will inform you periodically of the remaining time for your presentation. Those called to speak will be taken in the order that the speaker cards were received by the City clerk’s staff prior to the beginning of tonight’s meeting. All speakers will identify themselves by name, address and organization, if applicable, before beginning their presentation. The Planning Commission heard the rezoning agenda items and recommendations have been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council for consideration and disposition. In addition, the applicant shall not submit material to the Council during the meeting, unless requested to do so. All material that you wish to be reviewed by the Council in consideration of your application should be submitted to the staff of the Department of Community Development, to be included in the normal distribution of packages to the Council. When an opponent of a rezoning action has made, within two years immediately preceding the filing of the rezoning action being opposed, campaign contributions aggregating $250.00 or more to a local government official of the local government which will consider the application, it shall be the duty of the opponent to file a disclosure with the governing authority of the respective local government at least five days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A violation of the relevant state statute constitutes a misdemeanor. Therefore, if you have contributed $250.00 or more to a Councilmember and you have not filed a disclosure prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney strongly suggests that you have someone else speak for your point of view. 1. RZ10-01 – 3105 Bethany Bend (Southeast corner of Bethany Bend and Hwy 9) by D- Squared Development, LLC to rezone from AG-1 (Agricultural) and C-1 (Community Business) to C-1 (Community Business) to develop a 2,100 square foot convenience store and four pump islands at a density of 2,411 square feet per acre. (First Presentation on March 1, 2010; Deferred by Mayor and Council on March 15, 2010) (Presented by Lynn Tully, Community Development Director) (Agenda Item No. 10-1063) Lynn Tully, Community Development Director: The proposed parcel is .871 acres and is currently zoned C-1 which is community business as unconditional and AG-1. The request is for C-1 Community Business. The property is located at the southeast corner of Bethany Bend and Highway 9 and is within the neighborhood living working land use designation on the City’s Future Land Use Map. The staff has reviewed this request and has put forward the following standards of review. 1. Whether or not the proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property. Staff has stated that the proposed use is a suitable use based on other commercially zoned and developed sites in the area and the fact that there are additional commercial uses developed in the North, Northwest, West, and Southwest of the subject site with ranges in densities from 1,341 square feet per acre to 18,240 square feet per acre. 2. Whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property. Staff has also said that the proposed use will not adversely affect the use or the usability of the property if it is developed with the required development standards of the Highway 9 overlay district and in addition, the applicant has indicated that compliance with the transportation requirements such as deceleration lanes, turning lanes, and required right of way dedication will also be provided. 3. Whether the property to be effected by the proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. It is staff’s opinion that the subject site does not have a reasonable use currently zoned as the property is currently AG-1 with a small piece of commercial, C-1 property. 4. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools. Staff does not anticipate any significant impact on public services or utilities as proposed, however, it is noted that this development may exacerbate a difficult intersection. The applicant is required to provide transportation improvements as shown on the revised site plan and has proposed to do so. 5. Whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan. The revised site plan does provide a more pedestrian friendly area based on the location of the sidewalks and the beauty strips along both frontages between the curb and sidewalk as well as a bike lane on Highway 9. There are no variances with this request as heard previously. The Future Land Use Map does show the property as neighborhood living working. In addition, the comprehensive transportation plan does recommend that Bethany Bend and highway 9 intersections be improved by adding an Eastbound and Westbound through lane along Bethany Bend which will help congestion at this intersection in the future. 6. Whether there are existing or changed conditions affecting the use and development of the property that may give supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the proposal. The revised site plan does meet the development standards of Highway 9 overlay district and the development requirements for the site. The area is transitioning in uses from AG-1 and vacant properties to Commercial uses in varying densities. Therefore, it is staff’s opinion that these conditions do support grounds for approval of this gas station and convenience store. 7. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered environmentally adverse to the natural resources in the environment and citizens of the city of Milton. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed use will not be environmentally adverse to the natural resources of the city due to the required development of the regulations as it pertains to detention, retention, aesthetics, and underground gas tanks and gas pumps on the site. Therefore it is staff’s conclusion that the proposed gas station and associated gas pumps are consistent with the plan policies. The revised site plans which was submitted on April 20, 2010 meets the development standards required by the City of Milton’s zoning ordinance which potential negative impacts on nearby residential uses. Staff does recommend approval, conditional, to rezone to C-1 community business to develop a gas station and convenience store. The conditions are listed. I would ask you to note that it has been requested by staff that condition 4.a.4.b. be removed. That condition reads Northbound right turn lane on Highway 9 at Bethany Bend. This is redundant and unnecessary based on the current site plan. I would ask that you consider that the planning commission has heard this now twice, the f irst time on February 23rd, 2010 where they recommended denial. It was heard in conjunction with a variance request. The Mayor and City Council did meet on March 15th where you requested to defer the project to the May 17th, 2010 meeting for both items. We have at that time received new and revised site plans, the latest being the April 10, 2010 version. Those site plans illustrated a verity of changes including a 2100 square foot convenience store and four gas pumps. The variance there was also removed and there would be no need for the variance at this time. Included in the staff report is a preliminary colored rendering of the building and canopy that was presented to the Design Review Board on April 13, 2010 so they have heard this and made comments. The planning commission did also hear this on April 27, 2010. They did have a variety of concerns that they heard from the public and discussed amongst themselves. Those concerns included incompatibility and nearby residential uses, the sale of alcohol and potential inappropriate literature, parking along the site, and hours of operation. The discussed a prior rezoning for the property across the intersection, the CVS property, that rezoning was in 2006 and further had a rezoning prior to that that had conditions still bound from 1996. That was for the CVS property. They discussed a change from the right in and right out only access on Bethany Bend to a full access driveway which is shown on the current site plan. Further they discussed how the site accommodates tanker truck deliveries, the number and times of these gas deliveries, sizes, types, and venting of the underground gas storage tank and in addition they discussed hours of operation and delivery times and the traffic counts and the signal timing at that intersection so as you have heard, they have discussed it at some length and as you also have heard they recommended denial, 4 to 2, of petition RZ10-01. Mayor Lockwood: First I’m going to allow those who are speaking in support for this application and we will start with the applicant. Pete Hendricks, 6085 Lake Forrest Drive, Sandy Springs, GA: I would like to pick up on the reading that Lynn did as to the compliance to the standards of review, but I would also like to highlight under page 12, paragraph 5 whether the proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan, the affirmative statement that retail commercial is consistent with neighborhood living working when developed near residential areas. Similarly coming on over to page 13 where we talk about the plan policies. There are three plan policies that are set forth and it is confirmed that this application complies with each and every one of those plan policies. Particularly, I would direct your attention to the second one which says encouraged development of a balanced network of commercial activity centers to meet the service needs of our citizens. Also if you would please take a quick scan and review of the recited densities and other development C-1 in the immediate area of this property and those immediately encircling this property which are set forth on page 14 and 15. You will see every one of those densities in excess of the 2,400 square feet that the applicant is asking for under this request that is in front of you. What has changed since the last time that we were here? I will walk you through the most critical change that has been made is that we no longer have the variance request. I think technically that was withdrawn when it was last in front of you, but the variance request has been withdrawn. We are down from 6 gas pumps to a total of 4 gas pumps. We are down from the number of islands has been similarly reduced. The Building has been reduced from 2400 square feet to 2100 square feet. The Emissions inspections component has been removed. The vacuum and cleaning component has been relocated to the side of the building so it is no longer a standalone at the apex of the property. In addition to that, we have shown one of your sections requires that when you have a filling station or an open parking area you have got to provide visual shield from the open parking and so we have initially made compliance with that along Bethany Bend road as well as alone highway 9 but we further then came in and on the 6th of May, you have all had filed with you a beefed up landscape plan that has a legend that goes with it that gives specificity of the increased landscape planning that will be applied along both roadway frontages and we would respectfully request that if you see fit to approve the application, that you also incorporate into your approval a requirement of compliance with that landscape plan. As you go through the staff review and analysis as far as the site plan is concerned, on page 18 you see state Highway 9 overlay district, we comply. As far as building height, we comply. Landscaping strips, we comply. Other site plan consideration is noted and you have a schematic of the architectural look and feel of the property as being proposed, taking up on what design review board asks for and the comments designed review made, all four sides of this building has got articulation to it, fake windows to it, even in the backside. So you have architectural integrity as to what is being presented to you. In addition to that, the side where the dumpster is located, it’s not having an appearance or feels that that is part of the building and not just a segregated dumpster area. The bicycle racks are being confirmed to be added as has been requested the detention facility is underground; the arborist knows there are no specimen trees located on the property so we do not have any recommendations. With that, the applicant has reached out to the community and has had some encouraging dialog. We wish that it would continue. We would be hopeful that there would be further affirmative points that could be added to this application and we continue to be open to continue dialog with the community. We have also presented a turn ing movement analysis as to the internal truck movement. We have also presented to you how it is fire truck accessibility as far as the property is concerned and I think that the most prevailing comment is when staff concludes with their final recommendation of approval affirmation of the fact that all of the development standards are met and complied with and that adds any potential adverse affect to that residential area reasonably close by. With that, we would like to reserve the rest of our time for rebuttal. Phil Joseph, 13800 Oakmeade Trace, Milton, GA: I’m going to be speaking tonight as one of three. We have given you a binder which hopefully you have. In that binder, you have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that we will be going through. I believe that PowerPoint presentation is being presented right now. I will be talking about the first of the three points, proximity and two other neighbors will be talking about density and transportation issues. I am particularly well suited to talk about proximity because I live across the street from this property. The staff report says staff notes that although there are residentially developed parcels nearby to the east and Northeast, they are not adjacent to the subject site. The next slide will show where my property is. What you see there is basically the end of my property is across the street from where this property goes. The distance of the two properties is the width of Bethany Bend and I walked out there Sunday morning with my son and measured it, and it was 25 feet. Our property is about 25 feet away from the proposed gas station property. Also, the next slide shows that our property is downhill from the gas station property by about 13 feet. That is not scientific, I just used Google there and it said its 1181 feet and 1168 feet and you can tell it drops down when you drive there. The road goes down quite a bit going from Oakmeade Trace from this gas station property and that quite concerns me for a lot of reasons. The next slide shows what happens if there is, god forbid, an explosion at that site or a fire at the gas station. We know that happens. There is the BP problem going on right now, obviously they have extensive safety protocols and things but they can still have problems. Back in April I was in Nashville and there actually was a gas station explosion and the next slide shows a picture of what I will comment on the left is the empty truck that exploded. I don’t know what would have happened if it had been full. The clerk, an eyewitness at the hotel, said I don’t know where the fore came from but gas was shooting everywhere. That just gives me shivers thinking about a fire like that, 25 feet away from my property with trees in between my house and that. I would implore you to consider whether you want to have something like that this close to residential property. I know that you want to have a transition in between a property like this and residential property and I don’t think that 25 feet of roadway constitutes as a transition. The next slide shows the number of neighborhoods that are in the area. There are about 1500 homes and I know the audience can’t read this but Crooked Creek has 640, Lake Laurel 85, Five Acres Estates has 23, and so forth. I am in Bellemeade Farms of 22. All of those homes navigate this intersection on a regular basis. They all care about this discussion at one level or another. As a matter of fact, in the last half of your binder you will see that there is a tab on the petition and we ha ve 350+ of these residents that are asking to deny this request. I’m going to turn this over to my partner now. Ashley Bowen, 1110 South Bethany Creek Dr., Milton, GA: Good evening. I would like to share some of the communities’ concerns regarding saf ety as it pertains to the density of the proposed site. The proposed site is too intense for the .87 acres. The average size of the four other Milton stations is 40% larger than the proposed site and none of the others are on an acute triangle. None of the other stations necessitate one way pump traffic, or storage tanks in high traffic areas and all of the other stations have ample space for pass through traffic at the pumps, ample space for cars to que, and ample space for delivery trucks and other large trucks. The applicant’s other gas station has the same characteristics as the four stations in Milton. As you can see from the aerial view, there is plenty of room to circulate. Notice the entrance of the convenience store and the red x is the locati on of the storage tanks. Let’s dig into the site at hand. Did you know that you have to make 5 turns entering from Highway 9 just to get to the pump. Also, 11 parking spaces are required but one is used for air and vac and should not be counted as a parking space. This has not been noted in staff’s report. On the next slide, we have added some additional vehicles navigating to show a typical day. The community has asked a lot of questions about the fuel tankers. We get answers, but they do not alleviate our concerns. We are talking about a 60 foot truck. That is roughly the length of the 70 foot building. A 60 foot truck, carrying 20 thousand gallons of gas, maneuvering through tight spaces and the fact that there is only one way to enter and exit the site is extremely disconcerting. The auto turn diagrams are not convincing at all of the trucks ability to navigate the site. In staff’s report, the transportation engineer uses extremely soft language and says “appears to meet the standards” and note that the wheel paths cut into a parking space. In addition, at the planning commission meeting the commissioner’s remarks that the tanker also has to drive over the curb to enter the site. This is a computer generated, perfect world scenario and even th en, there is absolutely no margin for error. It is the communities’ opinion that “appears to meet the standards” is not good enough. In this case, this standard should be exceeded and allow for a margin of error to protect the citizens. Remember, this is truck carrying 20 thousand gallons of gas. Finally, the fact that he has to park in front of the store blocking the entrance traffic and the majority of parking is hazardous. We have asked what happens if the truck comes and people are parked in front of the store. He replied that the truck would wait for the customers to leave. Notice the potential back up of traffic on highway 9. The applicant has also assured us that the storage tanks in front of the building works, because if other site on Dallas Highway is similar. Unfortunately, the sites are not apples to apples. The storage tanks do not block the entrance, there is ample room to navigate, and 9 parking spots are still available while unloading in contrast to the two proposed site. The scariest thought for me is a young child who runs in to grab a candy bar while the car fills up and has to walk around the tanker when exiting to get back to the car. There is absolutely no visibility for the pedestrian or for the teenage driver maneuvering around the tanker on the opposite side. At 25 minutes, 3 times a week, that is 65 hours a year for potential disasters. Remember those 5 turns? Now try and make them safely when a tanker or other delivery truck is dropping off inventory. Heidi Sowder, 525 Sunflower ct., Milton, GA: Moving on to the transportation as far as off site transportation concerns and the gas station poses a significant concerns. In Milton’s comprehensive transportation plan that was approved by council in December of 2009 had some goals. The goal verbatim says “Milton CTP goal is to improve transportation network system level performance with particular emphasis on the impacts of commuter and cut through traffic and safety. ” if you look at the crash data for the Bethany Bend hi ghway intersection is the second most dangerous intersection in Milton. It had 73 crashes during 2006-2008 where if you look at Birmingham which is getting improvements had 75. That is only two left. The applicant also misstated in his TIS report the accident rates. The crash data corroborates the Fulton County transportation engineer’s comments of the 2006 CVS rezoning about a problematic intersection. This is not a transitional development. It does not meet Item 5 in staff’s report as far as a neigh borhood live work policy for Fulton County. The development verbatim from there verbiage should be designed to be pedestrian orientated and to promote walking and minimizing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. The gas station’s goal is to sell fuel, beer, and wine making this vehicle centric. Councilmember Longoria: Obviously the citizens had put together quite a bit of information. I don’t think they were exactly finished. Is there any way we can extend time? Mayor Lockwood: If you have support, yes. We can add 2 more minutes to the opposition as well as the applicant if the council is okay with that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I support that decision. City Attorney Jarrard: Mr. Mayor, I believe the last time we did this we had a motion and a second. Councilmember Tart: I would like to make a motion to extend the time by two minutes to each side. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I would like to second the motion. Councilmember Tart: Mayor, I know this is a sensitive subject to a lot of people, but in fairness to the applicant I would just ask that everyone please keep order. There was an announcement made at the beginning of the meeting not to applaud in fairness to the applicant. I think we all need to adhere to that please. Heidi Sowder: The adjacent development immediately south to this gas station was rezoned in 1985 to be a community shopping center. It had conditions that prohibited gas stations across the street. CVS has conditions that prohibit gas stations to the east. Bellemeade Estates with a neighborhood of 2+ acre estate lots and within 300 feet to the East you have three separate single family subdivisions. This C-1 district is intended to provide locations in which neighborhood and community orientated retail and service activities could kind of conclude a transition or compliment a transition for more intense activity. Based on these facts and the safety concerns of the community, we request that the council upholds the commitment to the safety of the Milton citizens and follow the planning commission’s recommendation to deny. Pete Hendricks: As far as the restriction that was referred to on other properties as to services stations, Fulton county had as a standard prohibition anytime you came in for a C1 zoning a restriction on fast food, service stations, and commercial amusements. Those were out of the box restrictions against it. If you wanted to have relief under any of those, you had to ask for it. After planning commission, I asked what the policy reason was for doing a restriction and she said service stations are intended when you have service going on. I asked if you are doing a convenience store and gas, would that fall under your restrictions? It wouldn’t. But if there were no emissions involved, it would be okay. I would also like to point out that the Joseph’s home concerns, their residents is 317 feet from this property. In addition, the way the elevation works by the time you get to the residence it is higher than the property that we are talking about. As far as traffic, I’m going to get Abdul to step up who did the traffic plan and analysis. As a general comment, you have benefit under the C1 zoning with a filling station being passer by traffic. It’s not destination oriented. I would also go back to the staff’s comment about the pedestrian friendly and accommodating nature of the revised site plan with compliance with the beauty strips, sidewalks, and bike racks and bike strips. Brad, if you would step up and talk about the internal movemen t about the trucks please. Brad Riffel, 490 Spring Ridge Dr., Roswell, GA: The truck route that is shown is a truck that is probably the worst case scenario. It’s a little longer than your normal tanker truck which is between 45-50 feet. I used a 55 footer truck to make the circulation and there is only one way in and there for one way out with that truck. The yellow line indicates the center travel path of the cab and some other lines that show the path of the back tires clearing everything. Abdul Amer, 2160 Kingston Ct., Marietta, GA: I conducted a detailed study for this project and the city staff had the opportunity to review it and they have agreed with the conclusions and the analysis in the study. The findings of my study at Bethany Bend and Highway 9 for safety is that the intersection is congested. It currently has a long cycle and by making signal timing improvements that I’ve recommended, we can improve the traffic operations. There are no safety concerns that the GDOT has for a higher number of accidents than any other intersections. Mehdi Jannatkhah, 4180 Harris Trail, Atlanta, GA: I am the applicant. I want to go over the comment about the delivery truck. I have an existing station that has gas station that has been in operation since 1996 and I have gone and took some pictures. This is the same design as we have shown. It shows the truck coming in and the location of the storage tanks is in front of the store. And the delivery truck will come in when we assign them to come in which is usually when it’s not the rush hours and as far as having people park in front of the store, if they are parked there we can ask that they park under the canopy if a truck comes in. Heidi Sowder: I just wanted to reiterate that this site, the tanks are in front of the store; it is not the same design. They have 15 parking spaces at that location, so when the 6 are taken up there are still 9 spots available for the cars. At the Milton Site, there are 2 on the side and 3 in the front which were for e mployee only and will be painted to be employee parking only. They are difficult to navigate to get in and out of. We have two transportation engineers from two different municipalities stating the same thing about the intersection. It was a problematic intersection in 2006 and it’s a transient commercial use that will exacerbate a difficult intersection in 2010. Mayor Lockwood: At this time, I will close the public hearing and open up for questions from the Council to our staff. Councilmember Longoria: Lynn, when this first came before us staff was recommending denial for a number of reasons. The planning commission had the same opinion. We deferred it and regardless of what it says, the vote was actually 6-1 because I didn’t necessarily vote for it. What do you think is the most significant change that is taking place with the new application and why did that change your opinion? Lynn Tully: A lot of it had to do with the density of the site. The variance was removed so they were able to co mply with the requirements for landscaping. The density of the site was decreased in that the store was decreased as well as the amount of pumps. We pushed it through all of the development reviews. It is still a concept plan. It appeared that it would meet the standards. That was primarily the biggest change on the staff’s recommendation. That allowed us to feel more comfortable that the intensity would fit on the site and meet the requirements. Councilmember Longoria: When you were looking at the density, what kind of thought did you give to the transition in the proximity of the Joseph’s home across the street? Lynn Tully: As a planner, we don’t pick out one particular home, but as a policy we do try to provide transitions for the area. Obviously, this is an intersection that does appear to be changing. There are several different commercial uses in the vicinity. When the properties aren’t immediately adjacent, we try to provide landscape buffers and open space. Those have been provided. The fencing was provided as well as a beefed up tree buffer. It’s not a perfect transition, but it does attempt to help those potential negative effects. Councilmember Longoria: In your experience, have you seen certain restrictions of distances with something where there are semi hazardous materials and residences? Lynn Tully: There are in some other areas. Those requirements are in Cherokee and Forsyth I believe. They are typically included in a zoning code or in development regulations. But yes , there are those in many other places, but we do not have those restrictions. Councilmember Tart: The first question I have has to do with the traffic study in general. I need to know whether the traffic study included anticipated increase in traffic from the Bethany Bend High School that will be there and also the Forsyth Development? Abdul Amer: Yes, we have included additional traffic growth in the traffic study. We estimate a percentage growth in traffic and increase that on an annual basis. Councilmember Tart: Is that based on just general population growth or proposed or definite developments? Abdul Amer: It’s based on a review of the historic growth in traffic in the area. Councilmember Tart: On page 23, about the turning radius, there have been claims made about the turning radiuses about the computer generated best case scenario and even then it has the delivery truck riding on the curbs. Could staff speak to that? This is tight. What can we do to avoid this? Lynn Tully: I think that is better answered by the transportation engineer who put this drawing together. I can say that our public works director and their staff has looked at it and to the best of their ability they have authenticated it again and I’m not sure that we have the same schematics. Carter Lucas: This is one where we have to have to look to the applicants engineer to provide that information to us. It’s not a program we have or something we can review in house other than simply looking at what has been provided to us. Councilmember Tart: Okay, well if that’s the case, I can see it right here plain as day, the rear tires go up on the concrete, what can the applicant do to avoid that? Brad Riffel: You may be looking at some of the other lines that are part of the extent of the cab. I can assure you that there are no tires going on any of the curbs because I made adjustments when it did. Initially, there were some tight areas, but I made adjustments. Councilmember Longoria: Brad, under normal circumstances, is it normal for gas stations to have only one good entrance and one good exit? Brad Riffel: Ideally, you would like a couple of options. Sometimes that is not possible. There are some people that deliver gas that could answer that better. What I can tell you from previous conversations, is that the company that is going to be providing the gas they have one or two employees that are specifically dedicated to this site. They will know the means of the site and how tight it is. It is tight, but according to the program we used, it works. Lynn Tully: Based on the plan you all have, the right of way reserved for future improvement on Bethany Bend it straddles the center of the landscape strip and the entirety of the landscape strip is provided within the reservation line. I am anticipating that we may lose a portion of that property. Councilmember Tart: How will that affect the sidewalk? Lynn Tully: We would have to move the sidewalk closer into the property. There still would be a need for the sidewalk to be outside the reservation line and we may lose the beauty strip along that portion in particular. Councilmember Tart: There seems to be a lot of discussion around previous rezoning and conditions. The conditions were not intended to exclude convenience stores or gas pumps. In terms of all of the uses of C-1, where do you see gas stations in terms of intensity of use? Lynn Tully: I can say in terms of traffic generation, there is a long use of C-1 uses that could potentially go on a site like this. The size of the site and the shape of the site limits a lot of these. There are other uses that could fit that would create less traffic, possibly a beauty shop or something of that nature would cause less traffic. I will say we did review the traffic engineer’s traffic study thoroughly; we did attempt to include the site plan from the engineer according to that study. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: First, does the applicant own this parcel? Lynn Tully: I believe they have signed as owner. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: In terms of prohibited uses, do we have standard language for the prohibited uses? Lynn Tully: I believe so. Robyn MacDonald will look for that. