HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - DRB - 01-05-2010
Deerfield Professional Centre 13000 Deerfield Parkway Building 100, Suite 107 E Milton, GA 30004
ACTION REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
JANUARY 5, 2010
6:00PM
1) Call to order and Pledge
2) Introduction of Board Members
Members present: Morty Rallapalli, Jim Brown, Terry Herr, Vince Pizano, Kathi
Cook
3) Approval of December action minutes
Motion to approve, Kathi Cook
2nd, Terry Herr
Motion approved—5-0
4) Courtesy Review: V09-017, 5304 Windward Parkway, Stonewalk at Windward,
Robert Forrest
Request(s):
To allow light poles to exceed the maximum allowable pole height
To allow shoe box style lighting fixtures
Comments:
o GA Power installed light poles; Light poles are new.
o The Board states that the light poles should match Highway 9 requirements
5) Courtesy review: V09-018, Philips generator addition, 13560 Morris Road,
Gail Malone
Request: To allow a non residential building addition to use pre-cast concrete on
more than 75% of the exterior
Comments:
o Old Alltell Building
o The Board states that using masonry would be ridiculous and unsightly,
especially because of the size.
o The Board supports a revision to the Highway 9 Overlay District to include
concrete structures.
6) Courtesy review: RZ09-005, Commercial building, 12645 Birmingham Hwy, Will Stolz
Request: To rezone from C-1 (Community Business) to C-1 (Community Business)
to change the use from an antique store to general commercial uses (salon)
within the existing structure.
Comments:
o Everything is staying the same in front; will be adding gravel to back to meet
parking requirement. No trees will be removed. Building will be repainted.
o Board has no real issues from an architectural view point.
7) Courtesy review: U09-003-5, Cell towers, Julie Corum
Board/Applicant comments:
o The Board stated that their purpose is to examine the aesthetic aspects of
the proposed towers; land use/location is not for them to decide.
o The applicant states that the tower will be a standard grey tower, as this is
the best option for blending in. The Board states that they preferred this to
the fake tree option.
o Applicant states that they are willing to meet City standards in terms of
fencing. They are willing to remove the roll of barbed wire topping the chain
link fencing.
o Board inquired as to whether the Applicant would be able to screen the cell
tower compound that is adjacent to the power easement (New
Providence). The applicant states that the compound is at least 15’ away
from the easement, and that the existing trees will remain.
o Board informed the applicant that the trees used to screen the compound
had to be a mix of evergreens that would provide screening in one year;
Leylands are not allowed according to the Ordinance.
o Only towers above 200’ or within are required to be lit.
o Stealth products include: light pole, flag pole, mono pine.
o The Board reminded the residents that the Board has the responsibility to
protect the Code, and therefore the applicant. They ask the public to help
by providing as much information as possible.
o A balloon test has been flown; applicant has pictures taken from 20 different
locations. These pictures would be on display at the CZIM meeting
scheduled for Thursday, January 7th at 7:00pm.
o There appears to be a Code disconnect. The Code states that a tower
“buried far from the ROW is better.” Did not anticipate that homes would be
so nearby.
Public comments:
The cell tower is a commercial use; not appropriate for rural, residential area.
Should be on commercial property.
The tower would ruin the land value of the surrounding area.
The tower would be an eyesore. This is not for the good of the community;
not in the spirit of what the City was dreamed of.
The residents would like to explore options for tower camouflage.
The applicant should look into other collocate options first.
Does the code require a propagation study to access the need for more
towers? (This is included in the submitted documents).
Resident expressed his frustration and displeasure with the process.
Resident stated that his house was 327’ from Mountain Road; trees less than
100’ tall. Feels that this location was not a good choice for a cell tower.
It is important for the Council/Board to visit the sites before they made any
decisions.
Residents asked if Board considered areas that are highly populated as
undesirable for cell towers. (Board reminded her that their prevue is limited to
aesthetics.)
It is incumbent upon Board to understand the unique requirement of the
Milton rural community.
Resident asked if a fall zone analyses is required. (Towers are designed to
collapse within itself.)
Resident is concerned about environment impact of tower, especially the
poisoning of the spring fed pond if the tower was to fall.
8) Other business--None
9) Adjournment