May 25, 2018

Citizens, after the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday and careful consideration, I can no longer support the use permit and variances requested for the northwest corner of Birmingham Crossroads.  Previously, I enthusiastically supported the developer’s proposal, subject to the imposition of certain conditions, including 3-year renewal (required by code) and submission of a parking plan.  However, at Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting, the developer’s proposal morphed into a radically different project that could cause significant and permanent harm to our community.  The Planning Commission caved to all the developer’s demands and shockingly gave the developer even more than he was seeking.  I will be blogging more about the outcome of the Planning Commission meeting over the next few weeks.  However, following is a synopsis of the Planning Commission’s recommendations . . . details to follow in subsequent blog posts.  Fortunately, the Planning Commission’s recommendations are exactly that . . . recommendations.  City Council is the ultimate decision-maker.

• Recommendation #1: Grant a use permit in perpetuity.  Following existing zoning laws, staff recommended renewal after 3 years as an essential protection for the community.  Even the developer indicated that he would be fine with a renewal period and indicated to me that he would accept 5 years.  The Planning Commission Chairman cited hardship as the reason for the perpetual use permit, an argument even the applicant did not make and which is prima facie  ridiculous.  A perpetual use permit provides citizens no recourse if the music venue has a negative impact on the community.  We are stuck with it forever.
• Recommendation #2: Increase the attendance cap from 200 to 300 patrons.  This recommendation was based on an outlier (self-reported) of 275 patrons at one concert.  The typical Matilda’s audience is 100 to 200 patrons, with a median of 150 patrons.  So a 50% bonus was gifted based on an aberration in attendance.
• Recommendation #3: No parking conditions should be imposed; no parking plan should be required.  Staff calculated that the venue could park around 108 vehicles.  The future restaurant (93 seats) at Wilbur and Rudy’s will likely require all of the gravel lot spots (44 in total) for customers and staff, leaving only 64 spots for 300+ concertgoers and venue staff.  Clearly, there would be a shortage of parking, necessitating illegal, overflow parking in the private parking lots east and south of the venue, with concert-goers navigating (on foot) an intersection that lacks even basic pedestrian safety measures.  And are the businesses on the northeast corner going to readily accept concertgoers jamming into parking lots reserved for their paying customers?  I doubt it!  And are the tenants in the office park on the southwest corner going to accept the liability for parkers?
• Recommendation #4: Allow concerts on both Friday AND Saturday nights on the same weekend.  Staff had recommended limiting concerts to either Friday OR Saturday night.  The applicant did not even ask for this concession; rather it was freely gifted to him by the Commission.
• Recommendation #5: Extend the concert season by 1 month.  Matilda’s concert season has been presented as extending from May to October, with a concert sometimes occurring in very late April and/or very early November, weather permitting.  The Planning Commission recommended a season extending from April 1^st to October 31st.
• Recommendation #6:  Cap concerts at 6 per month.  Combined with the 7-month season, this implies up to 42 concerts per year.  Contrast this with 26-27 concerts that would result from Matilda’s normal 6-month season combined with staff’s recommendation to limit concerts to one per weekend.  Or better yet, contrast it with the developer’s statement that a normal concert season entails around 20 concerts.  So the Planning Commission effectively provided the developer with a 100% bonus in the number of concerts.
• Recommendation #7: Do not tie the variances to the use permit.  The variances, such as reduction of the buffer, increase the value of the property.  These variances are needed for the music venue.  Accordingly, they should be tied to the use permit and expire when the use permit expires.  To do otherwise unjustly enriches the developer at the expense of the community.  Furthermore, it creates legal precedent that might disadvantage the City in future legal actions.
• Recommendation #8: Delete ceding of (400 square feet of) right-of-way at intersection for (desperately needed) intersection improvements.  The Commission Chairman asserted this was a taking.  However, ceding such ROW is a relatively common practice:  consideration for the granting of a use permit—a kind of “favor” from the City government.
• Recommendation #9: Do not conduct a traffic study.  Clearly, Matilda’s will have a significant impact on local traffic.  Nevertheless, a traffic study was not recommended.  Rather, the City’s stance is that a traffic study might be conducted if problems arise—i.e., the City would rather be reactive than proactive in anticipating and solving potential traffic issues.  No surprise here . . . we are perpetually and woefully behind in making improvements to our roads.
• Recommendation #10: Do not study pedestrian safety or otherwise improve pedestrian safety at the intersection.  The Crossroads is currently not safely configured for patrons that might traverse the intersection to/from overflow parking, to get food at the Northeast corner, etc.  There are no crosswalks, pedestrian signage, or other pedestrian safety features.  The City should conduct a study to identify needed pedestrian safety improvements to the Crossroads intersection and implement resulting recommendations.
• Recommendation #11.  Apply City’s noise ordinance (rather than the more restrictive festival ordinance) to Matilda’s.  The noise ordinance allows noise from a commercial area at a maximum of 85 decibels at the property line.  Compare this to the 83 decibels generated at a distance of 100 feet by a freight train travelling at 45 mph.  Continuous exposure to noise at just 85 decibels over an 8 hour period can cause possible permanent hearing damage.  So it is fair to say that the City’s noise ordinance is probably not the best standard to apply to this venue, which would be located in the most rural and quietest area of Milton.

The recommendations of the Planning Commission could result in a nearly 5 times increase in concertgoers compared to Matilda’s current attendance.   On peak nights, it is certain that some restaurant/Matilda’s patrons would have to park elsewhere . . . along the road and in private parking lots.  And worst of all, a perpetual use permit means we will be forever stuck with this situation and whatever unintended consequences (e.g., a pedestrian fatality) might result from these recommendations.  And forever is a long time.  

The proposal to move Matilda’s to the Crossroads was originally presented to the Community as altruistically preserving a quaint and quirky, mom-and-pop music venue that was soon to be homeless.  The parameters of Alpharetta Matilda’s (e.g., number of concerts, season length) would be replicated in Milton.  The developer stated that his proposal is not about the money.  I bought into this idea.  However, the many and significant concessions made to the developer by the Planning Commission have made me increasingly question the intent of this project.  It seems Matilda’s is morphing from a hip and intimate music venue to a significant commercial music venture that is mostly about money.  A bait-and-switch of sorts.  And that is why I am now in opposition to the developer’s proposal.  Perhaps, it is still possible to create a cool and laid-back music venue at the Crossroads that provides strong protections for the community.  However, I am increasingly skeptical about achieving such an outcome.  Citizens, please keep engaged on this issue.  Done wrong, this project could inflict major and irrevocable harm to our beloved Crossroads.

In the past, I have been effusive in my praise for the Planning Commission.  Traditionally, the Planning Commission has been diligent in protecting our community.  You could always count on the Planning Commission to further strengthen and to supplement the conditions of staff, particularly on commercial developments.  Unfortunately, in this matter of the northwest corner, the Planning Commission severely diluted staff’s recommendations and significantly reduced protections for the community.  Why did the Planning Commission make a 180 degree course reversal on Matilda’s?  Well, like so much that happens in our City government, there’s a back story . . . and it ain’t pretty.  Stay tuned.  🙂

Advocating For Citizens,

Tim Becker