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: There are reasonable uses as evidence that would be effective that are allowable under our zoning code that would allow for the current zoning to be an economical use. Has the Design review board review ed this case? Lynn Tully: Yes ma’am. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I did not see any of their comments on the analysis. Could you speak to the DRB? Lynn Tully: They reviewed this on February 2, 2010. It’s on page 28. And also on April 13, 2010 and their first review they discussed screening of the dumpster which the applicant has now provided. They have discussed the canopy over the top of the pumps islands and said they should have a pitch on that. They also provided some drawings that indicate that the applicant has provided drawings to indicate that and requested any consideration of any alternate designs. I believe that again based on the proposal, they have considered those. They discussed on April 13th if the parking spaces on the North end would function correctly for maneuverability. Those are some tight spaces. Those will be employee only. They have removed what was originally an air and vacuum station from those spaces. They also discussed the sidewalk which potentially goes into the drive isle. Additional treatment of the dumpster area. The height should be the same as the building and provide a garage like door and that is indicated on your drawings. They should match the canopy to the building. They should locate bicycle parking on the side. Relocate the air and vacuum station. Discussed the previous issues that were addressed during the February meeting. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Did your analysis specifically include the traffic anticipated for the new high school. Abdul Amer: Yes Ma’am. We anticipated the traffic growth. What we did like we do in all traffic studies which is to do existing traffic counts and then whether it be 1, 2, or 3 years we add background traffic growth and we agree with the city staff what is an appropriate growth to include. 3%? 2%? 4%? Off the existing traffic and that is what we agreed on and included. So to answer your question, we do include all projects. Mayor Lockwood: You used a generic growth rate or did you do a specific rate to the new school? Abdul Amer: Yes, you are correct. It’s a standard practice in the industry. Lynn Tully: Typical uses accepted to the C1 zoning district included on the list was gas station and associated gas pumps specifically as excluded. They were prohibited. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Can staff also confirm the distance from the first speaker that the 25 feet is about correct in terms of the distance from the proposed parcel and the residence? Lynn Tully: From the property lines themselves, we measured the distance between the gas tanks and the holding tanks to the nearest residential property line. We did not measure the pump dispensers or the property line to property line. The holding tank is approximately 170 feet. Councilmember Hewitt: I have a couple of questions that are geared towards the entrance and exits. As its drawn now, will DOT approve this and is it far enough from the intersection? Carter Lucas: Yes, we have had a number of conversations with GDOT on this and at this point they have not voiced any significant concerns. Councilmember Hewitt: My next question is probably more towards you, Brad. I know there are some issues with the property immediately to the south. Do we have any concept about what would happen if there was some inter parcel access and this driveway was able to be shifted South to be more in light with the Publix driveway? Brad Riffel: Over the past three years we have made effort to get with the property owners to line the curb cuts up with Oakmeade and Publix, unfortunately, to align it would take up lots of property from the adjacent property owners and they were unwilling to work with us on it for a few reasons. My client says he would be more than happy to relocate the curb cut when the other property owners are willing to work with us and allow us to do that. Does that answer your question? Councilmember Hewitt: Yes, it does. Thank you. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I do have two more questions. I apologize. Hours of operation, could the applicant confirm the hours of operation as well as delivery times? Mehdi Jannatkhah: 5:30 a.m to 12:00 a.m. except Sunday which is 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: Also to delivery times, can you speak to that? Mehdi Jannatkhah: Delivery time would be up to us, but we had agreed to make sure that the delivery will happen within the hours of operation, not after hours. Mayor Lockwood: I have talked to several citizens and I understand all of the concerns and I can agree with a lot of them, but I want to look at it from both sides. As we look at this and the staff’s recommendations and I think some of our legal opinion, it always comes up. Obviously this applicant owns this piece of property and we have talked a little bit but could you confirm other uses that I think the problem is that it is such a small piece of property. I know we have denied gas stations on other pieces of property but those are big parcels that had other opportunities. Could staff and Mr. Hendricks address if there are any other uses on this property as it is currently zoned? Lynn Tully: As it is currently zoned, AG is our agricultural district and it could be used for any farming, however, the size and location diminishes that ability. Again, as a residential use it is further diminished by the size. Assuming there is septic on the property or sewer, they may or may not be able to attach to that. Again, because of the size of the property it would limit that. It is fa irly restrictive under the current zoning. Under C1 there are other uses in addition to a gas station that could be placed there. The size is the prohibitive factor again for any commercial uses and providing anything that could be retained there economically. However, there are some things, potentially, it could be used for. Mayor Joe Lockwood: Part of this stays AG-1, as discussed earlier, a veterinary or animal clinic but I think the problem there is that it might be too small of a piece of property plus it being on the corner, the economics probably would not work. Mr. Hendricks, do you want to address any other options? Pete Hendricks: This is where I started out with the applicant when he came to me about the thought and idea of rezoning this property. I wanted to know what kind of evaluation have you given …… as to what you got the ability to be able to do on this piece of property. He walked me through the effort to try and wed to the profits of the South and all the loggerheads that were met there, including an initial comment that the people didn’t even know they owned the property. Then through a fellow being in jail and then part of it being in an estate, it can’t logistically be done. So, that left us with the .871. A restaurant, you can’t park it. Fast food …. I don’t think with drive-thru for land use perspective is as good as the filling station that is being proposed. You have no reasonable economic life or value if you come in with a little boutique retail so where you end up is with the application that you have in front of you. I think it’s highly unusual that you have someone, an owner of property, in your community, that has the financial commitment and wherewithal to come in and do to this property what he is talking about doing to this property as to the upgrades, the enhancements, to where you will make it fit and work and the ratcheting down and the scope and scale from what was originally proposed to come to a bare bone financial ability to work and function with this piece of property. Mayor Joe Lockwood: I’ve heard a lot of concerns about traffic and safety but then I also hear a lot about a use like this doesn’t really generate a whole lot more traffic, it’s just people that are driving through that see the gas station that pull in and use it. Can you address that a little bit? Is this a use that will attract a lot more traffic or just going to impact existing traffic? Carter Lucas, Public Works Director: I think that the standards that we look at when reviewing these, probably 50 to 60% of the traffic generated were coming to the site as pass-by traffic. In other words, those vehicles that are already on the road, see the gas station and stop at the gas station so it generates about half of that in ne w traffic coming to the particular site. The reduction in the pumps obviously reduces the overall draw to the site and so there is some draw from the outside. I would have to look at the numbers specifically to tell you the number of trips but we would consider 50% to 60% pass-by trips. Mehdi Jannatkhah: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the trip generation. Give me a second, please, to flip to the trip generation. ITE trip generation manual which is data of thousands of similar facilities throughout the country has documented pass-by trip percentage and it is 50% to 60% of the total traffic to a facility like this. It is typically pass by traffic and in that context when you can compare what would possibly go here, the total number of new trips generated by this type of development is certainly much less than other developments. I did do some trip generation comparisons for various uses. Especially the new trips by this were significantly less than other potential uses, commercial uses, such as fast food restaurants, banks and things like that. I want to give you some perspective on the number of trips we are talking about. In the AM peak hour, we are talking about total new trips of 16 cars in one hour. Divide that up in two driveways, say there are 50/50, you are talking about eight cars entering this driveway in one hour. New cars, eight new trips. Other trips might be going on the road and just turn right and then turn right back out when they fill up. So you are talking about eight new trips for each of the driveways coming in and that in a period of one hour, if you look at it, two cars for 15 minutes, new, coming to this gas station. Gas station is a frightening word but when you look at a Quik Trip and a RaceTrac, it could poten tially generate hundreds of new cars in an hour. This is much smaller in scale. I just wanted you to keep that in perspective as we talk about trips. Thank you. Mayor Joe Lockwood: The only other thing, as we talk about transition, in my opinion, I think that is important. It would be great to have a big circle and a bulls eye and we go out but personally in my opinion, if you take Hwy. 9, the State Route and our existing commercial areas, we have to work outside of that. It’s a little bit awkward here because of the residential property that ………… Mr. Joseph’s property that comes right up to that intersection. I was going to ask if the applicant would consider different house, maybe limiting the hours where it was not as open as late, maybe didn’t open quite as early, if that was a consideration also? That seems to be a concern of some citizens. Mehdi Jannatkhah: I think we can go ……….. instead of 5:30 AM, go to 6:00 AM to be consistent with the other businesses that are around and we can go from 12:00 AM to 11:00 PM, to be consistent with other businesses. Mayor Joe Lockwood: I’m not trying to play the devil’s advocate; I’m listening to the citizens also. I’ve met with several citizens but I’ve also met with our staff and city attorney and the applicant and I realize this is someone’s livelihood and they have bought this property and they certainly have the rights within the law. I do agree that they have changed the plan a lot since they first came in. If I wanted to deny this, if the city council denied this, do we have any legitimate reasons to deny specifics that we can deny this on or based on facts? Lynn Tully: Zoning, as you well know is a legislative issue and therefore it’s very much based on quality vs. quantity so based purely on a qualitative point, if you so feel that this use is too intense, for the site, you can deny it based on that fact. If you are looking for a science fact based variable, I’m not sure that I have one without a lot of other study and I don’t know that the applicant is ready to prepare all that study at this point. Yes, obviously again as a legislative avenue, qualitatively, density and intensity, you can rule that way. City Attorney Jarrard: Mr. Mayor, I am going to echo what Ms. Tully said to the extent that of course this is legislation. The particular use challenges are identified in the staff report. It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that doesn’t present a little bit of a challenge for council. Lynn is going to look at this from a planning perspective. I am going to look at it from a defense perspective, of whatever the city does and so I tend to look at it from the prospective of those things that have the city’s actions an d certainly to the extent that this pertains to the challenges of trying to find an economic development for this property, that is a concern. It would be disingenuous of me not to say that there is not a concern. That is not the only thing that the council has to consider. There are things like the public interest, there are things like land development policy. Not all of those things can lean to what the court would look at, if in fact the property owner is able to meet his burden, the initial burden of saying, I have been significantly damaged or hurt because of what the council did. So, it’s very difficult for either Lynn or I to say to you, this is how you should exercise your discretion as legislators in this matter. Mr. Mayor, I will tell you th at I believe this property appears to present some challenges and I’m not going to be in a position to tell you that I think that you need to exercise your legislative ability, one way or the other and the city staff and city attorney will defend the city’s actions within this framework, irrespective of what they are. I would like to say again. I certainly understand that citizens live nearby and I would feel the same way they do. So, I am concerned about that and other issues. The other thing I struggle with is I see a piece of property and someone owns it and I wish there was a bigger piece of property, and we could come up with suggestions, Plan A, Plan B and Plan C. I just don’t see those other options as being practical. The other thing, I think this applicant is willing to put forth extra money to dress this development up to make it look attractive. My other biggest concern is that the city of Milton, as I believe all the council wants to do, is to preserve what we have out here and we have very limited commercial, or future slated commercial area. I certainly want to look at all those opportunities also. I think everybody has had a chance to speak. I am certainly open for a motion at this point. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to Deny Agenda Item No. 10-1063, RZ 10-01 based on the following: The proposed use is too intense for the .87 acre site as evidenced by the following: o There appear to be dual uses of parking spaces for air and water on the side of the building which limits the use of required parking spaces as required by our ordinance; o DRB made specific comments relative to the three parking spaces to the North end of the site and in their words do not function correctly for maneuverability purposes and as a result the applicant has made those employee only parking spaces which further limits the use of parking spaces on the site and speaks to the tight nature of the site; o The location of underground fuel tanks in front of the building and just behind the parking spaces will limit ingress and egress during times of delivery and will cause blind spots on the site and back up traffic on Highway 9 leading to safety concerns to pedestrians and vehicles on the premises and on adjacent streets and will block parking spaces during times of delivery; o Logistical challenges presented by the size of the parcel in relation to proposed uses including one-way traffic in/out of the gas pump stations, yet two entrances are noted; one with a right-in/right-out and lack of space for queuing and further complications caused by even less space when the parking spaces are filled by employees and customers; o Established public policy including a case 2006, 2-0096RFC heard in Fulton County on November 15, 2006 and a related rezoning directly across the street at CVS in which the traffic engineer noted that although the proposed use in that case was consistent with the language plan, the nature of the intersection of State Route 9 and Bethany Bend where the subject site was located was problematic in accessing, the subject site will be a challenge especially with increased traffic; o Also there were two cases that were heard by this Body with prohibitive uses including gas stations and convenience stores: one at the corner of Deerfield and Highway 9, the Kohl’s location and at Webb Road and Highway 9; o Lack of appropriate transitioning between the high intensity use of the proposed gas station and nearby low density residential neighborhoods; o Overall safety concern to pedestrians and vehicles given the delivery of gas presented by the increased traffic to the site through the intersection and on the site itself. Second and Friendly Amendment: Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion and added the following points: o Pg. 12 in reference to “Whether the property to be affected by the proposed has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned?” is that as defined by the City of Milton’s Zoning Code, expressly allows for several different uses that are indeed possible as currently zoned which would include not only a veterinarian clinic but also other things including retail sales of items grown from other locations but could be sold here as well as a multitude of other C -1 uses should this, in the future be rezoned to C-1 and yet with prohibited uses. o While this may be reflected as C-1 in the future land Use Plan for C-1, not all commercial uses have the same intensity of use and that the gas on so few acres is a much more intense use than what is typically allowed next to and immediately adjacent to residential homes. o Public health, safety and welfare concerns as stated by citizens as well as noted by Councilmembers, in particular combustibility issues, as it relates to the proximity of residences to underground tanks and the risk that would put our citizens at. o Transportation issues that expressly there was not a separate transportation and traffic study that expressly included the increased traffic anticipated by the Fulton County Board of Education School planned to open in the fall of 2012. Mayor Lockwood: I would say, I am happy for the citizens and all that are concerned. I also will say that I have heart burn because I think the applicant has met all the legal requirements and ordinance requirements so I don’t believe that is fair but I will certainly respect the decision. Councilmember Zahner Bailey: I do want to make one statement. I would like to speak briefly to the applicant and note that if something were to be denied, that obviously an application could come back and that there is always an opportunity to request a C-1 rezoning with perhaps some conditions that would be more palatable based on transition policy and based on the live-work and quality of life policies of this body including as represented by our mission and value statements in the Highway 9 design area. I would encourage consideration of other rezoning that perhaps would take into consideration certain uses vs. others. Motion Restated and Vote: Councilmember Tart moved to Deny Agenda Item No. 10-1063, RZ 10-01 and concurs to add Councilmember Zahner Bailey’s justifications as stated except for the combustibility concern in close conjunction to residences. The motion passed 3-2. Mayor Lockwood and Councilmember Hewitt were opposed. (Councilmember’s Thurman and Lusk were absent for the vote.) Mayor Lockwood: I would like to thank all of the citizens for being here tonight. STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NUMBER ____________ COUNTY OF FULTON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 58, UTILITIES, OF THE CITY OF MILTON CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL CAR WASH WATER RECYCLYING REQUIREMENTS; TO REPEAL CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR SEVERABILITY; TO PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILTON HEREBY ORDAINS while in regular session on the _____ day of _____________, 2010 as follows: SECTION 1. That this Ordinance relating to amending Chapter 58, Utilities, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances is hereby adopted and approved as follows: Section 58-175. - Definitions The following words and phrases, whenever used in this ordinance, have the meaning defined in this section: In-bay automatic car wash means a commercial car wash where the driver pulls into the bay and parks the car. The vehicle remains stationary while a machine moves back and forth over the vehicle to clean it, instead of the vehicle moving through the tunnel. Conveyor car wash means a commercial car wash where the car moves on a conveyor belt during the wash. The driver of the vehicle can remain in the vehicle or wait outside of the vehicle. Recycled water system means a water system that captures and reuses water, regardless of the source, previously used in wash or rinse cycles. Self-service car wash means a commercial car wash where the customers wash their cars themselves with spray wands and brushes. Section 58-176. - Purpose and Intent The purpose of this ordinance is to reduce water consumption from commercial car wash facilities by requiring all new in-bay and conveyor car washes to install operational recycled water systems. Section 58-177. - Applicability This ordinance applies to all new in-bay automatic car washes and conveyor car washes permitted and constructed after January 1, 2011. The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to in-bay car washes and conveyor commercial car washes that were permitted or constructed before January 1, 2011. The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to self-service car washes. Section 58-178. - Commercial Car Wash Water Recycling Requirement All new in-bay automatic car washes and conveyor car washes, permitted and constructed after January 1, 2011 must install operational recycled water systems. SECTION 2. That this Ordinance shall be designated as Article IV, Car Wash Water Recycling, of Chapter 58, Utilities, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances. SECTION 3. That Sections 156 through 174 of Subdivision III, Prohibited Discharges, Inspections and Notifications; Division II, Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection; Article III, Sewer; Chapter 58, Utilities, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances be hereby reserved. SECTION 4. That all Ordinances, parts of Ordinances, or regulations in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. It is the express intent of the Council of the City of Milton that this Ordinance be consistent with both federal and State law. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared severable. SECTION 6. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption. ORDAINED this the _____ day of ______________, 2010. Approved: ______________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: __________________________ City Clerk (Seal) STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE NUMBER ____________ COUNTY OF FULTON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 62, VEHICLES FOR HIRE, ARTICLE II, TAXICABS, OF THE CITY OF MILTON CODE OF ORDINANCES BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Milton, Georgia while in a Regular called Council meeting on the ___ day of _____________, 2010 at 6 p.m. as follows: SECTION 1. That this Ordinance relating to amending Chapter 62 Vehicles for Hire, Article II, Taxicabs, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances is hereby adopted and approved as follows: Chapter 62 Vehicles for Hire, Article II, Taxicabs, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances is hereby revised in its entirety to read as follows: Sec. 62-19. Defined Terms. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Driver means any person holding a current, valid Driver Permit issued by the City and who drives a Taxicab operated by an Operator. A Driver may also be an Operator. Driver Permit means a Driver Permit issued by the City to a Driver pursuant to this Article. Operator means any person or entity operating a business with an office located within the corporate limits of the City of Milton and providing to the public the services of one (1) or more Taxicabs. A natural person who is an Operator may also be a Driver. Taxicab means any motor vehicle used in the business of transporting passengers for compensation and not having a fixed route or routes. The term “Taxicab” does not include limousine carriers as contemplated by O.C.G.A. § 46-7-85.11. Taxicab Permit means a Taxicab Permit issued by the City to an Operator pursuant to this Article. Taximeter means a device that automatically calculates, at a predetermined rate, and indicates the charge for hire of a Taxicab. Sec. 62-20. Operators – Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Occupation Tax; Regulations. (a) As contemplated by O.C.G.A. § 36-60-25, all Operators, prior to operating any Taxicab within the City or allowing any Driver to operate a Taxicab within the City, shall apply for and obtain from the City: 1) a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience; and 2) an occupation tax certificate procured from the City Community Development Department. Operators shall be subject to the City occupation tax provisions contained in Chapter 12, Article 2 of the Milton Code. (b) Applications for Certificates of Public Necessity shall be submitted to the City Police Department. Applications shall be on the form provided by the City and additionally shall include, at a minimum: (1) A detailed description of the equipment and Taxicabs to be used in the Operator’s business and the names of all Drivers and employees thereof; and (2) The address and telephone number of the Operator’s office. (c) The following minimum criteria must be met by the applicant prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience or annual renewal thereof: (1) Establishment and maintenance of an office in a commercially zoned area of the City. (2) Submission of a copy of the Operator’s current lease or proof of ownership regarding the Operator’s office. (3) Establishment and maintenance of a publicly listed telephone number for the Operator’s office. (4) Maintenance on file with the City of the name, home address and home phone number of each current Driver of all Operator Taxicabs. (5) Maintenance of lawful off-street parking capable of accommodating all Operator Taxicabs. (6) Maintenance of a file, for each Taxicab, evidencing compliance with the requirements of Sec. 62-21 below. (7) Possession of, and providing the City Police Department a copy of, a current policy of indemnity insurance with an insurance company active with the office of the Georgia Insurance and Fire Safety Commissioner, which policy shall comply with Section 62-21(b)(1) below and shall have, at a minimum, the following limits for each Operator Taxicab: A. For bodily injury or death to each person: $50,000.00; B. For bodily injury or death to all persons sustained in any one (1) accident: $50,000.00; and C. For injury to or destruction of personal property in any one (1) accident: $25,000.00. Such policy shall be conditioned to protect the public against injury or damage proximately caused by the negligence or willful act of the Operator and any and all Driver(s) operating an Operator Taxicab(s). Sec. 62-21. Taxicabs - Permits; Regulations. (a) No Operator Taxicab shall be operated in the City unless such Taxicab has a current, valid, City-issued Taxicab Permit decal affixed in a conspicuous location on the rear of the Taxicab. (b) Applications for Taxicab Permits shall be made to the City Police Department and shall include, at a minimum, the following: (1) A copy of a valid six-month auto insurance policy meeting State minimum requirements and the requirements of Section 62-20(c)(7) above for each Taxicab. (2) A copy of a certificate of inspection for each Taxicab completed on the form provided by the City Police Department and issued by a National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence certified mechanic, which certificate shall be located inside the Taxicab at all times. The certificate must be renewed every six (6) months for each Taxicab. (c) No Taxicab Permit shall be issued for any Taxicab with a model year more than six (6) years old. (d) No Taxicab Permit shall be issued for any Taxicab having less than three (3) doors, excluding the Driver’s door, for loading and unloading of passengers. (e) No Taxicab Permit shall be issued unless the Taxicab shall be equipped with a Taximeter meeting the requirements of this subsection. Taximeters shall only calculate fares on the basis of mileage, not time. Taximeters shall be fastened in front of the passenger’s seat and be visible to the passenger at all times. After sundown, the face of the Taximeter shall be illuminated. The Taximeter shall be operated mechanically by a mechanism of standard design and construction, driven either from the transmission or from one (1) of the front wheels by a flexible and permanently attached driving mechanism. The Taximeter shall be sealed at all points and connections which, if manipulated, would affect its correct reading and recording. (f) No Taxicab Permit shall be issued for any Taxicab that does not have a dry compartment for the secure storage of passengers’ luggage, which compartment shall be separate and apart from the passenger area. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “passenger area” shall be defined as the area designed to seat the Operator and passengers while the Taxicab is in operation and any area that is readily accessible to the Operator or a passenger while in his or her seating position; provided, however, that such term, in a Taxicab not equipped with a trunk, does not include any area behind the rearmost upright seat or not normally occupied by the Operator or passengers. (g) No Taxicab Permit shall be issued for any Taxicab that does not bear on the outside thereof (use of magnetically affixed equipment/information is expressly prohibited): (1) The Taxicab Permit decal required by this Section. (2) Fare information in compliance with Section 62-23 below. (3) The name and business telephone number of the Operator, which must be conspicuously displayed and permanently affixed to the Taxicab. (4) A toplight on the roof which must be at least six (6) inches in height permanently affixed to the roof and bearing the term “taxi” or the Operator name. (h) Operators and Drivers shall ensure that Taxicabs are maintained in a clean condition, free from foreign matter, trash, dirt and/or offensive odors. (i) The City Police Department may conduct random inspections of Operator Taxicabs to ensure the safety and welfare of the public and/or their compliance with this Article. Sec. 62-22. Drivers - Permits; Regulations. (a) No person shall operate an Operator Taxicab in the City without a City issued Driver Permit on his or her person at all times while operating such Taxicab. No Driver Permit shall be issued to any person unless such person shall: (1) Be in possession of a current, valid “Class C” Georgia driver’s license; (2) Be competent to operate a motor vehicle; (3) Be familiar with the traffic laws and ordinances of the State of Georgia and the City of Milton; and (4) Provide authorization and any information necessary to enable the City Police Department to investigate the person’s background, criminal history, and traffic record. (b) Drivers and Operators shall at all times be responsible for ensuring that the following information is conspicuously located within the cabin of the Taxicab: (1) A map or street guide of, at a minimum, the north metro Atlanta area, including the entire City of Milton, which map or street guide may be in electronic form. (2) The name and photograph of the Driver. (3) A schedule of fares. (c) No person shall operate a Taxicab in the City or be issued a Driver Permit if such person has been convicted of or has pled guilty or nolo contendere to three (3) or more moving traffic violations in the preceding 12-month period. (d) No person shall operate a Taxicab in the City or be issued a Driver Permit if such person has, within the past ten (10) years, been convicted of or has pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following: (1) Any sexual offense as set out in O.C.G.A. Title 16, Chapter 6. (2) Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (3) Any violation for driving with an open container of alcohol. (4) Any offense involving the Georgia Lottery. (5) Illegal possession or sale of drugs or alcohol. (6) Possession or receipt of stolen property. (7) Any act involving violence. (8) The violation of any law involving moral turpitude. (9) The violation of any statute or ordinance regarding alcoholic beverages. (10) Any offense of causing death by vehicle. (e) No Driver shall refuse to accept a customer solely on the basis of race, color, national origin, religious belief, or gender. Drivers shall not refuse to accept a customer unless the customer is intoxicated, when such condition is made manifest by boisterousness, by indecent condition or act, or by vulgar, profane, loud, or unbecoming language, or is armed or otherwise obviously a danger to the personal safety of the Driver or other customers. (f) No Driver shall transport passengers numbering greater than the maximum number of persons specified for a Taxicab by the Taxicab’s manufacturer. Sec. 62-23. Fares. Operators shall ensure that all Taxicabs have posted conspicuously on the outside of each Taxicab a schedule of fares. Taximeters must be operational, turned on and in use for each fare. Fares shall only be calculated based upon mileage, not time. Log sheets of each fare are to be kept and made available to the City upon request. Operators shall charge, for all Taxicabs, uniform fares to all customers. No Operator shall charge any minimum fare in excess of $6.00. No change of a fare schedule by any Operator shall take effect until after the Operator provides at least fifteen (15) days prior written notice of such schedule change to the City Police Department. Sec. 62-24. Certificate/Permit Fees, Duration. Annual fees for Certificates of Public Necessity, Driver Permits, and Taxicab Permits shall be as set forth in Appendix “A,” Fees and Other Charges, to the Milton Code. Annual renewal fees and applications are due to the City Police Department no later than March 31 of each year. All Certificates of Public Necessity, Driver Permits, and Taxicab Permits shall be issued for no more than a one (1) year term and shall expire on April 5 of each year. Fees shall not be prorated. All Operators and Drivers shall comply with the citizenship/alien status requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-36-1. Sec. 62-25. Operators Responsible for Violations by Drivers. To the extent permitted by law, Operators shall be responsible for, and subject to citations for, violations of this Article by Drivers of their Taxicabs, regardless of whether such Drivers are direct employees or independent contractors of the Operator. Sec. 62-26. Denials; Suspension or Revocation; Hearing. (a) Application denials. Applications for a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit (including annual renewals of same) shall be denied by the City Police Department for failure to comply with any requirement of this Article. In the event that an application for a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit is denied, the City Police Department shall provide the applicant with written notice of the denial. The notice of denial shall include the grounds for and date of the denial and shall be mailed to the applicant, at the address listed by the applicant on the application, on the date of denial by United States regular mail. The applicant, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the notice of denial, may make a written request to the City Manager for a hearing before the Mayor and City Council for a review of such denial, and the City Manager shall schedule the hearing for the next available regular meeting, after the notice period required by subsection (d) below, of the Mayor and City Council. (b) Suspension/revocation for violations of City regulations. Each Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit granted hereunder shall be subject to suspension or revocation for violation of any provision of this Article. Suspensions may be with or without conditions and shall not exceed six (6) months in duration. (c) City Manager review of suspension/revocation. Whenever the City Police Department determines there is cause to suspend or revoke a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit issued hereunder, the City Police Department shall notify the City Manager of such cause. If the City Manager, after review of the matter, determines that cause indeed exists for the matter to be brought before the Mayor and City Council, the City Manager shall give the Operator/Driver notice of a hearing before the Mayor and City Council as provided in subsection (d) below. (d) Notice of hearing; contents. The City Manager shall provide to the applicant, in the case of a denial, or holder of the suspended or revoked Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit at least ten (10) days' prior written notice, by United States regular mail, of the hearing for the Mayor and City Council to consider the denial or whether to suspend or revoke the Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit. The ten-day written notice shall include, at a minimum, the following information: (1) The time, date, place, and purpose of such hearing; and (2) In the case of a suspension/revocation, a statement of the charges upon which such hearing will be held. (e) Hearing. After the City Manager makes a recommendation to the Mayor and City Council regarding a denial, or to suspend or revoke a license issued hereunder, the Mayor and City Council will conduct a hearing to receive and consider evidence relevant to the matter at hand. The Mayor and the Council members will have the right to ask questions at any time during the hearing. (1) At the hearing, the City Manager or his or her designee proceeds first and presents all evidence and arguments in support of the recommendation to deny the application, or to suspend or revoke the Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit issued hereunder. (2) After the City Manager makes his or her presentation, the applicant for or holder of the Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit or their legal counsel may present evidence and arguments as to why the application should be granted or the Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit issued hereunder should not be suspended or revoked. (f) Grounds. After the hearing, the Mayor and City Council may uphold a denial, or suspend or revoke the Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit issued hereunder, if any of the grounds set forth in this subsection below exists: (1) The original Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit application, or any renewal application, contained materially false information, or the applicant deliberately sought to falsify information contained therein; (2) Regarding a denial, the application or applicant failed to meet any of the requirements of this Article. (3) Failure to pay any fees, taxes or other charges imposed by the provisions of this Article, the Milton Code, or state or federal law; (4) Failure to maintain all of the general qualifications applicable to the initial issuance of a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit under this Article; (5) Conviction of, or a guilty or nolo contendere plea to, three (3) or more moving traffic violations in any 12-month period; (6) Refusing to accept a customer solely on the basis of race, color, national origin, religious belief, or gender in violation of Section 62-22(e) above; (7) Allowing any required insurance coverage under this Article to lapse; (8) Operating or allowing a Driver to operate a Taxicab in the City in violation of any provision of this Article; (9) The Operator, Taxicab or Driver is a threat or nuisance to the public health, safety or welfare; (10) Not transporting a customer to his destination by the most direct route as is reasonable under the applicable circumstances; or (11) Any violation of any provision of this Article. (g) Decision. The Mayor and City Council shall render a decision by majority vote of a quorum upon the conclusion of the hearing. The decision of the Mayor and City Council, including the reason(s) for the upholding of an application denial, or suspension or revocation, regarding a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit, shall be transmitted in writing by United States mail to the applicant for or holder of the Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit. (h) Appeals. The upholding by the Mayor and City Council of the denial of an application, or the suspension or revocation of a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit, shall be final unless the applicant for or holder of the Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience, Driver Permit, or Taxicab Permit files a petition for writ of certiorari with the superior court of Fulton County within 30 days of the date of the decision of the Mayor and City Council. Sec. 62-27. Violations; Penalty. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this Article. Violations of this Article shall be punishable as provided for in Section 1-5 of the Milton Code. All other portions of Chapter 62 Vehicles for Hire, of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances shall remain undisturbed and are hereby reaffirmed. SECTION 2. That all Ordinances, parts of Ordinances, or regulations in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption. ORDAINED this the _____ day of ______________, 2010. Approved: ______________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: __________________________ City Clerk (Seal) City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway, Milton, Georgia 30004 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Matt Marietta Date: Submitted on September 20, 2010 the October 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Agenda Item: Approval for the Removal of Billy Lovelace Hauling from the List of Approved Solid Waste Haulers for the City of Milton Due to Non-Compliance with the Ordinance City Manager’s Office Recommendation Approve the revocation of the non-exclusive solid waste management contract with Billy Lovelace Hauling due to repeated infractions of the solid waste ordinance, and continued non- compliance with its requirements despite notification from the City and repeated attempts to walk the Company into compliance with the ordinance. Discussion Billy Lovelace Hauling is currently on our approved haulers list. However, a review of our records indicate that the Company has not paid the required infrastructure maintenance fee since June 2008. Despite the explicit probation placed on the Company at the Regular City Council Meeting of August 16, 2010, the Company has failed to make either of the two payments required, nor have they begun to repay the amount in arrears. Additionally, I am now receiving complaints from residents that the Company has collected 3rd Quarter fees for service in advance and yet has not picked up garbage in 3 weeks. I have been entirely unable to communicate with Mr. Lovelace regarding this ongoing problem (nor have the citizens who have complained). Consequently, Billy Lovelace Hauling is still continuing in the same pattern that prompted the initial call for removal from the approved haulers list: The Company is unresponsive to customer complaints for non-service, is erratic in its pick up (if it picks up at all), and has missed two consecutive payments and has not made any repayment for past quarters per the Council agreement. Funding and Fiscal Impact Since they haven’t been paying the required fee anyway, there will be no financial impact. Concurrent Review Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager RESOULTION NO. STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON A RESOLUTION REMOVING BILLY LOVELACE HAULING FROM THE LIST OF APPROVED HAULERS PURSUANT TO THE MILTON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE The Mayor and Council of the city of Milton hereby resolves: SECTION 1. That the City of Milton has properly enacted an ordinance to regulate solid waste management within its corporate boundaries. SECTION 2. Billy Lovelace Hauling, one of the approved haulers, is in breach of several requirements of this ordinance and has been given an extended period to correct these issues, including direction at the Regular Council Meeting of August 16, 2010 SECTION 3. Billy Lovelace Hauling is removed from the list of approved haulers in the City of Milton and is no longer allowed to provide solid waste service within Milton’s corporate limits. BE IT RESOLVED, on this 18th day of October, 2010 at 6:00 pm by the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia. _______________________________ Joe Lockwood, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk (Seal) City of Milton 13000 Deerfield Parkway Suite 107C Milton, Georgia 30004 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Carter Lucas, PE, Director of Public Works Date: October 4, 2010 for October 18, 2010 Council meeting Agenda Item: A Resolution to Adopt the North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Background: North Fulton is comprised of six municipalities including Alpharetta, Johns Creek, Milton, Mountain Park, Roswell, and Sandy Springs, each of which has unique transportation needs. North Fulton is supported by an extensive transportation network composed of roadways, sidewalks, bike lanes, and access to transit. Recognizing the need for strong cross-jurisdictional and multimodal planning and coordination, the cities of North Fulton joined together with the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) to sponsor the development of the North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). This plan will assist local governments within the North Fulton subarea by clearly defining jurisdiction-wide goals, needs, and priorities to update their individual transportation plans which can then be used as input into the regional transportation planning process. One of the key results of the North Fulton CTP is a list of regionally significant cross-jurisdictional projects that the communities of North Fulton collectively support. These identified projects form the basis of future funding requests submitted to ARC and GDOT during Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update cycles. Discussion: The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the North Fulton cities for developing the CTP (approved by Milton on October 6, 2008) provides guidelines for approving the plan. Section 3.5 of the MOA requires that at least four (4) of the Cities, by resolution, accept “the draft report” resulting from the MOA. City staff has reviewed and recommend acceptance of the draft report, in the form of the North Fulton Transportation Resource Implementation Program (the “TRIP”) attached to the Resolution to adopt the CTP. The TRIP is the summary document that concludes the development of the CTP. This document provides an overview of the planning process, the resulting recommendations, and the necessary actions for ensuring ongoing implementation. Legal Review: Review of Resolution – Paul Higbee, Jarrard & Davis, on 9/30/10 Attachments: A Resolution to adopt the North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan Exhibit “A” North Fulton Transportation Resource Implementation Program (TRIP) Transportation Resource Implementation ProgramNorth Fulton CountyComprehensive Transportation PlanOctober Transportation Resource Implementation ProgramNorth Fulton CountyComprehensive Transportation PlanOctober 2010 1 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 2POLICY COMMITTEE Arthur Letchas.......................................................AlpharettaMike Bodker ........................................................Johns CreekJoe Lockwood ..............................................................MiltonJim Still .......................................................... Mountain ParkJere Wood .................................................................. RoswellEva Galambos ...................................................Sandy SpringsSTAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE Alpharetta Michael CrossKit Mastrangelo Chris Owens Johns Creek Tim Jennette Edward “Skip” Rolquin Jim Warren Mike Williams Milton Clyde Johnson Matthew Marietta Mountain Park John McLaughlin Roswell Erik AlfordRich DippolitoTom LaDow Richard Mays Becky Wynn Sandy Springs Sandy AbramsJon Drysdale J Scott Leonard Chris Miller Gabriel Sterling Marguerite WilsonChattahoochee River Keeper Sally BetheaGDOT Kaycee MertzGDOT District Offi ce Mike LobdellGDOT Tom McQueenGRTA David CassellJohns Creek Chamber of Commerce Doug RussMARTA Johnny DunningNorth Fulton Chamber of Commerce Tedra CheathamNorth Fulton CID Ann HanlonPerimeter CIDs Yvonne Williams Perimeter CIDs Tony PetersSandy Springs Chamber of Commerce Sheri Wilburn PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAMEric Graves ............................................................AlpharettaCindy Jenkins ......................................................Johns CreekSara Leaders ................................................................MiltonCarter Lucas ................................................................MiltonChris Chovan ............................................................ RoswellCedric Clark .....................................................Sandy SpringsRegan Hammond ............................................................ARCIn addition to the participants listed above, there have been additional municipal staff , related organizations, and involved citizens who were very engaged though the development of the North Fulton CTP. Although they are greater in number than can be listed here, their participation was vital to the success of this plan.CONSULTANT TEAMACKNOWLEDGEMENTSArchitectsEngineers PlannersACKNOWLEDGEMENTSJoel Stone, Inc. 3 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 4Acknowledgements Introduction Coordination and Public Involvement Transportation Funding Selection and Prioritization Methodology Recommendations: Multi-County Projects Recommendations: North Fulton Regional Projects Recommendations: Additional Projects and Policies Other Regional Projects Considered Five Year Action Plan Project Implementation Monitoring Appendix: Tier  Project Fact Sheets TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS 5 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 6INTRODUCTIONNorth Fulton is comprised of six municipalities including Alpharetta, Johns Creek, Milton, Mountain Park, Roswell, and Sandy Springs, each of which has unique transportation needs. Together these municipalities form a subarea of Fulton County and the greater metropolitan Atlanta. North Fulton is a signifi cant subarea within metro-Atlanta because over the past several decades, it has developed into a major employment center with some of the highest-paying jobs in the region. Th e area also has very high land values with a very attractive housing stock and public services. North Fulton is supported by an extensive transportation network composed of roadways, sidewalks, bike lanes, and access to the ninth largest transit system in the United States. Recognizing the need for strong cross-jurisdictional and multimodal planning and coordination, the cities of North Fulton joined together with the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) to sponsor the development of the North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). Th is plan will assist local governments within the North Fulton subarea by clearly defi ning cross-jurisdictional goals, needs, and priorities. Th e information that comes out of this plan can be used by local governments to update their individual transportation plans which can then be used as input into the regional transportation planning process. While ARC typically completes needs assessments and transportation plans focusing on regional needs and solutions, a successful local transportation plan and program is also critical. One of the key results of the North Fulton CTP is a list of regionally signifi cant cross-jurisdictional projects that the communities of North Fulton collectively support. Th ese identifi ed projects form the basis of future funding requests submitted to ARC and GDOT during Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update cycles.Th is report, the Transportation Resource Implementation Program (TRIP), is the summary document that concludes the development of the CTP. Th is document provides an overview of the planning process, the resulting recommendations, and the necessary actions for ensuring ongoing implementation. Associated with this report are three other technical documents which provide more detailed information regarding the CTP development and fi nal recommendations. Th e fi rst report is the Existing Conditions Report (published January 2010), which provides a thorough overview of the existing transportation network in North Fulton. Th e second report, the Needs Assessment Report (published April 2010), builds on that foundation and focuses on assessing current and future transportation defi ciencies in the area. Th e fi nal report is the Recommendations Report (published October 2010), which provides a fi nal list of prioritized transportation enhancement recommendations. Readers may go to www.atlantaregional.com/nfctp to access these reports online.Th e North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan’s vision is to develop a functional, reliable and implementable transportation system that…PROJECT VISION STATEMENTSupports economic vitality, environmental responsibility, innovation, ♦and quality of lifeIs designed to achieve safety, connectivity, accessibility, and mobility ♦for users of all modes and support lifelong communities enabling independence as citizens ageWorks cooperatively with the area’s infrastructure and jurisdictional ♦land use policiesIs developed cooperatively with respect for the preservation of an ♦individual jurisdiction’s community characterPOPULATIONGROWTHINTRODUCTIONIf we continue to alleviate congestion by widening roads, GA 400 would need an additional 12 lanes to accommodate the growth expected over the next 20 years.< 1 Persons/Acre1 - 3 Persons/Acre3 - 5 Persons/Acre< 5 Persons/AcreExpresswaysMajor RoadsFulton CountyTh e TRIP document provides an overview of the process and recommendations developed as part of the North Fulton CTP. Th e document is generally organized as follows:- Background and Development of the CTP- Major Multi-County Recommendations- North Fulton Regional Project Recommendations- General Policy Recommendations- Plan ImplementationTh roughout the document, all specifi c recommendations are denoted with red italicized text while prioritized North Fulton projects are listed in tables broken up into three priority levels (or tiers).At the end of the TRIP document, a Five Year Action Plan as well as an Implementation Monitoring section have been included to aid in execution of the North Fulton CTP. 7 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMOVERVIEW OF TOOLS AND RESOURCES USEDTo survey existing conditions, to identify transportation needs, and to create fi nal recommendations for the North Fulton transportation system, many approaches and tools were used. Th e following is a summary of those tools:Public Involvement was one of the primary methods used for developing a list of transportation needs, particularly current ones. Residents and stakeholders in the area represent an important source of information for those system needs that currently exist. Many opportunities for public input were utilized including public charrettes, a statistically valid public opinion survey of 1,000 residents, email correspondence, telephone calls, a project website, and comments through a project Facebook page. Existing Studies were reviewed for areas across North Fulton to build a strong foundation for this plan by giving consideration to work done in previous studies. Studies and plans reviewed include Municipal Comprehensive Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Plans, Livable Centers Initiatives Studies, Tax Allocation District Applications, Revitalization, Redevelopment, and Master Plans, Corridor Studies, and other various studies. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a software tool used to relay spatial information in the form of maps. Economic, census, land, and transportation data were displayed using this software. Unless noted otherwise, the maps included in this document were created using the software ESRI ArcGIS Version 9.3 (ArcView).Census Data and American Community Survey data from the US Census Bureau were obtained for the purposes of understanding population and employment trends. Th is information was used for identifying area employment centers, areas with greater density, and areas with aging populations, lower incomes, lower auto ownership, or a larger disabled population that may have diff erent transportation needs. Th ese data have limitations based on the size of the census tracts and because the census is conducted every 10 years. Th e most recent census with available data was conducted in 2000 so this data is nearly 10 years old. Th e Atlanta Regional Commission’s (ARC) Travel Demand Model is a computer generated simulation of travel patterns in the Atlanta region. By taking into account the existing and planned roadway network, travel behaviors, land use patterns, and socioeconomic data from North Fulton and the metro area as a whole, this model is used to approximate regional traffi c patterns along the primary roadway network for both present and future conditions. Th e model also was used to test the vehicular capacity and transit projects to assess associated impacts. Coordination with ARC’s Ongoing Planning Initiatives was necessary to develop the North Fulton plan in accordance with region-wide goals and strategies. ARC is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Atlanta region, of which North Fulton is a subarea. Coordinating with ongoing regional initiatives that are being implemented by ARC ensures that the North Fulton CTP will be aligned with those goals that extend beyond its borders: Recommended projects that are locally benefi cial and yet, are still aligned with regional goals. Some of the initiatives the North Fulton CTP incorporated include the PLAN 2040 Update, Unifi ed Growth Policy Map, Livable Centers Initiative (LCI), Strategic Regional Th oroughfares Plan, and the Regional Resource Plan.Crash Data statistics were analyzed in order to identify safety needs and trends within the transportation system. Th ese data provide insight into the nature of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and commercial vehicle crashes. Geospatial data were also obtained from the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) so that locations of these crashes could be identifi ed. | 8INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION 9 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 10PUBLIC INPUTComments from the public were used to defi ne transportation needs and to prioritize the fi nal list of recommended projects. Th e most direct opportunity for engaging the public and obtaining specifi c input was through two rounds of public design charrettes. Th e fi rst round consisted of charrettes held in January of 2010 in each North Fulton municipality to identify defi ciencies in the transportations system. Th e second round was also held in each North Fulton community in May of 2010, but with a focus on gaining feedback on a preliminary list of recommendations.1 Attendees were asked to vote in favor of or against each individual project using a system of green and red dots to place on large maps and project lists. Attendees were also allowed to suggest new projects that had not been added to the lists. Voting results from the second round of charrettes were later used to aid in prioritizing the fi nal list of recommendations.A transportation plan should be developed with consistent input from the community and with coordination between participating jurisdictions and agencies. As part of the North Fulton CTP, numerous meetings were held with Stakeholders, municipal staff , and other organizations to gain input and guide the development of the plan. At the outset of the North Fulton CTP, a Project Management Team was established to directly guide the development of the plan. Th is team consisted of a core group of municipal staff assigned by the cities of Alpharetta, Johns Creek, Milton, Roswell, and Sandy Springs. Th e Stakeholder Committee consisted of 21 local business leaders, elected offi cials, and involved citizens appointed by the North Fulton municipalities. Th e group aided in developing the vision and goals at the beginning of the project and then provided on-going input at critical points throughout the development of the plan.Over the course of the project, the Consultant Team attended four North Fulton Mayors Meetings in order to update the mayors on the status of the project. Also, individual phone interviews and individual in-offi ce interviews were conducted with each mayor. Th e CTP was discussed at City Council work sessions in each North Fulton municipality (with the exception of Mountain Park) in an eff ort to fi nalize project prioritization. In addition, meetings were held with related organizations and nearby jurisdictions in order to ensure regional coordination. Th ese entities included adjacent counties, GDOT, MARTA, Regional Transit Committee, cities of Atlanta and Dunwoody, and the Fulton County District 3 Commissioner.COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTCOORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT* In the second round, Mountain Park opted for a general project update to be provided to the City Council in lieu of a full charrette.PROJECT COORDINATION 11 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 12The number and scale of transportation projects required to keep pace with the increase in travel demand is growing nationwide, across the state of Georgia, and locally in North Fulton. Meanwhile, the fi nancial resources available to local and state departments of transportation are either holding steady or dwindling.Competition among states and municipalities for transportation funding is growing as a simple function of supply and demand: fewer dollars available for projects and more projects needed than ever.In undertaking this plan, the municipalities of North Fulton have taken the fi rst step in positioning themselves for future funding. For implementation of this plan to be successful, the municipalities must continue to coordinate eff orts in the following:Jointly advocating for North Fulton projects regardless of the ♦city in which they are locatedUnderstanding existing funding sources (and their ♦requirements) and prioritizing projects for those dollarsKeeping abreast of potential new funding sources and adopting ♦policies (to qualify for these sources) consistently across municipal boundariesAdvancing local and regionally significant (specifically, cross- ♦jurisdictional) projects to various levels of completion to be in position to accept funding where other projects may fall short.Within the Atlanta region, a multitude of municipal interests are represented. Th is inherently places Atlanta at a disadvantage when competing for transportation funds due to a perception that eff orts between municipalities and agencies are not coordinated. When no over-arching priorities are established among competing applications for funding, this perception is reinforced and reduces the likelihood that any project from the region will be selected. Th e eff orts of the North Fulton municipalities can be an example of a unifi ed, coordinated eff ort for the rest of the Atlanta region. Th rough the North Fulton CTP, regionally signifi cant projects within North Fulton have been grouped into three diff erent priority tiers. Th is will communicate a unifi ed show of support among the North Fulton municipalities for a feasible list of projects. Tier 1 projects are generally the highest priority of projects specifi c to North Fulton and conceivably could be funded using traditional funding sources. Tier 2 projects are the next level of priority and should be considered if additional funding sources become available or if Tier 1 projects are delayed, modifi ed, or do not qualify for funding. Tier 3 projects are the lowest priority of the three tiers. While the Tier 3 projects still are of importance to North Fulton, funding does not appear likely. Tier 3 projects could be considered if additional funding sources become available or if Tier 1 and 2 projects are delayed, modifi ed, or do not qualify for funding. Tier 1 projects will most likely be funded by traditional federal and state funding sources; however, these projects could be funded by additional sources, if available. Th e Safe Accountable Flexible Effi cient Transportation Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) is the most recent federal authorization bill for transportation spending. Th is bill has expired and then been extended a number of times under continuing resolutions from the US House and Senate. Federal funding is provided to the state in two forms – formula based general funds which fund the bulk of TIP projects and competitive applications which are typically granted in smaller amounts. Any earmarks provided by federal legislation are taken from the formula based funds provided to the state and region.General funds which typically fi nance TIP projects include:High Priority Projects (HPP) ♦National Highway System (NHS) ♦Surface Transportation Program (STP) ♦Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ♦Local Maintenance and Improvement Grant Program ♦(LMIG)Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) ♦Competitive applications which can fi nance projects excluded from the TIP or augment the funding for TIP projects include:Safe Routes to School (SRTS) ♦Recreational Trails Programs ♦Transportation Enhancement (TE) ♦Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) (local program funded by ♦the STP)Georgia Transportation Enhancement (GATEway) ♦In addition to the SAFETEA-LU extensions, one-time grants have been given in the form of Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants and TIGER II grants. Legislation is currently under development at the federal level for a new authorization of funding. A new federal transportation bill would reestablish funding targets and federal transportation policy. Th e new bill is expected to be a turning point for new policies and funding formulas in recognition of a number of national issues – obesity, rising fuel prices, and the need for alternative fuel sources. With the new authorization, signifi cant changes to the general and competitive funding forms are anticipated; however, the nature and extent of the changes are unknown at this time. To best maintain competitiveness for funding in future years, the North Fulton municipalities should develop projects that are multimodal, multijurisdictional, and multifaceted (incorporating land use, environmental and social planning).TRANSPORTATION FUNDINGTRANSPORTATION FUNDINGTRADITIONAL FUNDING SOURCESFUNDING BACKGROUND 13 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 14Transportation Investment Act of 2010Transportation Investment Act of 2010Special Purpose Local Option Sales TaxSpecial Purpose Local Option Sales TaxProperty TaxesProperty TaxesCommunity Improvement Districts Community Improvement Districts Georgia residents will be voting in the 2012 primary elections on a referendum for a one-percent sales tax to fund transportation projects. A list of projects to be funded by the tax will be developed by a Regional Transportation Roundtable – made up of local elected offi cials – prior to the referendum. If this referendum passes, up to $9 billion could be made available for transportation projects in the Atlanta region over the life of the tax (10 years). Fifteen percent of the total revenue from the tax would be distributed to local governments. An estimated $10 million would be available annually to the North Fulton municipalities through this local distribution. Ideally, this money would be utilized to develop or provide local matches for projects not included on the referendum’s list of projects.In the Transportation Investment Act there are two scenarios that may require signifi cant increases in the amount of local matches required for state grants. If the Regional Transportation Roundtable cannot agree to a project list for the referendum, the local match required for LMIG grants from the state will increase to 50 percent of a project’s total cost instead of the typical match of 20 percent. If the project list is agreed upon, the referendum takes place and does not pass, a local match of 30 percent will be required. Conversely, if the referendum passes, the local match required for LMIG grants will be reduced to 10 percent.A SPLOST is typically a one percent sales tax levied by a local government for funding of projects. Th ese projects can include construction of schools, municipal buildings, prisons, transportation projects, etc. Most of these taxes have a 4 to 5-year term limit and are approved by voters through a local referendum. A North Fulton SPLOST would generate an estimated $77 million annually if all municipalities were to participate. Residential property taxes may also be a mechanism to raise revenues for transportation projects. Th ere are approximately 156,000 homes within the North Fulton municipalities. An example increase of $200 in annual property tax per home could generate approximately $31.2 million in additional annual revenue. Although public perception and opinion need to be evaluated, it is clear that increases in residential property taxes could help alleviate funding gaps. Similarly, increased taxes on commercial properties could supply a signifi cant amount of money for transportation projects. For example, a one mill tax increase on all commercial properties in North Fulton (1 mill equals one tenth of one percent) could provide approximately $9 million annually.A community improvement district (CID) can be a good partner for the municipalities of North Fulton in leveraging funds towards priority projects in the area of the CID. A CID is a self-taxing district that uses additional commercial property taxes to help develop and accelerate infrastructure improvement projects. CIDs may tax offi ce, industrial, or retail properties. Residential properties cannot be taxed by a CID. A simple majority of owners may elect to create a CID. However, the majority must represent at least 75 percent of the taxable value of property. North Fulton has two CIDs: the Fulton Perimeter CID, which together with the DeKalb Perimeter CID comprise the Perimeter CID, and the North Fulton CID. Combined, these entities have invested over $20 million in North Fulton County and North DeKalb County infrastructure over the past 10 years. Levels of funding to be expected from a CID compsed of all commercial properties in North Fulton could be assumed to be similar to aestimates provided in the increased commercial preperty tax example on the left.TRANSPORTATION FUNDINGTRANSPORTATION FUNDINGPOTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCESThe communities of North Fulton should consider additional funding sources to provide fl exibility in project development and to maximize the potential funds available to match federal and state dollars. Additional local revenue could be used to advance local and regionally signifi cant projects to various levels of completion to be in position to accept funding where other projects may fall short. Th e term “shovel ready” has become commonplace in funding discussions. Having projects designed and permitted, with right-of-way acquisition complete, means projects are “shovel ready” and in an advantageous position to win new federal grants. Having projects at this level of completion takes time and money – money that’s frequently not available from state or federal resources. Th ere are, however, a number of other potential revenue sources for the communities of North Fulton. Th ese include but are not limited to the proposed regional one-cent sales tax (the Transportation Investment Act of 2010, or House Bill 277), a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST), expanded or additional Community Improvement Districts (CID), and additional property taxes. 15 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 16SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY MULT SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGYPROJECT SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGYA Preliminary Project List was developed in early spring of 2010. Sources for the project list included previous CTPs and other transportation plans conducted by the local governments, results of the Needs Assessment and travel demand model analyses, input from public charrettes, and input from the staff and elected offi cials of the six jurisdictions. Over the ensuing months, the project list was refi ned using a number of tools, selection criteria, and meetings with stakeholders. An evaluation matrix was developed to assess each of the projects relative to the priorities of the North Fulton TRIP. Th is matrix included factors such as reduction in vehicular congestion, creation of new connections, improvements to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes, and environmental/social impacts. Opinions of probable cost as well as potential operating and maintenance costs were considered relative to the likely benefi ts of the project; monetary benefi ts were estimated for vehicular projects. Feasibility of construction was considered as well as whether or not the project is already part of the Regional Transportation Plan. Meetings with Mayors, voting by the Stakeholder Committee, frequent coordination with the Project Management Team, and input from Public Charrettes helped to refi ne the projects into a Draft Project List. Once developed, the Draft Project List, split into Multi-County Projects and three tiers of North Fulton funded projects, was once again put through a rigorous stakeholder process for refi nement. Th e Stakeholder Committee fi rst provided comments to the Consultant Team. Th en the project list was taken to each of the fi ve primary City Councils for review and comment. An updated list of projects was then presented to the North Fulton Mayors for fi nal summary. Th e fi nalized project list and all recommended policies are being presented to all six City Councils for adoption in October 2010.Previous CTP’sand TransportationStudiesNeeds Assessment/Model AnalysisPreliminary Project ListStaff InputPublicCharrettesDevelop EvaluationCriteria, PerformanceMetrics, and Funding CategoriesMeetings with Mayors, Stakeholder Committee, and Project Management Team, as well as Public Charrettes to refineDraft Project ListFinal Project ListCity Council ApprovalFilter through StakeholderCommittee, City Councils, and North Fulton Mayors 17 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 18MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS, cont.MULTRECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS MULTRECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTSGiven its location north of the City of Atlanta, North Fulton is extremely dependent on the operations of GA 400 and I-285. GA 400 provides access not only into the central city but also to the north well beyond the limits of North Fulton. I-285 provides east/west access to the other critical interstates of I-75 and I-85 as well as to the south side of metro Atlanta. Th ese facilities are part of an Atlanta Region picture that is larger than just North Fulton alone. Likewise, transit routes and operations are part of a larger regional context. Not only does access of the freeways and transit extend beyond the limits of the northern part of the county, but the ability to fund improvements along them also extends beyond the capabilities of North Fulton. For this reason, recommendations to GA 400, I-285, and major transit systems have been separated from the funding-oriented projects listed later in this report. Recommendations regarding the Multi-County projects are made here, but without regard to specifi c funding sources. As people continue to move to North Fulton and other nearby commercial and business centers expand, more demand is created along the GA 400 corridor. At one time, common solutions would have included the addition of general purpose lanes as demand exceeded capacity; however, cities and metropolitan regions have begun to realize that attempting to out-build congestion is not sustainable. Th e addition of general purpose lanes to GA 400 would not solve the long term congestion issue. Meanwhile, the cross-section of GA 400 would rapidly become similar or larger than that of the downtown Connector, impacting existing properties and removing tree cover. Additionally, funding this type of project would be diffi cult, as federal funding for widening with general purpose lanes is disappearing and is being replaced with funding for projects with multimodal improvements. GA 400 Roadway RecommendationsRecommendation: Provide managed lanes along GA 400 with interchanges at key crossings. In limited areas, some general purpose widening may be a logical recommendation; however, the construction of a managed lane system is more likely the necessary approach for the entire corridor. Today, no HOV or HOT lanes exist along GA 400, meaning that no travel time incentives exist for those who carpool. Th e express buses that run along GA 400 have been able to take advantage of the reinforced shoulders for bypassing queues; otherwise, no travel time incentives would exist for taking transit either. Th e construction of a managed lane system provides travel time incentives for those that carpool (likely HOV 3+), those that take transit, and those that opt to pay for a reliable trip. Most other major interstates in the region already have HOV lanes, and the addition of managed lanes to GA 400 is critical to the creation of reliable trips along the corridor. Although a number of scenarios are being considered, preliminary modeling shows that the construction of a 2-lane reversible managed lane system has the ability to reduce delay by over one million person-hours per day. Conceptual work on the GA 400 managed lanes system will commence in late 2010 or early 2011 as part of a GDOT project. During that process, more detail will be determined on the numbers of lanes, locations of managed lane interchanges, and potential pricing scenarios. Additionally, analysis of the existing GA 400 interchanges should also occur, as many of them currently operate at a substandard Level-of-Service and likely will require modifi cations or reconstruction with the construction of a managed lane system. Recommendation: Provide collector-distributor system from south of I-285 to Spalding Drive, parallel to GA 400.Another key project being considered along GA 400 is the collector-distributor (C/D) system from south of I-285 to Spalding Drive in Sandy Springs. Th is roadway system potentially would include two lanes in each direction parallel to GA 400, providing access not only to GA 400 and the I-285 C/D system but also to Hammond Drive through a half-diamond interchange (currently under construction), Abernathy Road, and other Sandy Springs roadways. Th is additional access to Sandy Springs would allow vehicles to access the southern portion of North Fulton without having to directly use GA 400. Th is C/D system has the potential to reduce delay by approximately 400,000 person-hours per day according to preliminary modeling. MULTI-COUNTY ROADWAY RECOMMENDATIONSNorth Fulton CTP Multi-County Projects October 2010 19 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 20I-285 Roadway RecommendationsRecommendation: Monitor and support the recommendations of the Revive285 study, particularly managed lanes and transit recommendations along the corridor.Just as GA 400 is a critical component of north-south access within North Fulton, I-285 provides critical access east to west between I-75 and I-85. Th e top end Perimeter is severely congested during peak periods and currently is being studied as part of the Revive285 Top End study. A No-Build Alternative and three Build Alternatives are being considered: Alternative 4 includes express bus and operational ♦improvementsAlternative 6A includes express bus and operational ♦improvements as above in addition to managed lanes and reservation of future enhanced transit right-of-wayAlternative 6B is very much like 6A above but with lane ♦reconfiguration of the existing general purpose lanes Th e results of the Revive 285 study will provide recommended improvements to the Top End that, in conjunction with improvements to GA 400, likely will result in signifi cant improvements to both vehicular and transit access within and around North Fulton.MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS, cont.RECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTSTRANSIT AND LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONSEmployment Densities in North FultonSource: ARC Travel Demand Model and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.As North Fulton continues to experience growth over the next two decades, expanded regional and local transit service should be considered as a compliment and alternative to roadway investments. Eff ective transit service and land use are inextricably linked. Effi cient transit cannot exist without the appropriate mix and density of land uses surrounding the stations and routes. Likewise, concentrated density without transit can create an excess of vehicular trips that overwhelms a roadway system. Atlanta’s signifi cant over the last 30 years was guided by major investments in automobile mobility which allowed diff erent types Housing Densities in North FultonSource: ARC Travel Demand Model and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.of land uses to be separated from one other. Th e lack of growth boundaries for the metro region (bodies of water, mountain ranges, defi ned urban growth boundaries, etc.) allowed people to live further and further away from the central city and to commute long distances to work. Th e combination of these two factors along with other considerations has resulted in the sprawling development patterns that are common throughout metro Atlanta. North Fulton is an example of this sprawling, low-density development enabled by the construction of GA 400. As documented in the Existing Conditions report, North Fulton has three MARTA heavy rail stations and twelve MARTA bus routes. Th e heavy rail stations are located in Sandy Springs while the majority of bus service is along or parallel to SR 9 in Sandy Springs and Roswell. Some bus service also exists east of GA 400, primarily along North Point Parkway in Alpharetta. Limited express bus service is also provided by GRTA.Th e fi gures to the left show the jobs per acre and the households per acre, respectively, in 2010 throughout North Fulton. In these fi gures, employment and household estimates are mapped by Traffi c Analysis Zone (TAZ) as used in the travel demand model. Note that the residential densities throughout most of North Fulton are three units per acre or less – a density assumed to be too low eff ective local bus service. Th e TAZs with residential densities between three and six units are located mostly along the SR 9 corridor in Sandy Springs and Roswell where existing local bus routes currently operate. Employment densities are greatest around the Medical Center station as well as the Dunwoody station, which is adjacent to Sandy Springs. Th e Windward employment center and areas within Roswell and the North Fulton CID are also denser than the minimum transit threshold. Because of its purpose as a transportation plan, this study does not directly address land use changes within the North Fulton Cities; however, some land use discussion relative to transit is warranted. If North Fulton is interested in pursuing additional transit routes and modes in the future, some changes to key locations within the Cities will be necessary in order to suffi ciently support an enhanced system.RECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS 21 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 22Source: 2000 ARC Travel Demand Model and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Existing MARTA Rail Station RecommendationsRecommendation: If increasing transit opportunities within North Fulton is a priority, support increases in density, particularly residential density, around the existing MARTA rail stations.Land use changes should fi rst occur around the existing MARTA heavy rail stations. When MARTA was designed in the 1970s and 1980s, station area plans were created for each heavy rail station. Many of the plans were not implemented, however, and densities and the mix of uses around the stations necessary to effi cently support transit are lacking today. Th e fi gures to the right show the households and jobs per acre, respectively, within the ½ mile buff ers of each of the four northernmost rail stations. Th is socioeconomic data was derived from the ARC travel demand model.Th e household density around the MARTA stations fall within the lowest tier, with the exception of some portions of the northernmost two buff er areas. Overall, the number of households surrounding these rail stations is extremely low. Th e parking decks located at these stations allow commuters to park at the stations and to ride transit into the central city; however, relatively few people live within a reasonable walking distance of any of the stations. Employment density around the stations is better than the household density. Northside and St. Joseph’s Hospitals, other medical facilities, and the Concourse (“King and Queen”) buildings provide for a strong employment base around the Medical Center station. Perimeter Mall and some large offi ce complexes fall within the Dunwoody station buff er area. Although many large employers fall within the ½ mile buff ers of the rail stations, many of them require walking trips of 50 to 100 percent greater distance due to signifi cant barriers such as GA 400 and I-285, lack of pedestrian connections, or superblocks surrounded by parking. Concentrating more dense residential uses and further increasing jobs around the MARTA stations will provide residents and employees around the stations more multimodal transportation opportunities and will also increase the ridership potential to the MARTA system. GA 400 Rail Extension RecommendationsTh e results of this study identifi ed the need for a high-capacity regional transit service to operate along or parallel to GA 400 as far north as Windward Parkway. Th rough the public outreach activities there was support for this concept and signifi cant interest in extending MARTA’s existing heavy rail service northward through North Fulton. Similar to this feedback, the results of the Concept3 Report recommend a 13.3 mile light rail (LRT) line within the GA 400 corridor. Based on work completed for this study, there are several obstacles to moving forward with either of these rail options in the short term, including the following: Capital Costs: Using an order of magnitude cost per mile methodology, the Concept3 Report estimated implementation of the three phased LRT projected would be $1.0 billion. Th e Concept3 Report also included an order of magnitude cost per mile estimate to expand heavy rail service in the area. Based on the information from the report, the heavy rail cost per mile estimate was approximately 3.6 times higher than the LRT cost per mile fi gure. Assuming a heavy rail extension would follow the same alignment as the recommended LRT project, the order of magnitude estimate for the heavy rail extension would be approximately $3.6 billion. Operating Cost: Th e Concept3 Report also developed order of magnitude cost per hour estimates to estimate annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for heavy rail and LRT. Th e order of magnitude operating cost estimate for Concept3’s LRT Source: 2000 ARC Travel Demand Model and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.alignment was $24 million. Based on information in the Concept3 Report, the cost per hour estimate for heavy rail is double the cost per hour estimate for LRT. Assuming the same Level-of-Service would be provided on a heavy rail extension as the service levels proposed for the Concept3 LRT alignment, the order of magnitude annual operating cost for the heavy rail extension would be approximately $48 million. Funding: In order to implement the heavy rail extension or the LRT alignment, the various partners within the Atlanta region would need to agree that the project was a priority and should pursue federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts program. Th is is a competitive grant program in which local agencies must document their ability to achieve “Medium” or higher ratings for several technical and fi nancial criteria. One of the key criteria is a cost-eff ectiveness measure, which compares project ridership estimates to the capital costs to implement the project. Based on ridership projections developed for this study using existing land use patterns, neither the heavy rail nor the LRT project would achieve a competitive cost-eff ective rating. RECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTSAdditionally, the partners in the region would need to document that they have the ability to fund at least 50 percent of the total project costs. Based on the order of magnitude cost estimates, this would be approximately $500 million for the LRT project and approximately $1.8 billion for the heavy rail project. Given the level of transportation investment needed for the Atlanta region, this level of local dollars used for one project would be a signifi cant challenge. In addition to the capital funding challenges, on-going funding for operations would be a major issue. It is likely that MARTA would be the operator of either the heavy rail extension or LRT project. Given MARTA’s on-going challenges to provide funding for local bus service, the prospect of adding $24 to $48 million annually in long term operating costs is likely not feasible without a signifi cant increase in operating funds. Current Land Use Patterns: Because of the low-density development throughout North Fulton, it is diffi cult to project a successful extension of rail (either heavy or light) up the GA 400 corridor at this time. Accessibility to new rail stations likely would occur via automobile because few residential and employment uses are located within a ½ mile of the proposed rail corridor. Land use changes need to occur around the proposed transit stations in order to provide necessary ridership base for the future extensions.RECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS 23 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 24MULTfeatures of the express bus service or BRT service were not analyzed in this study, they could include the following: frequent rush hour service, traffi c signal priority, and the potential for dedicated transit-only lanes and queue-jumper lanes at major intersections, where applicable. In addition to increasing development intensity around existing MARTA rail stations and future high capacity transit stations along GA 400, it will be important for the Cities to consider the redevelopment potential of key nodes along some of the more regional corridors that are projected to support future bus routes or enhanced transit service. Th e maps on the following pages show portions of three of the regionally signifi cant corridors in North Fulton that are recommended for future transit. As various forms of transit are considered along corridors such as Holcomb Bridge Road, Old Milton Parkway, and SR 9, important redevelopment should take place at key nodes. Th e map showing Holcomb Bridge Road shows ¼ mile and ½ mile buff er areas around the intersections of Georgia 400 at Holcomb Bridge Road and SR 9 at Holcomb Bridge Road. Currently, much of Holcomb Bridge Road is commercial land use with large surface parking lots. Some residential is located near the interchange, but it is relatively sparse. Transit facilities provide the greatest mobility and see the highest levels of ridership when they are built around land uses that are reasonably dense and walkable. While land uses do not need to be mixed in order for transit to work, it often helps to locate diff erent uses near one another. By concentrating residential, commercial, and often offi ce uses in close proximity to one another, opportunities for walking are provided internal to the development. Th e concentration of origins and destinations also creates effi cient opportunities for transit. In contrast, if these appropriate areas, the extension of rail could become a reality. Th is land use strategy to concentrate walkable development also enables commercial areas near GA400 to absorb greater growth while limiting increased congestion and infrigement upon lower intesity areas away from the corridor. Arterial Express Bus RecommendationsRecommendation: Conduct detailed analysis to evaluate the potential for implementing express bus or Bus Rapid Transit service along the following corridors: Arnold Mill Road (SR 140) ♦/ Rucker Road, tying in to GA 400 transitMarietta Highway (SR ♦120) / Alpharetta Highway (SR 120) / Old Milton Parkway (SR 120) / State Bridge RoadOther routes identified in ♦Concept3 or Revive285 that are identified as high priority such as along Hammond DriveConsistent with the recommendations from the Transit Planning Board’s Concept3 report, the results of this study identifi ed a need for an enhanced regional east-west transit service connecting jurisdictions within North Fulton with adjacent counties. Th ese fi ndings were also consistent with feedback received from the local jurisdictions indicating that a key component of the transit network that is missing is express bus or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service between major activity centers within North Fulton and the adjacent counties east and west.It should be noted that the recommendation for BRT along State Bridge Road diff ers from the Concept3 Report, which recommends Abbotts Bridge Road for this section of the alignment. As part of the recommended detailed analysis of this corridor, both alignments would be evaluated based on a series of technical criteria. Th e goal of the enhanced east-west service will be to provide competitive travel times (to vehicular travel) between major activity centers and employment nodes along the corridors. For example, a route along Hammond Drive could serve as an east-west connection to the Perimeter employment area. While specifi c Recommendation: Implement high capacity transit enhancements within the GA 400 corridor through the following phased approach: Short term – Initiate express bus operations within managed lanes ♦along GA 400 for the near future. This concept is consistent with an on-going GDOT study that is evaluating the construction of High Occupancy Vehicle/High Occupancy Toll (HOV/HOT lanes) along GA 400. It is recommended that express buses would share the HOV/HOT lanes and could either connect to the MARTA rail station at North Springs or continue to major destinations farther south toward downtown Atlanta. Short term – At the same ♦time the express bus service is being implemented, it is recommended that GDOT and the North Fulton region preserve right-of-way within the corridor for future potential rail transit (heavy or LRT), if future land use and development patterns and associated ridership levels support the level of investment required. This strategy should also include identifying and securing property for potential future transit stations.Mid term – Promote clustered, walkable development at ♦appropriate densities around key express bus stations in anticipation of permanent rail stations. As transit routes are added along the GA 400 corridor, particularly accessing locations within North Fulton, cities can encourage land use changes around the key station areas. Some transit-oriented developments that are being considered at this time include the North Point TOD, the Holcomb Bridge Road TOD, and the Windward area, each near GA 400. Long term – potentially extend rail in the GA 400 corridor to ♦Windward Parkway (either heavy or light rail) if development at key stations increases and sufficient ridership is projected. Develop station area plans for the proposed rail stations / stops. Th e concentration of walkable, higher-intensity residential and employment uses around the BRT stations will provide an increased ridership base for the GA 400 transit corridor. A cyclic process can be initiated: improved transit access can encourage increased densities around the stations. Th e concentration of residents and employees around the stations reinforces the need for transit. In future years, it is possible that with focused energy in RECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTSsame densities and land uses were spread out over a much larger area, much like conventional development patterns, opportunities for walking and transit trips would turn into automobile trips. A common concern arising from dense land uses is the resulting increase in automobile trips on the roadway network in the vicinity of new dense developments. Th e map showing Old Milton Parkway focuses on addressing this particular scenario. Locally, if growth were to be concentrated into a walkable area, intersections and corridors on the surrounding roadway network would see an increase in vehicular trips. However, looking more regionally, if the same level of growth were to be spread out in an automobile dependent pattern, the net increase in vehicular trips would be greater and those vehicular trips would be more regional in nature, thereby increasing the overall impact on the roadway network. If zoning requirements are well-thought out and walkable site development incorporates good transportation principals, many of the vehicular trips attributed to new developments could avoid these main intersections and corridors completely. Examples of good transportation principals that support this goal include building a grid-style layout with backage roads parallel to the main corridor and bypass roadways around main intersections. Opportunities exist along the Old Milton Parkway corridor for a better mix of uses, particularly at the interchange where offi ce primarily is concentrated. Additionally, the Alpharetta Downtown Master Plan LCI formulates a strong plan for redevelopment opportunities along SR 9 at Webb Bridge Road. North Point LCI Sample ConceptRECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS 25 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 26MULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTSRedevelopment of Key Nodes:Node 1: State Route 9 and Holcomb Bridge RoadPotential Transit Enhancement Routeand General Commercial. Higher density residential housing would need to be considered to support transit ridership. This mix of uses would aid in the node becoming both a trip origin as well as a destination.Node 2:Georgia 400 and Holcomb Bridge RoadPotential Transit Enhancement RouteThe current maximum allowable density for theMedium Residential Density designation is 3-5 dwelling units per acre according to City of RoswellOrdinance. The maximum residential densityfor the High Density Residential designation is 5-8 dwelling units per acre. Higher residentialdensities are needed to support premium bus routes. Residential densities of around 20-30 units per acre (Figure A) are typically needed to support heavy rail transit such as MARTA rail. Additional Corridor Comments:A Mixed-Use future land use category would the proposed transit nodes, creating greateropportunities for reduced automobile trips. Land Use and Transit:Holcomb Bridge RoadCrHolcomb Bridge Rd.Transit is related to walkability, mixed-uses, and density.Dense areas with a mixture of uses are inherently more walkable. Nearly every transit trip begins and ends as a walking trip. Future Land Use Current Municipal Policy (2010)low density residential medium density residential high density residentialgeneral commercial parks and recreationpublic/institutionalexisting and potential transit routes 1/4 mile radius around each node The on-going Comprehensive Plan update alternative scenarios, if transit is desired. Warsaw Rd.12Mansell Rd.Old Roswell Rd.Alpharetta St.Riverside Rd..dR ezuoHOld Alabama Rd.Current maximum allowabledensity- 5-8 units/acre. If there’s an enhanced transitfuture, higher densities in strategic locations will bettersupport this goal. Figure A: Density comparisons forhigh density residential 1/2 mile radius around each node Current maximum allowablegysupport this goal.15 units/acre 30 units/acre Type of Transit ServiceResidential Density Threshold(Dwelling Units/Acre)Basic Bus ServicePremium Bus ServiceRail Services71520-30Transit-Supportive Residential Density ThresholdsSource: Ewing 1996Type of Transit Minimum Employment Density(Jobs/Acre)Frequent, High Capacity Transit ServiceLight Rail25 (clustered near transit station)50 preferred targetTransit-Supportive Employment Density ThresholdsSource: Puget Sound Regional Council 199930 units/acrePedestrians will typically walk around 1/4mile to reach destinations, but in some cases up to 1/2 mile to reach significant destinations such as rail stations. 27 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 28MULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTSOld Milton Pkwy.Redevelopment of Key Nodes:Node 1: State Route 9 and State Bridge Road Intersection of existing and proposed transit routes.Create conditions which support walkability, cycling, and transit. Growth that allows for mode choices will create fewer new vehicular trips. (Figure A) Preserve the mobility and function of main thoroughfares through access management, signal timing, and good connectivity. Improved connectivity will create alternate routes which can facilitate local trips. Current allowable density is 10 units/acre. Higher density will better support transit goals. (Figure B)Node 2:State Bridge Road and Georgia 400Intersection of two proposed transit routesDiversifying uses in this node would provide greater opportunity for walkability and transit. The development of a mixed-use future land use category which incorporates residential uses would further these goals. The potential transit node can thus become both a trip origin while continuing to serve as an office centerdestination. Additional Corridor Comments:Incorporate design elements shown in the LCI Master Plan in both nodes to create a transit oriented node identity. (Figure C) Webb Bridge Rd.Haynes Brid ge R d. .dR egdirB llabmiK Figure A: Alpharetta Downtown Master Plan - LCIThe on-going Comprehensive Plan update for the City of Alpharetta offers an opportunity to consider alternative scenarios, if transit is desired. Main St. /State R o u t e 9 Morrison Pkwy.Figure C: LCI design elementsOld MiltNorth Point PkwyFuture Land Use Current Municipal Policy (2010)low density residential medium density residential high density residentialcommercial/retail parks and recreationpublic/institutionalpedestrian amenitiestextured pavementexisting and potential transit routes 1/4 mile radius around each node 1/2 mile radius around each node Pedestrians will typically walk around 1/4 mile to reach destinations, but in some cases up to 1/2 mile to reach significantdestinations such as rail stations. Alpharetta Downtown Master Plan LCI boundary Source: Alpharetta Downtown Master PlanSource: Alpharetta Downtown Master PlanSource: AlphaprettaDowntown Master Plan2LCI design elementstexturedpavementpedestrianamenitiesLand Use and Mobility:State Bridge Road/Old Milton ParkwayFuture economic growth will place additional demands on the transportation network. How well the transportation network functions in the future will largely be determined by the shape of that future growth. Focusing growth into multimodal developments will create lesscongestion than the same amount of growth spread out over a large area.Current maximum allowabledensity- 10 units/acreFigure B: Density comparisons for high density residentialCurrent maximum allowableIf there’s an enhanced transitfuture, higher densities in strategic locations will bettersupport this goal. Consolidating growth into strategically designedlocations can eliminate some vehicular trips byproviding the options of walking, biking, or transit - options that will not be availableif growth is distributed across the region.A well designed land use plan at major transportation nodes (such as major intersections) can create efficiencies in the transportation system,both locally and regionally. Wb BBebb ere idggeRdd.NoNorthth PPoiointt PPPkwkwkwyFuture LandUse 1Old Milton Pkwy. 29 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 30Local Bus Service RecommendationsRecommendation: Work with MARTA to evaluate the existing local bus network in relationship to changing travel patterns based on recent demographic and land use changes, growing employment nodes and multi-purpose activity centers, as well as the potential impact of major development projects planned in the near term. Th e fi scally constrained evaluation should focus on balancing the need to continue to provide eff ective and effi cient transit service to the traditional major destinations within the Atlanta region with the local circulation needs among the North Fulton jurisdictions.A common theme from the key leader interviews was that the current transit system does not refl ect the recent development patterns within the region and within the local jurisdictions. Th is input was verifi ed during the study’s technical analyses. Th e existing conditions analysis identifi ed twelve existing MARTA routes that provide service within the North Fulton area; however, only four of these routes currently provide service among multiple North Fulton jurisdictions. Th e predominant focus of the existing transit network is to provide access to MARTA’s rail stations. Similarly, the results of the transit needs assessment identifi ed areas with growing transit dependent populations and evolving employment activity centers in locations where the existing transit network is not designed to serve as a competitive alternative to the automobile. Whether or not transit service along SR 9 is elevated from local bus service to express bus / BRT, land uses and densities can be modifi ed or increased at particular nodes to further support the transit that exists in the corridor. Th e SR 9 corridor has a signifi cant amount of retail along the corridor, as can be seen in Figure 6-6, some of which may be available for redevelopment in the next ten years. As redevelopment occurs along this corridor, some of the commercial properties could be converted to residential or mixed use developments. By enhancing the supporting roadway network parallel to SR 9 and around some of its key intersections, opportunities could be provided for drivers to avoid SR 9 in order to reach local destinations, thereby freeing up capacity along SR 9 to serve more regional trips. Redevelopment of key nodal parcels in a pedestrian-friendly design can change the pattern of travel along portions of the corridor and reduce automobile trips.MULTRECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTSRECOMMENDATIONS: MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTSIn order to successfully implement this recommendation, the Coordinating Committee should work with MARTA staff to gain a clear understanding of the agency’s standard for implementation of a new facility including, but not limited to, the following: property size, appropriate adjacent land uses, passenger activity, level of transit service, and opportunities for transit-oriented development around the facility. Recommendation: Work with MARTA to determine a suitable location in North Fulton for a bus maintenance facility.MARTA buses are currently stored and maintained far south of North Fulton and this causes longer initial/return bus trips (or deadheading) at the beginning and end of the day. A new bus maintenance facility in North Fulton would increase the effi ciency of MARTA’s existing bus operations and improve MARTA’s ability to provide expanded service in the future.Transit Facility RecommendationsRecommendation: When planning for near term and long term enhancements to the transit system, ensure that opportunities for park and ride and transit centers are maximized. Th e North Fulton region currently has two bus park and ride facilities: the Windward Park and Ride, which is served by three MARTA routes (140, 143, and 185) and the Mansell Park and Ride, which is served by two MARTA routes (85 and 140). Based on feedback received during public outreach activities and from the local jurisdictions, there is a desire for additional park and ride facilities as well as transit centers, as passenger demand warrants, along existing and planned transit corridors. In general, there are many parts of the region that are likely to continue to follow the current low density, suburban development pattern well into the future. Given the traditional travel behavior of residents in this type of development, the provision of a local bus connection to an enhanced regional transit system likely would not be cost-eff ective; however, there is a greater potential to capture portions of this population with park and ride facilities associated with the enhanced regional east-west and north-south service recommendations. Additionally, based on the previously described recommendations, the potential near term restructuring of the existing local transit service and implementation of enhanced regional east-west and north-south bus service likely would result in increased transfer activity for passengers. For the passenger’s convenience and effi ciency of the future system, transfer locations would likely be required at key route intersections. 31 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 32Redevelopment of Key Nodes:Sandy Springs offers an example of mixed-use future land use category designations. Nodes 1-5 illustrate the following categories: Living-Working NeighborhoodThis is the lowest intensity option of the three living working designations. These areas are intended to serve a single neighborhood or small group of adjacent neighborhoods, and to be compatible neighbors to lower density residential neighborhoods. Living-Working CommunityThis is a medium intensity/density category that is intended to serve a group of adjacent neighborhoods and to be compatible with low and medium density residential neighborhoods. Living-Working Regional This is a high intensity/density category that applies adjacent to major transportation interchanges and/or rail transit stations (with the exception of the Livework area at Dunwoody Place and Roswell Road). These areas have significant concentrations of employment. Designation Sandy Springs LW Neighborhood Residential Total Square Feet/TenantUp to 5 units/acreSource: Sandy Springs Comprehensive Plan - June, 2007 Sandy Springs LW CommunitySandy Springs LW Regional10,000 sf/acre30,000 sf limitUp to 20 units/acre25,000 sf/acre100,000 sf limitOver 20 units/acreOver 25,000 sf/acreCase-by-case1/4 mile radius around each node 1/2 mile radius around each node Future Land Use Current Municipal Policy (2010)low density residential medium density residential high density residentialcommercial/retail parks and recreationpublic/institutionalexisting and potential transit routes living-working neighborhoodliving-working communityliving-working regionalSR 9/RosExisting ConditionsExisting ConditionsRedevelopment PossibilitiesDalrymple Rd.Abernathy Hammond Dr.Mount Vernon Hwy.rD tseroF ekaLGlenridge Dr.thland Dr.Johns o n Ferry RSpalding Dr.§¨I-285Land Use and Implementation:State Route 9Many redevelopment opportunities exist in North Fulton which make implementation of better design standards possible. Although incremental, lot-by-lotimprovements can make corridors more livable and more functional. Some imbalances between housing, retail, and office space have developed as a result of thechanging economy. North Fulton has 85.6 square feet of retail space per resident. This is twice the national average of 43.7square feet per person. As facilities age,redevelopment becomes more likely. The median year of construction of retailbuildings in Sandy Springs is 1983, which isby far the oldest of the cities in North Fulton. Pedestrians will typically walk around 1/4 mile to reach destinations, but in some cases up to 1/2 mile to reachsignificant destinations such as rail stations.SR9/RoSR 9RnnMounttonon Johns o n hnso n FFerryy yR nHammonrooFekaLGldD thland D DdD r.rDttserG321Source: Sandy Springs Comprehensive Plan November, 2007 Source: Sandy Springs Comprehensive Plan November, 2007 Source: Sandy Springs Comprehensive Plan November, 2007 Living-Working Neighborhood Example Living-Working Community Example Living-Working Regional Example 33 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 34TIER 1 RECOMMENDATIONSFollowing the completion of the project prioritization metrics, each project was able to be compared with the others to determine its relative priority in the list. As discussed in the funding section, three tiers of North Fulton specifi c projects were created:Tier 1: $500 million, the approximate cost of projects currently in the Envision6 RTP in North Fulton (not including projects along ♦GA 400, I-285, or significant transit projects)Tier 2: Up to $500 million, approximately the amount that North Fulton could earn with the 1 percent sales tax referendum ♦Tier 3: All remaining projects that currently do not have a targeted source of funding. A number of options could be considered for ♦raising transportation dollars, but none can be counted on at this time. Projects in Tier 1 are those of highest priority to the jurisdictions within North Fulton and to North Fulton as a whole. Th ese projects will be competing with projects from around the region for a place in the Plan2040 RTP and will be the initial focus of the jurisdictions following the adoption of the plan. MULTMULTTier 1 Bike / Pedestrian ProjectsProj. # Project Name Project Description Opinion of Probable CostBP101 Big Creek Greenway Connection to Forsyth CountyConnect Big Creek Greenway at Marconi Drive (currently under construction) to Forsyth County’s trail system.$10,000,000BP102 Big Creek Greenway Connection to Chattahoochee River WalkConnect Big Creek Greenway to Roswell’s Chattahoochee River Walk along Riverside Road via existing bike lanes along Old Alabama Road south of Holcomb Bridge Road.$4,000,000BP103 Morgan Falls/Power Easement multi-use trailConstruct a multi-use trail within power line easement from existing trail system in Cobb County, crossing Chattahoochee River with new bicycle and pedestrian bridge, through Morgan Falls Park, east to Colquitt Road, north to Pitts Road - Project to link to other on-road bike facilities, including City of Dunwoody.$16,000,000BP104 East-west bike/ped facility/routeEnhance bike/ped facilities along Riverside Road beginning at Eves Road, along Eves Road to Holcomb Bridge Road, and along Holcomb Bridge Road from Eves Road to Gwinnett County, creating a complete east-west bike/ped route through North Fulton.$6,000,000BP105 Johns Creek Connection to Big Creek GreenwayConnections made from Big Creek Greenway at Webb Bridge Road along Webb Bridge Road to Webb Bridge Park and from future Big Creek Greenway east of Marconi Drive down powerline easement to existing trail at Park Bridge Parkway. Grade separation only at Webb Bridge Road. At grade crossings elsewhere.$6,000,000BP106 Milton Connection to Big Creek GreenwayConnection made from SR 9 to 1500 feet east of Union Hill Road (at future Forsyth Co Big Creek Trail) via Webb Road to Morris Road to McGinnis Ferry Road and through Union Hill Park. At grade crossings at all roadways.$10,000,000Four of the six bike/pedestrian projects are related directly to the extension of the Big Creek Greenway. Th e fi rst two extend the greenway north to Forsyth County (tying in to the proposed Forsyth extension) and to the south (to the Chattahoochee River Walk in Roswell). Th e greenway is a valuable asset to North Fulton, and many of the Cities would like to have improved access to it. Two proposed projects are east/west extensions of the greenway, allowing residents of Johns Creek and Milton to have access to Big Creek. Th e two remaining bike/pedestrian projects are east/west facilities that connect to jurisdictions outside of the North Fulton region. Th e Morgan Falls trail will utilize the existing power easement to provide cyclists and pedestrians access throughout Sandy Springs. In its entirety, the project is proposed to cross the Chattahoochee River to Cobb County and to connect to Dunwoody and its future network of bike/pedestrian accommodations. Th e east-west bike/pedestrian facility travels along a number of the roadways in Sandy Springs and Roswell and along the Chattahoochee River, connecting from the Chattahoochee River on the west to Gwinnett County on the east. RECOMMENDATIONS: NORTH FULTON REGIONAL PROJECTSRECOMMENDATIONS: NORTH FULTON REGIONAL PROJECTS 35 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 36Tier 1 Vehicular ProjectsProj. # Project Name Project Description Opinion of Probable CostVH101 Capacity Improvements to Abbotts Bridge Road (SR 120)Widen to 4 lanes from Parsons Road to Peachtree Industrial Boulevard.$28,000,000VH102 Capacity Improvements to SR 9 (Hamby Road to Academy Street)Widen to 4 lanes from Hamby Road in Forsyth County to Academy Street.$119,000,000VH103 Capacity Improvements to Arnold Mill Road (SR 140) Widen to 4 lanes from Cherokee County to Rucker Road. Done in conjunction with Rucker Road and Houze Road improvements. $46,000,000VH104 Operational Improvements to Rucker RoadEnhance facility to become a divided two-lane cross-section with a grass swale median and turn lanes from Hardscrabble Road to Wills Road.$18,000,000VH105 Operational Improvements to Atlanta Street (SR 9)Remove reversible lanes from Marietta Highway to Riverside Road and widen to 4 lanes. (Does not include new bridge at Vickery Creek or grade separation of intersection with Azalea Drive)$12,000,000VH106 Capacity Improvements to Windward ParkwayWiden to 6 lanes from Deerfi eld Parkway to Union Hill Road.$40,000,000VH107 Operational Improvements to Hardscrabble RoadEnhance facility to become a divided two-lane cross-section with a grass swale median and turn lanes from SR 92 to Crabapple Road.$16,000,000VH108 Capacity Improvements to McGinnis Ferry RoadWiden to 4 lanes from Union Hill Road to Sargent Road. $57,000,000VH109 Capacity Improvements to Hammond DriveWiden to 4 lanes from Roswell Road (SR 9) to Glenridge Drive and widen to 6 lanes from GA 400 to the DeKalb County border. Install bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides where widening occurs. Infi ll gaps in existing sidewalk from Mount Vernon Highway to Roswell Road (SR 9) and Glenridge Drive to GA 400 to create a continuous sidewalk network.$29,000,000VH110 Operational Improvements to Houze RoadEnhance facility to become a divided two-lane cross-section with a grass swale median and turn lanes from Rucker Road to Mansell Road.$18,000,000VH111 Capacity Improvements to Kimball Bridge RoadWiden to 4 lanes from Old Milton Parkway (SR 120) to Jones Bridge Road.$21,000,000VH112 Capacity Improvements to Jones Bridge RoadWiden to 4 lanes from Taylor Road to Douglas Road. $28,000,000Th e remaining projects included in Tier 1 are vehicular / capacity improvements. It is important to note that all capacity improvements recommended in this report should also include bike / pedestrian enhancements. In some cases, the roadway being considered may not be suitable for certain types of bike accommodations. If bike access cannot be accommodated on a specifi c roadway, a sidepath or route along a nearby parallel facility should be considered. While the projects are listed separately, many of them are intended to work together as a system of projects. For example, the Arnold Mill Road widening should be considered in conjunction with the Rucker Road and Houze Road improvements. Th e Hardscrabble improvements will also have an eff ect on the aforementioned roadways. Rucker Road and Houze Road were fi rst recommended as 4-lane divided roadways; however, both Roswell and Alpharetta were hesitant to recommend full widening of these roadways given the surrounding land uses and character as well as in consideration of potential right-of-way impacts. Both projects were then scaled back to operational improvements to be done in conjunction with each other to partially accommodate the additional traffi c resulting from growth in the area. Detailed study of the four projects should be done at one time, with actual Right-of-Way acquisition and Construction occurring in phases. It will be important to fi rst construct the Rucker Road and Houze Road improvements before implementing improvements to Arnold Mill Road. Because the Kimball Bridge Road project and the Abbotts Bridge Road project are a part of the same roadway corridor, those projects should be studied together as well. Other capacity improvement projects include the widening of SR 9, Windward Parkway, McGinnis Ferry Road, and Jones Bridge Road. Th e Hammond Drive project includes roadway widening, but some sections include just sidewalk improvements. Finally, the removal of the reversible lane along SR 9 has some capacity improvement, but the signifi cant motivation for moving this project forward is for the safety improvements anticipated with the removal of the reversible lane. Project fact sheets have been created for each of the Tier 1 projects and can be found in the Appendix. RECOMMENDATIONS: NORTH FULTON REGIONAL PROJECTSRECOMMENDATIONS: NORTH FULTON REGIONAL PROJECTS 37 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 38Projects listed in Tier 2 are still of high priority to those in North Fulton. Some of the projects in particular require additional study and will be discussed in more detail below. Tier 2 Bike / Pedestrian ProjectsProj. # Project Name Project Description Opinion of Probable Cost BP201 Medlock Bridge Road multi-use trail/sidepathCreate trail from Gwinnett County to State Bridge Road, connecting to the existing trail at State Bridge Road.$6,000,000BP202 Westside Parkway/SR 9 (or parallel roadway) bicycle route designation from Forsyth County to City of AtlantaEnhance bike/ped facilities along this corridor (or along a nearby parallel facility where development on SR 9 precludes), creating a continuous north-south route. $10,000,000Two bike/pedestrian projects are included in Tier 2. Th e fi rst is the creation of a formal trail along Medlock Bridge Road from Gwinnett County to State Bridge Road. Th e bike lanes or trail disappear or become part of the right-turn lane in many cases, which has resulted in a number of bicycle collisions with vehicles. Th is trail would be an important safety improvement. Th e Westside Parkway / SR 9 bike route designation is meant to mirror the north-south accessibility of the Big Creek Greenway on the west side of GA 400. In many places, SR 9 is not suitable for bicycle travel; therefore, further study is required to fi nd if the parallel route that has been identifi ed is appropriate. A number of key operational recommendations are included in Tier 2. Holcomb Bridge Road, between Old Alabama Road and Gwinnett County should be enhanced to include turn lanes, medians, other access management features, and signal timing improvements in order to improve operations along the corridor. More extensive improvements that would satisfy expected demand were found not to have necessary public support. Th e interchange of GA 400 at Holcomb Bridge Road should be redesigned to improve access onto and off of GA 400. Th e City of Roswell will be conducting a corridor study along Holcomb Bridge Road between Warsaw Road and Holcomb Woods Parkway to assess possible solutions to the interchange and corridor defi ciencies. Th is could include the publicly supported Big Creek connection between Old Alabama Road and Warsaw Road and complete redesign of the interchange (potentially including a diverging diamond at the interchange). Another concept that could be considered is a new northbound slip ramp from GA 400 to Old Alabama Road (south of Holcomb Bridge Road). Th is ramp would provide direct access from GA 400 northbound to Old Alabama Road without the need to access Holcomb Bridge Road. Turning movements from northbound GA 400 to eastbound Holcomb Bridge Road to northbound Old Alabama Road could then be prohibited, improving operations and eliminating weaving in this short section of Holcomb Bridge Road. A number of operational and short widening projects are being recommended in the City of Sandy Springs. Improvements to two interchanges, GA 400 at Northridge Road and I-285 at Riverside Drive, are included in the Tier 2 list. Additionally, some short widening sections along Spalding Drive and Glenridge Drive are recommended to relieve current bottlenecks within the City and to surrounding jurisdictions. Th ree widening projects have been included in Tier 2: widening of Old Milton Parkway, Jones Bridge Road, and State Bridge Road. A widening project along Old Alabama Road is also included. Th is project is one section of a larger widening concept between Holcomb Bridge Road and Buice Road. A signifi cant amount of traffi c along Old Alabama Road diverts to Nesbit Ferry Road according to select link analysis in the travel demand model. Given this split, a widening is proposed between Nesbit Ferry Road and Jones Bridge Road with additional operational improvements between Jones Bridge Road and Buice Road. Th e remaining project between Holcomb Bridge Road and Nesbit Ferry Road is discussed in more detail in Tier 3.North Fulton CTP Tier 1 Projects October 2010TIER 2 RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS: NORTH FULTON REGIONAL PROJECTSRECOMMENDATIONS: NORTH FULTON REGIONAL PROJECTS 39 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 40Tier 2 Vehicular ProjectsProj. # Project Name Project Description Opinion of Probable CostVH201 Capacity Improvements to Holcomb Bridge Road (SR 140)Enhance facility with operational improvements including turn lanes, median, and other access management between Nesbit Ferry Road and Gwinnett County.$16,000,000VH202 Capacity Improvements to Holcomb Bridge Road (SR 140)Enhance facility with operational improvements including turn lanes, median, and other access management between Old Alabama Road and Nesbit Ferry Road.$31,000,000VH203 Capacity Improvements to Old Milton Parkway (SR 120)Widen to 6 lanes and further access management from GA 400 to Kimball Bridge Road, additional auxiliary lanes from GA 400 to North Point Parkway.$37,000,000VH204* New Connection - Big Creek ConnectionConstruct a new bridge over GA 400 north of Holcomb Bridge Road connecting Old Alabama Road to Warsaw Road. $43,000,000VH205* Interchange Redesign - Holcomb Bridge Road at GA 400Redesign Holcomb Bridge Road interchange, potentially involving a diverging diamond interchange from Warsaw Road to Holcomb Woods Parkway.$50,000,000VH206 Capacity Improvements to Jones Bridge RoadWiden to 4 lanes from Old Alabama Road to State Bridge Road. $37,000,000VH207 Capacity Improvements to State Bridge RoadWiden to 6 lanes from Medlock Bridge Road (SR 141) to Peachtree Industrial Boulevard.$30,000,000VH208† Operational improvements to interchange at GA 400 and Northridge RoadProvide capacity and operational improvements to Roberts Drive and Dunwoody Place at the interchange and a roundabout at Somerset Court.$1,200,000VH209 Capacity improvements to Spalding DriveAdd one northbound right-turn lane along Winters Chapel Road and add one westbound travel lane (becoming a left-turn only lane) along Spalding Drive. Includes a wider/rehabilitated bridge over Crooked Creek. $3,000,000VH210† Operational / ATMS improvements to interchange at I-285 and Riverside DriveRevise design to include two-lane storage for ramp meter system (including signal upgrades), install new signal at westbound ramps with fi ber interconnect, mast arms, and pedestrian facilities. $1,400,000VH211 Capacity and Operational Improvements to Old Alabama RoadWiden to 4 lanes between Nesbit Ferry Road and Jones Bridge Road and provide operational improvements between Jones Bridge Road and Buice Road. $35,000,000VH212 Capacity Improvement to Glenridge DriveWiden along Glenridge Drive from Royervista Drive to High Point Road$3,000,000* Project is related to ongoing study of Holcomb Bridge Road interchange† Costs provided by Sandy Springs due to detail of intersection improvements North Fulton CTP Tier 2 Projects October 2010RECOMMENDATIONS: NORTH FULTON REGIONAL PROJECTSRECOMMENDATIONS: NORTH FULTON REGIONAL PROJECTS 41 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 42TIER 3 RECOMMENDATIONSThe fi nal projects are those that fall into Tier 3 of the project list. Th ese projects are still recommended even though they are of lower priority than the two previous tiers. If funding can be located for these projects and all projects within Tiers 1 and 2 have been completed, these projects should be pursued by the jurisdictions. Tier 3 Bike / Pedestrian ProjectsProj. # Project Name Project Description Opinion of Probable CostBP301 Various Big Creek Greenway connectionsProvide direct connections to existing activity centers (employment, services, etc.) from existing Big Creek Greenway.$8,000,000BP302 New Bike/Ped Chattahoochee River Crossing (Spalding Drive to Eves Road)Construct a new river crossing (bike and pedestrian only) extending Spalding Drive to connect to Eves Road, ending at Holcomb Bridge Road. $12,000,000Two bike / pedestrian projects are included in Tier 3. Th e fi rst builds upon the existing Big Creek Greenway system. Th e current greenway is an outstanding amenity to those traveling along it, but in some cases, the greenway does not connect to destinations within North Fulton that are less than a mile away from it. Th is project would improve connectivity from the greenway to some of the local destinations so that those who live and work around the greenway can have better access to it. Th e second project was originally recommended as a full vehicular / bike / pedestrian project across the Chattahoochee River. Both Sandy Springs and Roswell were reluctant to move forward with the project as recommended due to the right-of-way impacts that likely would result. Th e cities did agree on the concept of a bike / pedestrian only connection that would provide much needed access to cyclists and pedestrians but with less overall impact. Tier 3 Vehicular ProjectsVH301 Capacity Improvements to Medlock Bridge RoadWiden to 6 lanes from Gwinnett County to Medlock Crossing Parkway.$26,000,000VH302 Capacity and Operational Improvements to Old Alabama RoadAdd median and operational improvements at intersections between Holcomb Bridge Road and Nesbit Ferry Road. $24,000,000VH303 Capacity Improvements to Holbrook Campground Road/Hamby RoadWiden sections of Holbrook Campground Road, Hopewell Road, and Hamby Road to State Route 9.$59,000,000VH304 Capacity Improvements to Haynes Bridge RoadWiden to 4 lanes from Old Alabama Road to Mansell Road.$27,000,000Th e fi nal vehicular projects are listed in this section. Widening recommendations are made along Medlock Bridge Road, Holbrook Campground/Hamby Road, and Haynes Bridge Road. In view of a traditional widening project here, a grade separation at the intersection of Medlock Bridge Road and State Bridge Road could be considered. Th e remaining portion of the Old Alabama Road improvements is also included in this tier. Th e section includes operational improvements such as medians and turn lanes instead of a traditional widening project.North Fulton CTP Tier 3 Projects October 2010RECOMMENDATIONS: NORTH FULTON REGIONAL PROJECTSRECOMMENDATIONS: NORTH FULTON REGIONAL PROJECTS 43 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 44TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENTTransportation Demand Management or Travel Demand Management (TDM) involves the use of policies and strategies to reduce travel demand, specifi cally travel demand by automobiles. TDM is promoted in many urbanized areas as a cost-eff ective way to reduce traffi c congestion, reduce air pollution, and increase the person-carrying capacity of the transportation system. Th is section summarizes existing TDM initiatives in the North Fulton area, suggests additional TDM strategies which could further improve travel conditions in the area, and identifi es an action plan to implement those strategies.Existing ProgramsExisting TDM programs include both regional and local initiatives. Regional initiatives include ARC’s RideSmart program and the outreach activities of the Clean Air Campaign. Th ese regional initiatives work cooperatively to provide and promote travel options in the Atlanta region. Local initiatives include activities by the Perimeter Transportation Coalition and North Fulton CID, both of whom interact with employers and employees on a regular basis. ARC’s RideSmart service provides helpful information on using carpools, vanpools, transit, and bicycles as alternatives to driving alone. It off ers ride-matching service to persons interested in fi nding a suitable carpool, vanpool or schoolpool (carpooling to school). Th ey also sponsor the Guaranteed Ride Home program, which provides a free ride home to carpoolers or vanpoolers in the event that a mid-day emergency requires traveling home outside the normal commute hour. Th is service takes away many apprehensions people have about leaving their car at home. Th e Clean Air Campaign is a non-profi t organization who provides free employer assistance, education and information regarding TDM opportunities in the metro area. In essence, they are the “feet on the ground” to reach out to commuters through the employers and promote the many services and opportunities provided throughout the region. Th ey even off er cash and prizes as incentives to get people to carpool, vanpool, ride transit, walk to work, bike to work, or telework. Similarly, Transportation Management Associations (TMA’s) provide that outreach and education in local areas. Perimeter Transportation Coalition (PTC) is the TMA providing education, outreach and advocacy in the Perimeter area. PTC coordinates directly with large employers and their employees in the Perimeter area, providing education about TDM opportunities, helping people take advantage of the resources and opportunities made available through RideSmart and the Clean Air Campaign. Th ey also provide traveler information about shuttles, transit, walking and biking in the Perimeter area. PTC is currently the only TMA serving a portion of the North Fulton area. Areas of North Fulton outside the PTC’s area are served by the Clean Air Campaign.It should also be noted that, while not specifi cally classifi ed as a TDM strategy, the existing transit service in the North Fulton area also reduces auto travel and congestion. Additionally, Fulton County school policies have a huge impact on travel to/from public schools. Fulton County schools provide bus transportation to all students outside a designated “walk” zone. Discussion has recently occurred about the size of that walk zone. On the face of the issue, it might seem that a larger walk zone would encourage more walking to school; however, based on the amount of discussion about traffi c problems associated with parent drop-off at numerous schools, decreased busing may actually increase parent drop-off s and increase traffi c congestion. MULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIESTDM StrategiesConsidering the density of development, heavy traffi c fl ows and levels of congestion in the North Fulton area, there seems to be signifi cant opportunity to further reduce single-occupant auto travel through additional TDM eff orts in North Fulton. While TDM implementation is inexpensive compared to capital improvement programs, many will still require the commitment of staff resources to engage in outreach, education and promotion of alternative transportation options. Many communities have added or designated a bike coordinator, rideshare coordinator, TDM coordinator or similar position to facilitate these initiatives. In fact, many initiatives can be undertaken with little additional cost beyond the staff time necessary to take the initiative. Following is a description of a variety of TDM strategies, followed by a short list of those that align well with the conditions and opportunities for TDM in North Fulton. A broad range of TDM strategies is being used across the nation, falling generally into the following categories:Informational – TMA’s and other organizations seek to ♦inform the traveling public of all the options that exist to reduce single-occupant trip making. These programs often focus on educational programs for transit, biking, carpooling, vanpooling, or teleworking. Parking – strategies that seek to manage parking locations ♦and/or use through fees, enforcement or incentives. Alternative mode infrastructure and services – these strategies ♦follow the “if you build it, they will come” philosophy, improving infrastructure for walking, biking, and transit. Road pricing – including varying tolls by time of day, creating ♦“car free” zonesWithin these categories, there is much variety and creativity of specifi c strategies and programs being used. Based on the conditions and opportunities in North Fulton, the following strategies are recommended for consideration, followed by necessary steps for implementation. Flex Time and Teleworking – Teleworking (i.e. working from home) and Flex Time (working alternate hours) both reduce trip making during the peak hours, which can have a signifi cant eff ect on reducing congestion and air pollution. Transit and shuttle services – Th ere is signifi cant opportunity to increase the use of both transit and shuttle services in North Fulton. Shuttle (or circulator) service in particular has been, or is being, considered in Sandy Springs, Alpharetta, and Roswell (by the NFCID). Biking and walking infrastructure – Bicycling infrastructure, in particular, is sparse in North Fulton, yet bicycle use is on the rise nationally and locally. Investment and education in bicycle transportation seems a very promising means of accommodating local travel without autos, especially with the construction of bicycle infrastructure projects recommended as part of the North Fulton TRIP.Education and cultural awareness – Education and cultural awareness can have a big impact on the choices people make. Many communities routinely sponsor events to raise awareness and educate people about using transit or bicycle travel, and have seen commensurate increases in use. Th e PTC and the Clean Air Campaign undertake these initiatives, but the Cities have much to contribute here as well.Variable Road Pricing and Managed Lanes – With the planned addition of managed lanes to the GA 400 corridor, variable pricing will likely be used on that corridor to discourage travel during the traditional peak periods. Also, these managed lanes will encourage carpooling and transit ridership.Development Codes – several specifi c requirements or limits within each city’s development codes have a direct impact on travel. For example, some communities require facilities for bicycle parking and showers/changing facilities at all commercial and large offi ce uses. Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools can also be required. Additionally, the parking requirement itself can be a TDM strategy if parking maximums are put in place. Parking minimums can be reevaluated to ensure excess parking is not being required. School-related TDM strategies – School-related TDM strategies are an important consideration to any community. National data indicate that travel to schools represents between 10-15 percent of morning peak period trips and that walking or biking RECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES 45 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 46to school has declined from 42 percent in 1969 to 13 percent in 2005. Meanwhile, school bus costs typically represent between 7-12 percent of a school system’s total budget. According to information from Fulton County Schools, the current budget allocates approximately 5% to student transportation; however, some equipment purchases have been removed from the current budget to save costs. Finally, the health benefi ts of walking and biking have been widely documented by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Some options for TDM strategies that related to schools include:Reducing barriers to non-motorized transportation by ♦improving sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle lanes, and bicycle parking Implementing parking management at high schools by re- ♦considering free parking – parking proceeds could then be used to improve facilities for walking and biking to school Organizing schoolpool programs ♦Planning over the long term for new school locations to allow a ♦greater percent of students to walk and bike to school. In 1969, 45% of elementary school students lived less than one mile from their school while today, fewer than 24% live within this same distance. TDM Action PlanFollowing is a list of steps recommended for growing TDM strategies in North Fulton:Recommendation: Determine level of investment desired for TDM strategiesSuccessful implementation of TDM strategies will require on-going dedicated staffi ng and resources. Th e Coordination Committee, as described in the Implementation Monitoring section of this report, should determine what level of investment the Cities will jointly make in TDM implementation.Recommendation: Select which TDM strategies are most appropriate for implementation in North Fulton given the amount of resources available to manage those programsOnce a level of investment and resources has been established, the Coordinating Committee should implement strategies provided in this report such those in the following table.TDM Strategy ImplementationTDM Strategy Entities Already Engaged New or Additional Eff ortsPromoting fl ex time and teleworking PTC, Clean Air Campaign Cities and CIDsTransit and shuttle services MARTA, employer shuttles Cities and/or CID’sBiking and walking infrastructure CIDs, Cities CIDs, CitiesEducation and Awareness PTC, Clean Air Campaign CitiesVariable Road Pricing Georgia DOT/SRTA (SR 400)School TDM strategies Certain individual schools Cities and Fulton SchoolsRecommendation: Develop a TDM 5 year action plan based on programs selectedA detailed fi ve year action plan should then be developed which will be tied to the level of investment by the Cities. Th is program should defi ne next steps, assign responsibilities, and set measurable goals.Recommendation: Perform baseline TDM Survey to allow measurement of program performanceExisting conditions should be documented using employer and school surveys. Th is will provide necessary information to evaluate program performance and determine which investments have been successful and which programs should be adjusted or eliminated.Walkability as a Regional Mode of TransportationPedestrian access is typically thought of and designed at a very local scale such as in a small downtown, a neighborhood, a streetscape, or even within an individual development. In a larger more regional planning focus, walkability is a critical consideration, but in a diff erent context. Regional mobility for pedestrians is defi ned by having a regional collection of localized walkable places and how those places relate to each other and the surrounding area. Th e existence of localized walkable places can have a major impact on how regional trips occur. For instance, if enough complimentary trip destinations can be consolidated into a walkable area such as a downtown, a user can then make one trip to that downtown by any mode and complete the remainder of trips on foot. If all of those individual trip destinations, which would otherwise be located together in a downtown, are spread out over a much larger area, then they become primarily accessible by automobile. In this way, walkable places are complementary to alternative modes of travel such as transit and cycling, which are likewise not typically eff ective in regions with sprawling development patterns. Every transit trip begins and ends as a pedestrian trip. If enough walkable places such as corridors, neighborhoods, shopping districts, and employment centers are assembled in a region, then these places can be linked together by a transit and cycling network that could then lessen the need for single occupancy vehicle trips. An initial regional collection of walkable places has already been identifi ed within North Fulton through the completion of LCI studies and the development of the Unifi ed Growth Policy Map (UGPM). Th ese areas, indicated on the next page, may still be developing their local pedestrian networks, yet because they have already been identifi ed, they can serve as a framework for creating a more regional network of pedestrian facilities. Potential Pedestrian Improvements on the Study NetworkTh is section of the report focuses on potential improvements to pedestrian accommodations specifi cally along the North Fulton CTP study network. Th ese routes not only connect major walkable destinations to one other, but also serve as thoroughfares facilitating regional trips for all modes of travel. For these reasons, it was determined that a minimum standard of pedestrian facilities should be provided on all roadways included in the study network while a higher standard should be provided where the study network passes through regionally designated walkable places. Pedestrian Level-of-Service (LOS) is the metric used in this study for evaluating pedestrian accommodation. A Pedestrian LOS score, ranging from “A” (best) to “F” (worst) can be calculated based on such factors as presence of sidewalks, width of sidewalks, width of any buff er between the sidewalk and the roadway, presence of on-street parking, volume of vehicular traffi c, and average speed of vehicular traffi c. After the network was analyzed for existing Pedestrian LOS scores, the Project Management Team selected a minimum threshold goal of Pedestrian LOS “C” for the overall study network and a minimum threshold goal of Pedestrian LOS “B” within those areas of particular emphasis to be the target level of accommodation for pedestrians. Th ese minimum target thresholds, shown in the fi gure on the following page, form Pedestrian Level-of-Service Goals that can be used by municipalities when considering future roadway improvements. Th e roadways were analyzed for potential improvements that would bring those roadways that have a Pedestrian LOS below the target threshold up to the desired level of accommodation. When the data was collected for the Pedestrian LOS calculation, additional data on the roadside profi le was also collected which is helpful in deciding on potential pedestrian improvements such as constructing a sidewalk. Th is additional data include characteristics of the shoulder and adjacent grading such as whether the shoulder is fl at, sloping, or contains a ditch. Th ese characteristics were used to develop the recommendations described in this section.PEDESTRIAN LEVEL-OF-SERVICE GOALSMULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES 47 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 48MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS, cont.Pedestrian & Bicycle Level-of-Service Goals October 2010A sidewalk is the most common element needed to achieve a desired Pedestrian LOS, however, there are many cases where a relatively high level of accommodation can be achieved even in the absence of a sidewalk. Th is situation frequently occurs on low-volume local and minor collector streets with typical or greater than typical lane widths. Likewise, there are some situations where a sidewalk alone is not enough to achieve a desired Pedestrian LOS. Th is occurs along very high-volume high-speed roadways where a buff er may be needed between pedestrian walkways and the fl ow of vehicular traffi c.Th e resulting recommended improvements for individual roadway segments in the study network include seven possible categories for each evaluated segment:Currently meets Pedestrian LOS threshold ♦Sidewalks exist on both sides of street (but segment does not ♦meet Pedestrian LOS threshold)Sidewalk exists on one side, construct sidewalk on opposite ♦side with minimal gradingSidewalk exists on one side, construct sidewalk on opposite ♦side with significant gradingMinimal sidewalk coverage exists, construct sidewalks on both ♦sides with minimal gradingMinimal sidewalk coverage exists, construct sidewalks on both ♦sides with significant gradingDetailed corridor study needed (DCSN) ♦Many study segments present minimal opportunity for providing sidewalks, often due to steep ditches or other changes in grade in proximity to the edge of the roadway. Specifi c recommendations for the potential provision of pedestrian facilities on these segments (127 miles, or approximately 40 percent of the study network) would require extensive and detailed operational-level investigations of the constraints and opportunities along these corridors.Th e segments, with their respective recommendation designations, can be seen graphically in the following fi gure. Recommendation: Adopt Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Goals (as shown below) as an area-wide policy.Establish an annual pedestrian infrastructure improvement ♦allocation within the budget of each municipalitySet pedestrian projects within or nearby Regional Centers, Town ♦Centers, and Station Communities (as defined by ARC’s Unified Growth Policy Map) as being the highest priorityTo the fullest extent possible, provide accommodation for pedestrians ♦as part of all roadway projects.MULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES 49 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 50MULTMULTIntroductionBicycles have potential as an alternative mode of travel on a regional scale. Although there are inherent limitations compared to the freedom off ered by an automobile, if adequate facilities are in place, a cyclist can comfortably and safely travel for many miles to reach destinations. Cycling can also be combined with adequate transit coverage to provide access to a nearly unlimited range of destinations. Bicycles can be stored on MARTA buses which are each equipped with bicycle racks, and bicycles are also allowed on MARTA trains. When roadway facilities are designed appropriately, cycling can also provide safe and effi cient transportation in more urbanized pedestrian-friendly environments. Cycling, transit, and walking work well in conjunction with one another, and the combination of these modes can provide an adequate alternative to many single occupancy vehicle trips.Potential Bicycle ImprovementsSimilar to the previous section of this report, Pedestrian Level-of-Service Goals, this section focuses on potential improvements to bicycle accommodations specifi cally along the North Fulton CTP study network. Th e study network is composed of routes which not only connect major multimodal destinations to one other, but also serve as regional thoroughfares facilitating long regional trips. It was determined that a minimum level of accommodation for bicycles should be provided on all roadways included in the study network while a higher level of accommodation should be provided where the study network passes through regionally designated multimodal places. Bicycle Level-of-Service (LOS) is the metric used in this study for evaluating bicycle accommodation. Factors as such widths of lanes, roadways, gutters, buff ers and sidewalks, as well as observed roadway characteristics including lane counts, confi guration (undivided, divided, or use of a two-way left turn lane), posted speed limit, roadside profi le, pavement condition, and cross-section type (curbed or open shoulder) can be used to calculate a Bicycle LOS score, ranging from “A” (best) to “F” (worst). During the Existing Conditions Phase, the study network was analyzed for the existing Bicycle LOS scores. Th e Project Management BICYCLE LEVEL-OF-SERVICE GOALSTeam selected a minimum threshold of Bicycle LOS “C” for the overall study network and a minimum threshold of Bicycle LOS “B” within those areas of particular emphasis to be the target level of accommodation for cyclists. Th ese minimum target thresholds, shown in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Level-of-Service Guide, form Bicycle Level-of-Service Goals that can be used by municipalities when considering future roadway improvements. Recommendation: Adopt Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Goals (as shown below) as an area-wide policy.Establish an annual bicycle infrastructure improvement allocation ♦within the budget of each municipalitySet bicycle projects within or nearby Regional Centers, Town ♦Centers, and Station Communities (as defined by ARC’s Unified Growth Policy Map) as being the highest priorityTo the fullest extent possible, provide accommodation for bicyclists ♦as part of all roadway projects.Th e roadways were analyzed for potential improvements that would bring those roadways with a Bicycle LOS below the goal threshold up to the desired level of accommodation. When the data were collected for the Bicycle LOS calculation, additional data were collected to facilitate the evaluation of potential improvements. Th is data included total width of asphalt, presence of a raised median, presence of curb and gutter, and roadside profi le (fl at, sloping, or ditch). Th ese characteristics were used to develop the recommendations described in this section. Because of the site-specifi c nature of designing improvements for bicycles along a given corridor, much of the regional study network requires further study at a more detailed level than is provided for in this study. In light of these corridor specifi c challenges, three priority corridors were selected for more detailed analysis of their potential for improvement.Typically, a striped bicycle lane is the most desirable facility for cyclists along roadways. However, there are many cases where a relatively high level of accommodation can be achieved even in the absence of a striped shoulder or bike lane. Th is situation frequently occurs on low volume local and minor collector streets with typical or greater than typical lane widths. Likewise, Pedestrian Level-of-Service Recommendations October 2010MULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES 51 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 52MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS, cont.there are some situations where bike lanes alone are not enough to achieve a desired Bicycle LOS. Th is occurs along very high-volume high-speed roadways where a more substantial separation may be needed between bike lanes and the fl ow of vehicular traffi c.Th e recommended improvement strategies for individual roadway segments include seven possible recommendation categories for each evaluated segment:Currently meets Bicycle LOS Goal ♦Existing facility (but segment does not meet Bicycle LOS ♦Goal)Roadway restripe candidate for bike lanes ♦Roadway restripe candidate for wider shoulders ♦Construct paved shoulders ♦Detailed corridor study needed (DCSN), yet potential for path ♦adjacent to the roadDCSN ♦Th e segments with their respective recommendation designations can be seen in the left fi gure.Additional Bicycle Evaluations for Priority CorridorsIn addition to the system-wide recommendations described above, the consultant team reviewed three priority corridors in greater detail to identify more specifi c bicycle facility recommendations, as appropriate. Th e fi rst two corridors—portions of Holcomb Bridge Road and SR 9 were designated for the DCSN category, meaning they warranted closer study as neither were appropriate for re-striping or shoulder widening, due to the roadway cross-section and right-of-way character. Th e third corridor, a portion of Medlock Bridge Road actually meets the targeted Bicycle LOS and currently has very wide bike lanes but is the site of an unusual concentration of bicycle crashes.Holcomb Bridge RoadHolcomb Bridge Road between Eves Road and the Gwinnett County line at the Chattahoochee River was reviewed. Th e most feasible improvement for bicycling along this section of Holcomb Bridge Road may be a sidepath adjacent to the eastbound lanes. Th is section is approximately 3.1 miles long and was found to currently operate at Bicycle LOS “E”. Th e roadway is four lanes wide, either undivided or with a two-way left turn lane, and carries in excess of 35,000 vehicles per day at a posted speed of 45 miles per hour. Th ere is a narrow shoulder (approximately 18 inches wide) on the segment between Nesbit Ferry Road and the river, but this does not constitute a bicycle facility. Here bicyclists are sharing a 12-foot wide outside lane with motor vehicles throughout the corridor which is insuffi cient width to allow safe passing of cars on such a high volume roadway. Th ere is not enough pavement width to allow for re-striping to accommodate bike lanes or paved shoulders. Th e roadway is mostly lined with curb and gutter, with the exception of sections east of Barnwell Road, making widened shoulders an option for only that portion, and even within that section there are intermittent parcels with curbs in place. Given the traffi c conditions, fi ve foot wide bike lanes or shoulders (adjacent to 11-foot travel lanes) would be necessary to approach the designated performance threshold of Bicycle LOS “C” if either re-striping or widened shoulders were a practical option in this corridor.Given the challenges facing this corridor with respect to the less expensive options of re-striping or shoulder widening, this corridor was identifi ed as being in need of further study to fi nd an appropriate bicycle facility improvement. Alternate routes on nearby parallel roadways are not reasonable options for cyclists because neighborhood streets in the areas near the Holcomb Bridge Road corridor are mostly curvilinear and frequently terminate in culs-de-sac, leaving very limited interconnectivity. One roadway that is loosely parallel, connecting to Holcomb Bridge Road in two places, is Steeplechase Drive. However, because this alternate route is indirect and twice as long as the primary facility, this route will not be suitable alternative Bicycle Level-of-Service Recommendations October 2010MULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIESHolcomb Bridge Road Priority CorridorSource: Sprinkle Consulting, Inc., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Aerials Express 2008, ARC GIS Data 53 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 54to develop a sidepath. Such facilities must be designed carefully to avoid creating additional safety concerns, such as confl icts at driveways and intersections. If designed appropriately, such facilities can improve overall bicycling mobility while preserving access to destinations along primary corridors. Th e generally narrow right-of-way throughout the SR 9 corridor may require signifi cant lengths of railing to separate the trail facility from the roadway in constrained sections, and may also require acquisition of right-of-way at numerous points and some signifi cant grading and retaining walls, pending a detailed survey of parcel boundaries and topography.Medlock Bridge RoadTh e 1.6 mile section of Medlock Bridge Road between the Gwinnett County line at the Chattahoochee River and State Bridge Road was evaluated. Changes in pavement markings may be the best way to improve bicycle safety along this corridor. Th is is a four-lane, divided roadway, with a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour south of Old Alabama Road, and 45 miles per hour north of Old Alabama. Traffi c volumes in this corridor are high, exceeding 30,000 vehicles per day. Despite the high volume and high speed character of the corridor, both segments currently rate well for bicyclists with Bicycle LOS grades of “B”, largely due to unusually wide shoulders (averaging 8 feet wide or more) that off er distinctly separate space for bicycle operation within the cross section. Although this section of roadway already meets the targeted Bicycle LOS (LOS “C”), this corridor was selected for further study because of an unusually high concentration of for regional bicycle travel. No apparent utility corridors, parks, schools, or other large public parcels exist near this corridor which would be suitable for a trail facility which could also serve as a practical alternative to travelling directly along Holcomb Bridge Road.Given the overall circumstances of this corridor, the most feasible improvement for bicycling along this section of Holcomb Bridge Road may be a sidepath adjacent to the eastbound lanes. Th is facility would need to be carefully designed to counteract the operational concerns associated with sidepath facilities, especially at intersections with other roadways and commercial driveways. Due to the tightly constrained right-of-way west of Barnwell Road and the steep roadside terrain east of Barnwell Road, a sidepath adjacent to eastbound Holcomb Bridge Road will likely require extensive stretches of railing on one or both sides to separate the trail from both motor vehicle traffi c and steep grades. Extensive railings or boardwalk construction and areas of extensive earthwork will likely have a signifi cant impact on the cost of constructing such a facility. Also given the variable and constrained character of the right-of-way along this section of Holcomb Bridge Road, it is highly likely that construction of a sidepath facility will necessitate the acquisition of additional right-of-way along much of the subject corridor, pending detailed survey of parcel boundaries and topography. Such right-of-way acquisition could signifi cantly increase the cost of this project. It’s possible that much of this right-of-way acquisition could occur gradually over time as the corridor redevelops. SR 9 (Roswell Road) from Abernathy Road to the Chattahoochee RiverState Route 9 (Roswell Road) between Abernathy Road and the Chattahoochee River was evaluated. Th is section is approximately 5.3 miles long the segment between Abernathy Road and Northridge Road was found to currently operate at Bicycle LOS “E”, while the segment between Northridge Road and the Chattahoochee River was found to be operating at Bicycle LOS “D” (the performance expectation for all three segments is Bicycle LOS “C”). A separate sidepath on the east side of SR 9 may be the best option to accommodate bicyclists at the goal Bicycle Level-of-Service. Th e roadway has a consistent cross section throughout the entire study corridor, with four travel lanes and a two-way left-turn lane. Th e roadway is generally between 50 and 53 feet wide, with approximately 10 feet per lane. Th e outside lanes in the northernmost segment were measured to be 10.5 feet wide. Th e corridor carries in excess of 30,000 vehicles a day at posted speeds between 35 and 45 miles per hour. Th e already narrow lane widths make re-striping for bike lanes an infeasible option, and existing curb and gutter throughout the corridor makes widened shoulders similarly infeasible. Th e area around the corridor has limited potential parallel route options. A parallel route along other arterial and collector roads could be traced by a sequence of Abernathy Road, Glenridge Drive, Spalding Drive, and Trowbridge Drive. Th is sequence would off er better accommodation in some sections, but would lengthen a through-trip between Abernathy Road and Trowbridge Drive from 1.9 miles to almost 2.9 miles. Th is would also leave few opportunities to cross back to any destinations along SR 9. A connection to the southern end of Colquitt Road (south of Pitts Road) could be made by exploring potential easements connecting the driveways of multi-family housing developments that are adjacent to Trowbridge Drive and Colquitt Road. Such a connection would benefi t the mobility of local residents and provide a lengthened through-route for recreational trips, but would not improve access to destinations along the primary corridor. Additionally, the section of Colquitt Road north of Pitts Road and Northridge Road, while a lower volume road than Roswell Road, still operates at a Bicycle LOS “D”, due to its relatively narrow lanes and lack of shoulders. All of the alternative routing scenarios would result in a virtual bypass of the primary corridor, with limited return access, and would add considerable extra distance to through-trips, while only providing very intermittent stretches of substantially improved bicycling conditions. Similar to the Holcomb Bridge Road Section, the most feasible improvement for accommodating bicycles in this corridor may be MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS, cont.MULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIESState Route 9 priority corridorSource: Sprinkle Consulting, Inc., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Aerials Express 2008, ARC GIS DataMedlock Bridge Road Priority CorridorSource: Sprinkle Consulting, Inc., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Aerials Express 2008, ARC GIS DataMedlock Bridge Road Road Buff ered Bike Lane ConceptSource: Sprinkle Consulting, Inc., Fulton County GIS (background aerial)edlock Bridge Road RoadBuffered Bike Lane Concebicycle crashes. Th e corridor was reviewed to determine if the crashes were related to any infrastructure issues, or if any changes could be recommended that would correct any identifi ed safety issues. 55 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 56IntroductionThe Transportation Research Board’s Access Management Manual states that access management is “the systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway.” Good access management implementation may require a property owner to lose perceived convenient access to their properties. While this idea may be received with opposition, the continued negative factors of poor access management can result in customers avoiding the unsafe and/or congested roadway.Poor access management can have negative results:Higher accident rates ♦Less efficient roads ♦Increased cut-through traffic in ♦residential areasLonger commute times ♦Higher fuel consumption and emissions ♦As part of the North Fulton Transportation Resource Implementation Program, three regionally signifi cant corridors have been identifi ed as the primary non-freeway roadways that facilitate regional trips through North Fulton, particularly east-west movements. Because of their regional signifi cance, the implementation of a consistent access management strategy along these roadways would benefi t the Cities in North Fulton as well as the metro Atlanta region. Additionally, strong access management policies may result in capacity improvements along the corridors without the need for traditional widening. Th ese corridors are: SR 9 (Roswell Road/Atlanta Street/Alpharetta Highway/ ♦Main Street)SR 92 (Woodstock Road/Crossville Road) and SR 140 ♦(Holcomb Bridge Road)SR 140 (Arnold Mill Road/Houze Road), Rucker Road, SR ♦120 (Old Milton Parkway), State Bridge RoadIt is important to note that each of these three corridors traverse multiple Cities in North Fulton. Th erefore, cross-jurisdictional access management will be important. General PoliciesAccess management reduces traffi c confl icts by:Minimizing the number of conflict points ♦Maximizing the distance between conflict ♦pointsProviding inter-parcel connectivity, especially ♦for slow turning vehicles.Access management solutions can generally be broken into two groups; those directly aff ecting the roadway facility (transportation infrastructure) and those aff ecting the adjacent parcels (land use and zoning). Some of these contributors to benefi cial access management include the following:Infrastructure ImprovementsDriveway AlignmentDriveway alignment is a means of controlling access and reducing vehicular confl ict points along a roadway. Implementation of good driveway alignment concentrates turning movements to fewer points along the corridor, allowing drivers to better predict the movements of other vehicles.MediansMedians have been proven by studies to improve traffi c fl ow, reduce congestion, and lower crash rates for certain conditions. Th ese benefi ts are mostly a result of managing the left-turn and u-turn movements along a corridor. Creating a series of appropriately spaced median breaks creates a hierarchy of decision ACCESS MANAGEMENTMULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIESTh ere are no parallel routes that could replace this stretch of Medlock Bridge Road. Bicyclists who are connecting to westbound Old Alabama Road could take a circuitous shortcut over neighborhood streets via Chelsen Wood Drive and Waits Ferry Crossing, shortening what would have been a trip in excess of 1.7 miles along major thoroughfares into a trip of approximately 1.2 miles along local streets. Th is option only benefi ts travel along one of many routes that are served by the Medlock Bridge corridor. Bicycle crash data from incidents along this section of Medlock Bridge Road was reviewed. Some observations about the documented bicycle crashes that occurred along this section of Medlock Bridge Road include:All of the crashes are reported as having occurred during ♦daylight conditions, which is inconsistent with typical bicycle crash patterns. Three of the crashes were reported as angle crashes. ♦At least two of the crashes appear to have involved bicyclists ♦riding against traffic. At least three happened at midblock locations. ♦A possible treatment for Medlock Bridge Road could be to restripe the existing bike lanes into buff ered bike lanes. Th is would be accomplished by creating a buff er of two solid lines separated by approximately 3 or 4 feet with chevron markings along the side of the main travel lanes. Adjacent to the curb would be a fi ve foot bike lane. Th is confi guration provides an inexpensive way to increase the level of accommodation for bicyclists along this busy corridor. While increasing separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles can result in increased safety and comfort, it is important to keep bicyclists and motorists within one another’s fi eld of vision at intersections where bicycles may come into confl ict with tuning vehicles. For this reason the proposed buff ered bike lane treatment shown in the fi gure should be striped so that bicyclists travel close to the curb along typical sections and are brought out from the curb in advance of intersections. Th is section of Medlock Bridge Road includes a number of right-turn lanes that periodically interrupt the existing bike lane space, and it appears that it would be diffi cult to continue a full-size bike lane through the right-turn lanes. It may be possible to mark a bike slot on the left side of the right-turn lane, indicating the preferred position for through-moving bicyclists within a lane shared with right-turning motorists. It may be advisable to post R4-4 signs (Begin Right Turn Lane Yield to Bikes) at these locations, to increase motorists’ awareness of their obligation to yield.Because crash data for this corridor does indicate that some crashes may have been associated with bicyclists riding against traffi c, if wrong-way riding is observed to be a continuing issue in this corridor, then it is also recommended that BICYCLE WRONG WAY (R5-1b) and RIDE WITH TRAFFIC (R9-3C) signs be installed at points along the corridor. Sign R4-4Source: Manual on Uniform Traffi c Devices (MUTCD)Signs R5-1b and R9-3cSource: Manual on Uniform Traffi c Devices (MUTCD) 57 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 58Driveway Th roat (or Stem) Length Source: NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways, July 2003Inter-Parcel Access and Shared DrivewaysMany properties are designed as isolated developments with no interconnectivity with adjacent properties. Th is increases congestion by forcing all trips between the developments onto the corridor. Additionally, this typically results in multiple driveways that increase the number of turning movement confl ict points along a corridor. Interconnectivity between properties can alleviate the amount of traffi c along the roadway. Effi cient connectivity should focus on pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and automobiles. Th ese connections can be provided via frontage roads (between the roadway and the buildings) or backage roads (on the opposite of the buildings from the roadway).It should be noted that frontage roads can sometimes be detrimental to alternative modes of transportation. Th e presence of frontage roads typically increases the distance and sometimes adds obstacles between the major roadway and the buildings. Th is results in a less attractive trip for pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of transit. An alternative is a backage road, in lieu of a frontage points that are predictable and allow for smoother traffi c fl ow for the through movement along a corridor. Full-movement median openings should be located where ♦higher left-turn movements are expected along both the major street and minor street.Directional crossovers can be placed between these full- ♦movement median openings, allowing left-turn and u-turn movements along the major street (but prohibiting minor street left-turns). This concept removes the left-turns and u-turns from the full-movement intersection. An alternative is the median u-turn treatment, which only ♦allows u-turn movements along the major street. Traffi c Signal CoordinationTraffi c signal coordination refers to both the physical spacing and the optimized timing of traffi c signals along a corridor. Longer distances between traffi c signals can enhance the ability to improve travel times and safety via the synchronization of traffi c signals along a corridor. Th e coordination of traffi c signals along congested roadways can improve travel time, delay, safety, and emissions. As part of the Governor’s Fast Forward Program, GDOT optimizes signal timings along selected corridors throughout the metro Atlanta area. Corridors that have been optimized as part of this program in North Fulton include SR 9, SR 92, SR 140, and SR 141.InterchangesConverting an overcapacity intersection to a grade-separated interchange can dramatically improve the operations at that location. Unfortunately, this is also a very expensive alternative when attempting to develop a solution at an intersection. Land Use and ZoningOn-Site Traffi c CirculationOn-site traffi c circulation can be improved to help avoid traffi c spillback from within a development onto the public roadway. Th e “throat” of a driveway is the section between the roadway and the fi rst internal site intersection. Lengthening the throat of driveways can have two positive results: Vehicles exiting the site are less likely to obstruct another vehicle’s movement within the site. Vehicles entering the site also have a longer distance and more time to decide what their next movement within the site will be. Both of these positive results decrease the possibility of traffi c spillback onto the arterial.DDDThThThTh(((SSSS))L)L)Lhhhhroad, which can still provide inter-parcel access while concurrently allowing for a shorter and easier route for walking, cycling, and local transit. Sharing Access among Parcels Source: NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways, July 2003Street ConnectivityProviding additional access along secondary roadways also provides an alternative for traffi c to access sites. Land development regulations should require connections to the local street network instead of the major street. Th is will decrease the traffi c volumes on the thoroughfare corridor, as local trips will have an alternative to using the major road. Some locations may have an inadequate local street network. Following this access management strategy may require the local government to construct and/or maintain additional roads. Culs-de-sac and permanent dead ends should be discouraged. If backage roads are constructed, regulations should require these to be built so they can be integrated into the local street system, especially when small frontage lots are unavoidable. Existing OrdinancesTh ere are existing ordinances and policies adopted by the North Fulton municipalities, Fulton County, and GDOT which regulate many of the access management control features discussed above. Th ese policies were studied to determine what access management guidelines are currently in place and how they vary among the diff erent agencies. Th e most recent publication by GDOT of its Regulations for Driveway and Encroachment Control is dated October 10, 2009. Th is sets minimum access management guidelines and requirements and applies to all state routes within Georgia. Typically, local municipalities may adopt more stringent requirements for state routes and other roadways within their jurisdiction if they deem it necessary.Th ere are no longer any areas of unincorporated Fulton County remaining in North Fulton; however, the three newer cities (Johns Creek, Milton, and Sandy Springs) have adopted access management policies which are very similar to the previously applicable Fulton County Driveway Manual (May 2005). Th ese three Cities have ordinances with quantifi able criteria for the minimum spacing of driveways, median openings, signalized intersections, and uninterrupted ingress/egress lengths. Overall, the Fulton County guidelines are slightly less strict than the GDOT guidelines.Th e Cities of Roswell and Sandy Springs have additional guidelines for inter-parcel connectivity, but not with quantifi able criteria.RecommendationsNorth Fulton can improve regionally signifi cant corridors by sharing a unifi ed approach on access management. As described above, many of the North Fulton Cities have existing city ordinances for access management, yet these vary widely across jurisdictions. It is important for the fi ve Cities with arterial roads to have a shared and consistent set of regulations and guidelines for corridors that are the main arteries for North Fulton.Recommendation: Identify priority corridors on which to focus and uniformly protect.Th e fi ve Cities should determine which roadway corridors are in most need of this regionally unifi ed set of regulations and guidelines. Th e three preliminary corridors which have been identifi ed are:SR 9 (Roswell Road/Atlanta Street/Alpharetta Highway/ ♦Main Street)SR 92 (Woodstock Road/Crossville Road) and SR 140 ♦(Holcomb Bridge Road)SR 140 (Arnold Mill Road/Houze Road), Rucker Road, SR ♦120 (Old Milton Parkway), State Bridge RoadRecommendation: Complete detailed corridor studies for each identifi ed corridor.Separate corridor studies should be prepared for each of the “priority corridors” that are identifi ed as needing better access management policies. Implementation of access management on mature corridors requires very specifi c and detailed plans for each roadway. A corridor-specifi c study will “zoom in”, focus on one specifi c roadway, and develop steps to achieve good access management, sometimes at a parcel-by-parcel level. If a uniform overlay ordinance with access management policies is adopted, the corridor studies will serve to determine specifi c steps that can be taken for each corridor to achieve those.MULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES 59 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 60Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV): CCTV cameras allow municipalities to observe traffi c on the roadways. Images from the CCTV cameras are brought back to a traffi c control center where operators look for congestion and incidents and can manage the traffi c system to address any issue that is observed. Th ese images can also be made available to the public through the municipalities’ websites or local television affi liates. Th e cities of Alpharetta, Roswell and Sandy Springs all have existing CCTV cameras along several major routes that they use to assist in managing traffi c. Th e City of Johns Creek currently has a project to connect to some existing CCTV cameras that are currently not operational. Coverage of these CCTV cameras is limited to major routes. Expansion of the system will allow these municipalities and others to be able to better manage and provide travel information to their public.Dynamic Message Signs (DMSs): DMSs allow operators to provide information directly to drivers while they travel the route. Information can be given as to upcoming congestion, incidents, expected travel times, etc. Typically DMSs are deployed on interstate systems, yet in recent years DMSs are being used for Recommendation: Adopt a uniform policy across all jurisdictions.A key to providing regional mobility is applying consistent standards to those corridors which serve as regional arterials. Although GDOT has a driveway policy that is uniformly enforced across the state, it is necessary for North Fulton to also enforce access management more locally. Th is is true for several reasons: GDOT only considers access along the State Highway system; ♦some sections of roadway in North Fulton function as regional arterials yet are not part of the State Highway systemGDOT looks at one property at a time based on when ♦driveway permit applications are submittedLocal municipalities are more involved in zoning processes ♦and have a better opportunity to organize/enforce cross-parcel easements and enhance interconnectivityA model access management overlay ordinance has been developed for North Fulton and is being provided to city staff . Th is ordinance will be further edited by representatives from the Cities, most likely members of the Coordination Committee as described in the Implementation Monitoring section of this report. Once the ordinance reaches a state where all cities agree on the policies, the ordinance will be adopted and enforced by each of the municipalities. IntroductionTraffi c congestion is one of the most pressing concerns of the residents of North Fulton. Th e active management of traffi c and dissemination of traffi c information is essential to the motoring public. Advanced Traffi c Management Systems (ATMS) allow government agencies to better manage the traffi c along the roadway and to disseminate traffi c information to drivers for their use. ATMS components include: Traffic signal controllers ♦Closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras ♦Dynamic message signs ♦Communication equipment ♦Control center monitoring equipment and software ♦Several municipalities in North Fulton, including Alpharetta, Roswell, and Sandy Springs already have mature ATMS programs in place, while others have projects under way, such as the City of Johns Creek, and still others have systems that are monitored and managed by GDOT. While the municipalities do currently work together, there isn’t a formal overarching system in place that ties the individual systems together and optimizes the management of traffi c across all of North Fulton. With numerous major routes that cross multiple municipalities, such as SR 9, 120, and 140 to name a few, there is a signifi cant need and potential benefi t of having a cohesive ATMS network. Discussion Items / BackgroundTraffi c Signals: For signals to operate together in an effi cient manner, it is essential that the signals all be operating on the same hardware and software platform. To use the analogy of an offi ce computer network, the system will operate more effi ciently if all of the computers were of the same type (PC or Apple) and running the same software (Microsoft or Linux). Th e majority of the traffi c signal controllers within North Fulton recently have been upgraded to the most recent GDOT standards for hardware and software. Taking the next step and ensuring that all of the signals are running the same hardware and software will allow municipalities to better coordinate the traffi c signals among them.ATMS STUDIESllllThThThRRRaacccmmmuutCpMULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES 61 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 62arterial management with great success. No cities within North Fulton currently have arterial DMSs in the fi eld. Deploying several DMSs along key routes will allow system operators to provide travel information, detour opportunities, etc. to allow for better management of the traffi c network.Communications: Essential to managing traffi c is having a communication backbone that allows operators to manage the traffi c management devices that are in the fi eld. Communication to traffi c management devices can be either hard wired or wireless. Th e majority of ATMS communication is hard wired with wireless used to reach outlying or diffi cult to reach areas. Hard wired communication is typically either twisted-pair copper wiring, fi ber optic cable, or a combination thereof. Older systems typically used twisted-pair copper; however, as technology has improved and there is a need to provide greater bandwidth for devices such as CCTV cameras, fi ber optic communication has become the most prevalent communication media. Alpharetta, Roswell, Sandy Springs, and Johns Creek all use some form of communication to talk to their traffi c management devices along most of their major routes. In many locations, however, communication is either not present or needs to be connected to achieve greater coverage and allow for cross jurisdictional communication.Control Center Monitoring Equipment and Software: Traffi c control centers (TCCs) are the heart of an ATMS system. All data and video from fi eld devices are brought back through the communication network to the TCC for operators to better manage traffi c. Information from the TCC is sent out to the traffi c management devices, web, and media services to provide active traffi c management and better travel information. Alpharetta, Roswell and Sandy Springs all have operational TCCs, and the City of Johns Creek has a current project to create a TCC. As traffi c doesn’t stay within a municipality, but travels across municipalities, it is important to manage traffi c between the various municipalities’ TCCs. Th erefore, center-to-center communication is essential to managing regional traffi c patterns. Currently center-to-center communication does not exist between the municipalities in North Fulton. To accomplish this, an evaluation of hardware, software and communication equipment would need to be performed to determine how center-to-center communication could be achieved. Th e municipalities would also have to determine what information they would share among centers.StrategyFor the fi rst step of upgrading the existing ATMS network, a comprehensive and coordinated inventory should be compiled of all of the existing traffi c management devices within North Fulton. Th is inventory would then set the stage to determine future needs of the system. Based on the level of investment sought by each of the cities, preliminary goals for future expansion could include :Expand the reach (communication) of the existing signal ♦systemsCoordinate signals and sync clocks across jurisdictional ♦boundariesExpand CCTV coverage ♦Evaluate the need and potential locations for DMS ♦deploymentsProvide center-to-center communication ♦Establish protocols for sharing information and managing ♦traffic across municipalitiesIdentify other potential ATMS strategies (such as transit ♦priority, reversible lanes, etc.) that may be applicable within North FultonDevelop a strategy that is flexible and expandable that allows ♦for future growth as development continues to occurDevelop a system that minimizes recurring costs ♦Recommendation: Perform a concentrated ATMS study guided by a Coordinationg Committee made up of representation from the various municipalities.OTHER REGIONAL PROJECTS CONSIDEREDIn response to the wide range of public involvement and input from the Project Management Team, the Stakeholder Committee, policy makers, and transportation professionals involved in the development of this plan, many more projects were considered during evaluation and prioritization than made it into the fi nal list of recommendations. Most of the projects that did not make the fi nal list were deemed to be benefi cial projects worthy of implementation, but given the fi nite amount of resources available, were removed from the recommendations. Projects that were left out of the recommendations in this CTP are not necessarily unable to be implemented or not recommended. Th is simply means that they have not been prioritized in this regional CTP. Th ey could be reevaluated when this plan is updated or advanced back onto the list in response to shifts in political support and other factors. Many of the projects removed from the recommendations were determined to be too localized to justify inclusion in a regional CTP. While these projects might actually provide great benefi ts to the municipality, and therefore, the region, given the lack of funding available, these would be more appropriately pursued by individual governments. A list of these projects is shown in table below:Local Projects not Included in the North Fulton CTPName DescriptionChattahoochee River multi-use trails Extend the River Walk trail along the Chattahoochee River from Eves Road to McGinnis Ferry Road - where development does not preclude.New Connection - Northeast/Sun Valley ConnectorConstruct a new roadway connecting Sun Valley Road west to Houze Raod and east to Old Ellis Road to Sanctuary Parkway at Rock Mill Road. Project also connects Warsaw Road and Mansell Place.New Connections - Commerce Parkway and Mansell Road ExtensionsConstruct new roadways extending Commerce Parkway from Old Roswell Road to Holcomb Bridge Road (SR 140) and extending Mansell Road from E. Crossville Road (SR 92) to SR 9.New Connection - Sandy Springs Circle ExtensionConstruct a new roadway connecting Sandy Springs Circle under I-285 to connect to SR 9 at Glenridge Drive, including associated street grid enhancements.New Connection - Northwinds ParkwayConstruct a new roadway extending Northwinds Parkway from Kimball Bridge Road to Old Milton Parkway.Capacity Improvements to Mansell RoadWiden to 6 lanes from Old Roswell Road to Old Alabama Road Connector.Capacity Improvements to Old Alabama RoadWiden to 4 lanes from Buice Road to Medlock Bridge Road.Capacity Improvements to Glenridge DriveWiden to 4 lanes from Roswell Road to Glenridge Connector.MULTMULTRECOMMENDATIONS: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND POLICIES OTHER REGIONAL PROJECTS CONSIDERED OTHER REGIONAL PROJECTS CONSIDERED 63 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 64FIVE YEAR ACTION PLANMULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS, cont.OTHER REGIONAL PROJECTS CONSIDEREDTh ese projects were initially considered because they were identifi ed as needs during the Needs Assessment Phase (by the travel demand model, the public, city staff , or other sources), but were later removed due to the perceived adverse trade-off s associated with them. Th ese projects and their associated reason for removal are shown in the table below:Other Projects Not Included in the North Fulton CTPName Description Reason for RemovalRogers Bridge bike/ped trail connectionRehabilitate existing steel truss bridge over Chattahoochee River at Rogers Bridge Road to accommodate bike/ped travel.City Council removalBus Rapid Transit along SR 9 Create a BRT route beginning at the Lindbergh MARTA station, continuing along Piedmont Road to Roswell Road, and along SR 9 through Sandy Springs, Roswell, and Alpharetta, along Windward Parkway to the Windward park-n-ride lot.Potentially long termBus Rapid Transit along Crossville Road (SR 92)/Holcomb Bridge Road (SR 140)Create a BRT route beginning at the Doraville MARTA station, continuing along Buford Highway, Holcomb Bridge Road, Crossville/Woodstock Road, to the park-n-ride lot in Woodstock.Queuing considerationsPerimeter Center circulator Create a circulator along SR 9, Mount Vernon Highway, Peachtree Dunwoody Road, and Hammond Drive, connecting to the Dunwoody and Sandy Springs MARTA stations.Consultant Team removalCapacity Improvements to Rucker RoadEnhance facility to become a divided four-lane cross-section with a median and turn lanes from Hardscrabble Road to Wills Road. Staff removal / Consultant TeamCapacity Improvements to Holcomb Bridge Road (SR 140)Widen to 6 lanes from Gwinnett County to Nesbit Ferry Road (include 6 lane bridge).City Council removalCapacity Improvements to Holcomb Bridge Road (SR 140)Widen to 6 lanes from Nesbit Ferry Road to Old Alabama Road. City Council removalNew Interchange - McGinnis Ferry Road at GA 400Construct a new interchange including a new full-movement interchange and widening of McGinnis Ferry Road/Morris Road to 4 lanes from Webb Road to Union Hill Road.Primarily economic development, and currently has own momentumCapacity Improvements to Riverside DriveWiden to 4 lanes from Johnson Ferry to I-285. Staff removalCapacity Improvements to Barfi eld RoadWiden to 4 lanes from Hammond Drive to Mount Vernon Highway. Staff removalCapacity Improvements to Hardscrabble RoadWiden to 4 lanes from SR 92 to Crabapple Road. Staff removalCapacity Improvements to GA 400 Widen to 12 lanes from I-285 to Holcomb Bridge Road, widen to 10 lanes from Holcomb Bridge Road to Windward Parkway, widen to 6 lanes from McFarland to SR 141.Consultant Team removalCapacity Improvements to Abernathy RoadWiden to 6 lanes from Roswell Road to GA 400. City Council removalNew 4 Lane Chattahoochee River Crossing (Northridge Rd to Riverside Dr)Construct a new river crossing extending Northridge Road to connect to Riverside Road and then Eves Road, ending at Holcomb Bridge Road. Includes widening Northridge Road, Riverside Road, and Eves Road to 4 lanes.City Council removalCapacity Improvements to Houze RoadEnhance facility to become a divided four-lane cross-section with a median and turn lanes from Rucker Road to Mansell RoadStaff removal / Consultant TeamNew Connection at Grimes Bridge RoadExtend Grimes Bridge Road to create a new connection across GA 400 to Old Alabama Road.City Council removalFIVE YEAR ACTION PLANThe Action Plan outlines the appropriate steps for local and State leaders to implement the recommendations of this plan and identifi es key agencies that should be involved with the task. It is not expected that every item listed would be completed over the next several years; however, the process should be initiated to best take advantage of the momentum gained with the development of this plan and the collective work of the local champions that were involved in the process.Funding is, of course, a critical component of the implementation of the plan. Without money to implement the recommendations (whether local, state, or federal), the plan is merely a wish list. Given funding considerations at the federal level and probable redirection of money to asset management at the regional level, non-local funding dollars for new capital may be even scarcer than in the past. It is, therefore, all the more critical that cities be prepared to implement projects when funding does become available. According the Breaking Ground 2009, a status report published by ARC of TIP projects, approximately 65 percent of the phases (over $1 billion) were delayed to 2010 for various reasons. Some of this delay can be attributed to cities that do not have local matches set aside, do not have public support established for the projects, etc. Th ese types of obstacles result in projects being delayed or not implemented at all. In order for the Cities of North Fulton to be prepared for project implementation, the following principles are recommended:Show commitment to projects ♦May include upfront concept design / feasibility / Preliminary Engineering using local dollars (if federal funding is going to • be pursued for Right-of-Way and Construction phases, the Cities should coordinate with GDOT to ensure compliance with federal protocol). Complete a public process when feasible to establish support for the project. Public opposition has the ability to delay or derail a • project completely. Complete current projects in the TIP ♦Focus on completion of the current projects in the TIP• If priorities change, request that projects be removed from the TIP instead of letting them remain for many years• Ensure that the local match has been set aside for upcoming projects. ♦Focus on a few priorities instead of spreading support across a large number of projects. ♦Keeping these principles in mind, the Action Plan was developed to focus on key priorities, many of which (or similar projects) are currently in the TIP or RTP. Sponsors and jurisdictional champions were outlined for each of the Action Plan recommendations. Coordination among jurisdictions within North Fulton as well as to adjacent counties and cities should also be incorporated as projects move forward. It is important to note that while these improvements are shown separated by mode, that all modes must be considered together to truly implement a multimodal plan. Projects are listed separately here for convenience, since many travel modes draw upon their own unique funding sources.FIVE YEAR ACTION PLAN 65 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 66MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS, cont.FIVE YEAR ACTION PLANFIVE YEAR ACTION PLANNorth Fulton TRIP - Five Year Action PlanProj # Tier Project Name Action Item (5-year) Currently in TIP or RTPSponsor Jurisdiction ChampionCoordinate withGeneral RecommendationsGeneral Recommendations- - Approval of North Fulton TRIPAll North Fulton Cities to Adopt the North Fulton TRIP- - All North Fulton Cities-- - Continuation of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)/ Creation of Coordinating CommitteeCities should develop a new MOA to continue the organizational structure developed to complete the North Fulton TRIP outlining participation, regular meetings, approval processes, etc. - - All North Fulton Cities-- - Project inclusion in the TIP and RTPWork with ARC to include the maximum number of North Fulton projects in the RTP and TIP.- - All North Fulton CitiesARCBike / Pedestrian RecommendationsBike / Pedestrian Recommendations- - Adopt Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS Guides (accomplished with the approval of the North Fulton TRIP)Adopt the Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS Guides provided in this study for use in prioritizing bike/pedestrian improvements. Bike/pedestrian improvements inside activity centers should be considered highest priorities.- - All North Fulton Cities-BP101 1Big Creek Greenway Connection to Forysth CountyBegin conceptual design for extension of the Big Creek Greenway to Forsyth and to the Chattahoochee River Walk, while determining feasible connections to Johns Creek and Milton.No Alpharetta Alpharetta Forsyth County, Johns Creek, MiltonBP102 1 Big Creek Greenway Connection to Chattahoochee River WalkNo Roswell Roswell AlpharettaBP105 1 Johns Creek Connection to Big Creek GreenwayNo Johns CreekJohns Creek AlpharettaBP106 1 Milton Connection to Big Creek GreenwayNo Milton Milton AlpharettaBP101 1 Big Creek Greenway Connection to Forysth CountyBegin implementation of the critical Big Creek Greenway extensions to both Forsyth County and to the Chattahoochee River Walk. No Alpharetta Alpharetta Forsyth County, Johns Creek, MiltonBP102 1 Big Creek Greenway Connection to Chattahoochee River WalkNo Roswell Roswell AlpharettaNorth Fulton TRIP - Five Year Action PlanProj # Tier Project Name Action Item (5-year) Currently in TIP or RTPSponsor Jurisdiction ChampionCoordinate withBP103 1 Morgan Falls/Power Easement multi-use trailBegin coordination with Cobb County and the City of Dunwoody, developing conceptual designs for potential alignments.No Sandy SpringsSandy SpringsCobb County, Dunwoody- - Establish annual bike / pedestrian budget within the city's capital planning expendituresEstablish annual bike/pedestrian allocation in the transportation budget for any municipality where this does not currently exist.- - All North Fulton Cities-- - Restripe roadways to create bike lanes or wide shouldersRestripe approximately 12 miles of roadway that have excess width for bike lanes or wide shoulders (as noted in this report).- - All North Fulton Cities-- - Implement easy-opportunity bike/pedestrian improvementsAs funding allows, construct bike/ped improvements where minimal grading is required (as noted in this report).- - All North Fulton Cities-- - Include bike/pedestrian amenities on all roadway projectsEnsure bicycle and pedestrian amenities are included on all major roadway improvements, to the degree that they are feasible.- - All North Fulton Cities-Transit Recommendations- MC* Revision of local MARTA routes between activity centersWork with MARTA to discuss changes to the existing local bus routes in North Fulton to better service key activity centers (fi scally constrained).- - All North Fulton Cities-- MC Focus on land use mix and densities around proposed transit stations.Begin discussions among North Fulton Cities and transit providers (MARTA, GRTA) regarding future transit locations and potential transit-oriented development, particularly along GA 400 and the regionally signifi cant corridors. - - All North Fulton CitiesMARTA, GRTAVehicular RecommendationsVH101 1 Capacity Improvements to Abbotts Bridge Road (SR 120)Conduct formal traffi c study and conceptual design to establish operational improvements, right-of-way implications, and to assess public opinion.RTP(fi rst phase)GDOT Johns Creek Gwinnett CountyVH111 1 Capacity Improvements to Kimball Bridge RoadRTP(fi rst phase)GDOT Johns Creek Alpharetta* Multi-County 67 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 68MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS, cont.FIVE YEAR ACTION PLANNorth Fulton TRIP - Five Year Action PlanProj # Tier Project Name Action Item (5-year) Currently in TIP or RTPSponsor Jurisdiction ChampionCoordinate withVH103 1 Capacity Improvements to Arnold Mill Road (SR 140)Conduct formal traffi c study and conceptual design to establish operational improvements, right-of-way implications, and to assess public opinion. Projects can be phased for Right-of-Way acquisition and Construction, but the four projects should be studied in unison because of their interaction with each other. RTP(fi rst phase)GDOT Milton Roswell, Alpharetta, Cherokee CountyVH104 1 Capacity Improvements to Rucker RoadNo Alpharetta Alpharetta Milton, Roswell, Cherokee CountyVH107 1 Capacity Improvements to Hardscrabble RoadNo Roswell Roswell Milton, Alpharetta, Cherokee CountyVH110 1 Capacity Improvements to Houze RoadRTP(fi rst phase)GDOT Roswell Milton, Alpharetta, Cherokee CountyVH105 1 Capacity Improvements to Atlanta Street (SR 9)Complete design, pursue Right-of-Way and Construction phases. TIP (partial)Roswell Roswell -VH108 1Capacity Improvements to McGinnis Ferry RoadWork with GDOT and Forsyth County to advance Preliminary Engineering and Right-of-Way phases. TIP / RTP (fi rst phase)GDOT Alpharetta, Johns CreekForsyth CountyVH109 1 Capacity Improvements to Hammond DriveAdvance Preliminary Engineering and potentially Right-of-Way acquisition. No Sandy SpringsSandy Springs-VH204/VH2052 Improvements to the Holcomb Bridge Road Corridor, including but not limited to interchange redesign, construction of the Big Creek connection, etc. Conduct Holcomb Bridge Road Corridor / GA 400 interchange study to assess recommended improvements to the system along Holcomb Bridge Road between Warsaw Road and Holcomb Woods Parkway.TIP Roswell Roswell -FIVE YEAR ACTION PLANNorth Fulton TRIP - Five Year Action PlanProj # Tier Project Name Action Item (5-year) Currently in TIP or RTPSponsor Jurisdiction ChampionCoordinate withAccess Management Recommendations- - Corridor Studies of 3 regionally signifi cant corridors:Conduct corridor studies of the three regionally signifi cant corridors to determine specifi c recommendations such as medians, frontage or backage roads, interparcel connectivity, driveway consolidation, etc.-- - - - Arnold Mill (SR 140) / Rucker Road / Old Milton Parkway (SR 120) / State Bridge Road No GDOT Milton, Roswell, Alpharetta, Johns CreekCherokee County, Gwinnett County - Holcomb Bridge Road (SR 140) / Crossville Road (SR 92) No GDOT Roswell Johns Creek, Gwinnett County, Cobb County- SR 9 No GDOT Sandy Springs, Roswell, Alpharetta, MiltonCity of Atlanta, Forsyth County- - Develop Overlay Ordinances for 3 regionally signifi cant corridors:In conjunction with studying the three primary corridors, the Cities should jointly develop overlay ordinance language to be used consistently along the corridors.-- - - - Arnold Mill (SR 140) / Rucker Road / Old Milton Parkway (SR 120) / State Bridge Road No Milton, Roswell, Alpharetta, Johns CreekMilton, Roswell, Alpharetta, Johns CreekCherokee County, Gwinnett County - Holcomb Bridge Road (SR 140) / Crossville Road (SR 92) No Roswell Roswell Johns Creek, Gwinnett County, Cobb County - SR 9 No Sandy Springs, Roswell, Alpharetta, MiltonSandy Springs, Roswell, Alpharetta, MiltonCity of Atlanta, Forsyth County 69 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 70MULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS, cont.FIVE YEAR ACTION PLANNorth Fulton TRIP - Five Year Action PlanProj # Tier Project Name Action Item (5-year) Currently in TIP or RTPSponsor Jurisdiction ChampionCoordinate withATMS Recommendations- - ATMS study for all North FultonPerform a concentrated ATMS study to understand existing conditions of the current systems and to develop a plan to develop and to guide future coordination. No (only corridor studies)All North Fulton CitiesAll North Fulton CitiesAdjacent CountiesTransportation Demand Management Recommendations- - Determine level of investment desired for TDM StrategiesSuccessful implementation of TDM strategies will require on-going dedicated staffi ng and resources. Th e Coordination Committee should determine what level of investment the Cities would like to jointly make for TDM implementation.No All North Fulton CitiesAll North Fulton CitiesAll North Fulton Cities- - Select which TDM strategies are appropriate for implementationOnce a level of investment and resources has been established, the Coordinating Committee should implement strategies provided in this report such as:Working with employers to ♦implement teleworking and flex working programs, increase transit ridership, carpooling, walking, and cycling incentives and availabilityWorking with schools to ♦improve school bus ridership, develop schoolpool programs, and improve efficiency of pick-up and drop-off operationsNo All North Fulton CitiesAll North Fulton CitiesNorth Fulton CID, Perimeter CID, Fulton County Schools, Local Private Schools, Local Employers, Clean Air Campaign, RideSmart- - Develop TDM Specifi c 5 year action planA detailed fi ve year action plan should be developed based on availability of resources and programs selected for implementation. Th is program should assign responsibilities and set measurable goals.No All North Fulton CitiesAll North Fulton CitiesNorth Fulton CID, Perimeter CID, Fulton County Schools, Local Private Schools, Local Employers, Clean Air Campaign, RideSmartFIVE YEAR ACTION PLANNorth Fulton TRIP - Five Year Action PlanProj # Tier Project Name Action Item (5-year) Currently in TIP or RTPSponsor Jurisdiction ChampionCoordinate with- - Perform baseline TDM Survey to Measure Program PerformanceBased on programs selected for implementation, existing conditions should be documented using employer and school surveys. Th is will provide necessary information to evaluate program performance and determine which investments have been successful and which programs should be adjusted or eliminated.No All North Fulton CitiesAll North Fulton CitiesNorth Fulton CID, Perimeter CID, Fulton County Schools, Local Private Schools, Local Employers, Clean Air Campaign, RideSmart 71 | TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM | 72North Fulton All Projects Recommended October 2010PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MONITORINGIn 2008, fi ve cities within North Fulton signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to formalize their interest in developing a regionally signifi cant, cross-jurisdictional transportation plan. Th e MOA served as a legally binding agreement, documenting the roles and responsibilities of each of the fi ve Cities, ARC, Mountain Park, and the Community Improvement Districts (CIDs). Because no other formal umbrella organization exists to coordinate these Cities, the MOA was an eff ective tool for organized communication and cooperation. Following the adoption of the North Fulton TRIP by each of the six Cities within North Fulton, it is recommended that a new MOA be developed for the implementation of the plan. ARC is amenable to staying involved and helping to foster communication between the Cities moving forward. Th e recommended MOA, to be developed by the Cities in conjunction with ARC, should address the following provisions and protocols: Committee StructureAssign staff from each of the Cities and ARC to serve on a Coordination Committee (most likely the current members of the ♦Project Management Team)Determine meeting frequencies and types (for example, conference calls once a month with in-person meetings occurring quarterly) ♦Determine whether or not an administrative city needs to be selected as was established in the original MOA and what purpose ♦they would potentially serve Goals of the Coordination CommitteeDetermine protocol for allowing modifications to the adopted CTP by one or more of the Cities ♦Determine how formal decisions will be made by the Mayors and City Councils relative to cross-jurisdictional transportation ♦projects and policies Determine key priorities for advancing projects (using the Action Plan as a guide) ♦Determine teaming between Cities and coordination with other Cities, Counties, CIDs, etc. ♦Set implementation milestones for recommended projects from the CTP that are included in the TIP and RTP ♦Determine funding priorities and new funding opportunities that the Cities can consider jointly ♦Coordinate land use decisions along corridors / boundaries and work together to develop access management overlay districts ♦Coordinate implementation of TDM strategies ♦Coordinate key studies: access management, ATMS, project corridor studies, etc. ♦Initiate transit conversations with MARTA, GRTA, or other relevant operators ♦Coordinate discussions on combined transportation demand management strategies ♦Conduct before / after studies of key corridors to assess the results of implemented projects ♦PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MONITORINGMULTI-COUNTY PROJECTS, cont.PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING | 74APPENDIX TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsBig Creek Greenway Connection to Forysth CountyProject Type:Off-Road Multi-Use TrailProject Description:Connect Big Creek Greenway at Marconi Drive (currently under construction) to Forsyth County’s trail system with off-road multi-use trailCalculated Cost:$10,000,000Notes:Q Route alignment may change depending on constraining factors Q Trail width may vary between 10 and 14 feet TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsBig Creek Greenway Connection to Chattahoochee River WalkProject TypeOn or Off-Road Multi-Use TrailProject Description:Connect Big Creek Greenway to Roswell’s Chattahoochee River Walk along Riverside Drive via existing bike lanes along Old Alabama Road south of Holcomb Bridge Road. Grade separation at Holcomb Bridge Road preferred. Alignment not yet determined. May consist of on or off-road facilities.Calculated Cost:$4,000,000Notes:Q Route alignment may change depending on constraining factors Q Off-road trail width may vary between 10 and 14 feet TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsMorgan Falls/Power Easement Multi-Use TrailProject TypeOn or Off-Road Multi-Use TrailProject Description:Construct a multi-use trail within power line easement from Lower Roswell Road in Cobb County, crossing the Chattahoochee River with a new bridge, through Morgan Falls Park, east to Colquitt Road, north to Pitts Road - Project to link to other on-road bike facilities, including to trails within the City of DunwoodyCalculated Cost:$16,000,000Notes:Q Route alignment may change depending on constraining factors Q Off-road trail width may vary between 10 and 14 feet TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsEast-West Bicycle and Pedestrian FacilityProject TypeOn or Off-Road Multi-Use TrailProject Description:Enhance bike and pedestrian facilities along Riverside Road. Add an on-road multi-use trail (side path) along Eves Road and Holcomb Bridge Road creating a complete east-west bike/pedestrian route through North FultonCalculated Cost:$6,000,000Notes:Q Route alignment may change depending on constraining factors Q Off-road trail width may vary between 10 and 14 feet TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsJohns Creek Connection to Big Creek GreenwayProject TypeOn and Off-Road Multi-Use TrailProject Description:Connect Johns Creek to the Big Creek Greenway with an on-road side path along Webb Bridge Road and with an off-road multi-use trail along an existing power line easementCalculated Cost:$6,000,000Notes:Q Route alignment may change depending on constraining factors Q Off-road trail width may vary between 10 and 14 feet TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsMilton Connection to Big Creek GreenwayJohns Creek Connection to Big Creek GreenwayOn or Off-Road Multi-Use TrailProject Description:Connect Milton to the Big Creek Greenway along Webb Road, Morris Road, McGinnis Ferry Road and through Union Hill Park. Construct as off-road multi-use trail where possible Calculated Cost:$10,000,000Notes:Q Route alignment may change depending on constraining factors Q Off-road trail width may vary between 10 and 14 feet TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsProject Type:Roadway WideningProject Description:Widen to 4 lanes and add median from Parsons Road (east of Medlock Bridge Road) to Peachtree Industrial Boulevard (including bicycle and pedestrian improvements)Calculated Cost:$28,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and buffer may vary Q 5’ bike lanes may be replaced with multi-use sidepath Q Median width may varyAbbotts Bridge Road (SR 120)TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsMain Street/Cumming Highway (SR 9)Project Type:Roadway WideningProject Description:Widen to 4 lanes and add median from Hamby Road in Forsyth County to Academy Street (includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements)Calculated Cost:$119,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and buffer may vary Q 5’ bike lanes may be replaced with multi-use sidepath Q Median width may vary TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsProject Type:Roadway WideningProject Description:Widen to 4 lanes and add median from Cherokee County to Rucker Road (includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements)Calculated Cost:$46,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and buffer may vary Q 5’ bike lanes may be replaced with multi-use sidepath Q Median width may varyArnold Mill Road (SR 140)TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsHouze Road (SR 140) and Rucker RoadProject Type:Operational/Access ImprovementsProject Description:Enhance Rucker Road to become a divided two-lane cross-section with a grass swale median and turn lanes from Hardscrabble Road to Wills Road. Enhance Houze Road (SR 140) to become a divided two-lane cross-section with a grass swale median and turn lanes from Rucker Road to Mansell Road. These improvements should be implemented prior to the widening of Arnold Mill (SR 140). Includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements.Calculated Cost:$36,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and buffer may varyQ 5’ bike lanes may be replaced with multi-use sidepath Q Median width may vary TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsAtlanta Street (SR 9)Project Type:Roadway WideningProject Description:Remove reversible lanes from Marietta Highway to Riverside Road/Azalea Drive and widen to 4 lanes; Includes 2 roundabouts (at Jones Drive and King Street/Chattahoochee Street)Calcualted Cost:$12,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and buffer may vary Q Bike facilities provided will vary based on right-of-way constraints Q Median width may varyQ Does not include new bridge at Vickery Creek or grade separation of intersection with Riverside Road/Azalea Drive)TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsWindward ParkwayProject Type:Roadway WideningProject Description:Widen to 6 lanes from Deerfield Parkway to Union Hill Road (includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements)Calculated Cost:$40,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and buffer may vary Q 5’ bike lanes may be replaced with multi-use sidepath Q Median width may vary TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsHardscrabble RoadProject Type:Operational/Access ImprovementsProject Description:Enhance facility to become a divided two-lane cross-section with a grass swale median and turn lanes from SR 92 to Crabapple Road (includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements)Calculated Cost:$16,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and 5’ buffer may vary Q Potential 10’ sidepath on one side Q 5’ bike lanes may be excluded in lieu of sidepathTIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsProject Type:Roadway WideningProject Description:Widen to 4 lanes and add median from Union Hill Road to Sargent Road (includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements)Calculated Cost:$57,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and buffer may vary Q 5’ bike lanes may be replaced with multi-use sidepath Q Median width may varyMcGinnis Ferry Road TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsProject Type:Roadway WideningProject Description:Widen to 4 lanes from Roswell Road (SR 9) to Glenridge Drive and widen to 6 lanes from GA 400 to the DeKalb County border. Install bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides where widening occurs. Infill gaps in existing sidewalk from Mount Vernon Highway to Roswell Road (SR 9) and Glenridge Drive to GA 400 to create a continuous sidewalk network.Calculated Cost:$29,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and buffer may vary Q 5’ bike lanes may be replaced with multi-use sidepath Q Median width may varyHammond DriveTIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsKimball Bridge Road (SR 120)Project Type:Roadway WideningProject Description:Widen to 4 lanes and add median from Old Milton Parkway (SR 120) to Jones Bridge Road (includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements)Calculated Cost:$21,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and buffer may vary Q 5’ bike lanes may be replaced with multi-use sidepath Q Median width may vary TIER 1 PROJECT FACT SHEETNorth FultonTRANSPORTATION RESOURCEIMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMQ AlpharettaQ Johns CreekQ MiltonQ Atlanta Regional CommissionQKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Q Mountain ParkQ RoswellQ Sandy SpringsProject Type:Roadway WideningProject Description:Widen to 4 lanes from Taylor Road to Douglas Road (includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements)Calculated Cost:$28,000,000Notes:Q 5’ sidewalk and buffer may vary Q 5’ bike lanes may be replaced with multi-use sidepath Q Median width may varyJones Bridge Road STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE NORTH FULTON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Council of the City of Milton hereby resolves while in regular session on the 18th day of October, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. as follows: WHEREAS, the North Fulton County Cities of Milton, Alpharetta, Johns Creek, Mountain Park, Roswell, and Sandy Springs (the “Cities”) in 2008 entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for The Development of a North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan (the “MOA”); and, WHEREAS, Section 3.5 of the MOA requires that at least four (4) of the Cities, by resolution, accept “the draft report” resulting from the MOA; and, WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed and recommend acceptance of the draft report, in the form of the North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan, as summarized by the Transportation Resource Implementation Program (the “TRIP”) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “A.” NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILTON that the North Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan, as summarized by the TRIP attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” is hereby adopted and accepted; and be it further RESOLVED, that all resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed; and be it further RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption this 18th day of October, 2010. Approved: ____________________________ Mayor Attest: _____________________________ Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk (Seal) 10/07/2010 04:04 7704798524 HAYNES LUMBER CO PAGE 04 AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF REALTY THIS AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF REALTY (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this day of October, 2010, by and between the CITY OF MILTON, GEORGIA, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia (the "Buyer"), and WOODEN CROSS INVESTMENTS, LLC(referred to herein as "Seller"), AGREEMENT 1. The Buyer agrees to buy, and the Seller agrees to sell, all that tract of land described as 13690 Highway 9, Milton, Fulton County, Georgia, and containing a total of 4.89 acres, more or less; and including all structures, fixtures and appurtenances attached thereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). 2. Purcbase Price. The purchase price for the Property shall be One Million Three Hundred Ninety -Six Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,396,000.00) to be paid at closing. 3. Marketable Title. Seller agrees to furnish good, insurable, and marketable title to the Property. For the purposes of this Agreement, "good, insurable, and marketable title" shall mean fee simple ownership which is: (i) free from all claims, liens, and monetary encumbrances of any kind or nature whatsoever other than the Permitted Exceptions; (ii) insurable by a reputable title insurance company at then -current standard rates under the standard form of ATLA owner's policy of title insurance with all standard or printed exceptions therein deleted and without exception other than for permitted exceptions expressly agreed to in writing by Buyer. The Property is sold subject only to the valid and agreed upon exceptions to title disclosed to the Buyer as of the date of closing and as presented in accordance with this Agreement. 10/07/2010 04:04 7704798524 HAYNES LUMBER CO PAGE 05 4. Earnest Mona. Buyer, within 5 days of the binding agreement date shall deposit with escrow agent, Boling, Rice, Martin Attorneys, an amount equal to 5% (five percent) of the purchase price in earnest money which is $68,900 (sixty eight thousand nine hundred dollars and zero cents). This earnest money shall be applied as part payment of the purchase price of the Property at the time of closing, and in the event the sale is not closed, then in that event the earnest money may be retained by the Sellers, excepting if the Sellers breach this Agreement or as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 5. Inspection Period. Buyer shall have ninety (90) days after the date of this Agreement (the "Inspection Period") to inspect the Property, and during the Inspection Period Buyer may terminate this Agreement either for any reason or for no reason at all. +h..t tnt ;a ntov t}dv A,TrPPt i Anrinn thn Tnc ,t;.. DAri..A Phwpehall hP Pnt;tlnA t.. a -- Termination following the Inspection Period, but prior to closing shall result in the earnest money being retained by Sellers. 6. Due Diligence. Buyer shall procure, at Buyer's cost, a written title opinion establishing that title to the Property is good, insurable, and marketable, and vested in Seller. Buyer, atter examining said title opinion, shall notify Sellers of any defects or unacceptable exceptions thereto at least five (5) days prior to closing. All issues as to title defects and/or unacceptable exceptions to title shall be satisfactorily resolved by Seller prior to closing. It is agreed that such papers that may be legally necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement shall be executed and delivered by the parties prior to closing. If the Buyer shall decline to accept the Property due to a title defect or other exception to title, then this Agreement shall be null and void, whereupon the parties hereto shall have no further rights, duties, obligations, or liabilities to one another hereunder. 2 10/07/2010 04:04 7704798524 HAYNES LUMBER CO PAGE 06 7. Warranty. The Seller hereby affirmatively warrants that it has no actual knowledge of any latent or patent physical condition(s), hazards(s) or feature(s) of, on or below the Property that will in any material way impede with or frustrate the reasonable use of the Property by Buyer. Moreover, the Seller further warrants that it has no knowledge of any condemnation or compelled acquisition of all or any part of the Property by any entity. S. Public Hearing. Prior to closing on the Property, the Seller acknowledges that the Buyer may hold a public hearing with respect to this purchase wherein the details of said purchase may be revealed in an open forum. 9. Closing Date. A closing shall be conducted no later than thirty (30) days after the end of the Inspection Period. At the closing, the Seller shall deliver to the Buyer a Warranty Deed to the Property conveying good, insurable, and marketable title to the Property, and all mineral rights, with the hereditaments and appurtenances, to the Buyer and its assigns, in fee simple, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, or exceptions on all or any pan of the Property, except for easements, restrictions, and other exceptions of record, together with all right, title, and interest of the Sellers in and to the Property. Buyer during the Inspection Period may procure, at its own expense, a survey that specifically sets forth the metes and bounds of the Property, and such survey shall provide the legal description of the Property to be used in the Warranty Deed. 10. Taxes. All taxes, assessments, and encumbrances which are a lien against the Property and are due and payable at the time of conveyance to the Buyer shall be satisfied of record by the Seller at or before the transfer of title. Real estate taxes which are a lien (but are not yet due and payable) will be prorated as of the date of closing. The Seller will pay the ki 10/07/2010 04:04 7704798524 HAYNES LUMBER CO PAGE 07 documentary revenue stamp tax or transfer, conveyance or recordation tax, assessment or charge, if any. 11. Risk of Loss. All risk of loss or damage to the property will pass from the Seller to the Buyer at closing. In the event that loss or damage occurs to the Property prior to closing, the Buyer may, without liability, refuse to accept the conveyance of title and receive a full refund - •, or it alternatively may elect to accept the conveyance of title to the Property "AS IS." The Seller shall deliver possession of the Property to the Buyer at the time of closing. 12_ Right of Entry. The Buyer may enter upon the Property at reasonable times for surveying and other reasonable purposes related to this transaction from the date of execution of this Agreement, through and including the time of delivery of possession of the Property to the Buyer by the Seller. The Buyer's entry upon the property in accordance with the paragraph shall be undertaken in such a manner so as to not unreasonably interfere with Seller's ongoing Operations or in such a manner as would do permanent or long-term damage to the Property. 13. Preservation of Property. The Seller agrees that the Property shall remain as it now is until the delivery of possession of the Property by the Seller to the Buyer, and that the Seller will prevent and refrain from any use of the Property for any purpose or in any manner which would adversely affect the Buyer's use and enjoyment of the Property in the future. In the event of such actions, the Buyer may, without liability, refuse to accept the conveyance of title gra r__v:. rm ren, a f.r� oa.,ncr or the Buyer alternatively may elect to accept conveyance of title to the property. 14. Specific Performance. The parties agree that in the event of a breach hereof by the Seller (i.e. the refusal to execute the deed at closing or to deliver possession of the Property to the Buyer at the appointed time), damages will be inadequate, and therefore the court having 4 10/07/2010 04:04 7704798524 HAYNES LUMBER CO PAGE 08 jurisdiction herein may award the Buyer specific performance in lieu of damages or any other remedies allowed by law and the remedy of specific performance shall be Buyer's sole and exclusive remedy. 15. Binding Effect. The agreements set forth herein are to apply to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, personal representatives and assigns of the Seller. 16. Final Agreement. This Agreement terminates and supersedes all prior understandings or agreements on the subject matter hereof This Agreement may be modified only by a further writing that is duly executed by both parties. 17. Severability- If any paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or any portion of this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction or if the provisions of any part of this Agreement as applied to any particular situation or set of circumstances shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity shall not be construed to affect the portions of this Agreement not held to be invalid. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the parties to provide for separable and divisible parts, and they do hereby adopt any and all parts hereof as may not be held invalid for any reason. 18. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed, construed and interpreted by, through and under the Laws of the State of Georgia, without giving effect to its conflicts of laws principles. 19. Commission. Seller shall pay a commission to broker, Capital Realty Advisors, LLC, as per a separate agreement dated August 28, 2009, duly executed by seller and broker. Buyer hereby acknowledges that Buyer shall be responsible for any brokerage fees due any other broker, if any, as a result of this transaction, and Capital Realty Advisors, LLC shall not pay and 5 10/07/2010 04:04 7704798524 HAYNES LUMBER CO PAGE 09 shall not be responsible for co -brokerage fees or referrals with any other licensed agent or licensed broker. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF REALTY as of the day and year first above written. Dy& SELLER: ::`^C.K N CROSS INVESTMENTS. LLC By: [AFFIX SEAL] 1.104 71t4 CITY OF NULTON, GEORGIA 6 Mayor [CITY SEAL]