City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone. We are excited to host um the first of several public input meetings on uh the challenges and opportunities related to AG1 lots. Um I'm Tracy Wilds. I'm the deputy director at community development. And um we've got our director, community development director, S uh Sarah Leers. Um so Sarah, I'll turn it over to you to sort of introduce the format.

All right. Yes. Thank you again for for coming out and the most important part of this forum is to hear from you all uh related to AG1 development um the patterns you're seeing concerns and we really want to hear from you but to set the stage we're going to talk a little bit just very briefly we've got about five slides should take less than less than 10 minutes to to talk about some of the data that we shared with city council on February 9th. So that's kind of started this process of looking at what opportunities there may be for for improvements to our processes and to some of our standards. So with that we we'll have this again very brief uh presentation to kind of set the stage for what what data we've collected and then we'd like to hear from from everyone. We'll have a um somewhat of a moderated uh public comment opportunity. So we'd like to hear from everyone. We we would ask that that we pass around a wireless microphone so that we can capture your comments and um just again this is about hearing hearing your input related to AG1. Yeah, we can move this. So when when coun mayor and council asked us to look holistically at AG1 lots staff began doing research and what we found is that the building trends the core the core concern what's driving the problem is that the building trends are challenging development standards on

smaller AG1 lots. So, that's truly the the the main issue, the the core issue. Today's building trends, larger homes, amenities, and more site improvements are pushing the limits of existing development standards on smaller lots. You may say, why does this matter? Well, as lots get tighter, it becomes harder to meet the setbacks, the lot coverage, and other standards that are potentially conflict with our rural character that was envisioned in the 2040 comprehensive plan. So, what we think is driving it is bigger homes, more amenities on the same or smaller pieces of land. We've identified on the screen here our 1x problem and that is our 1x problem but we have an amplifier of that. We've identified it as a 5x problem. But what's growing that problem is minor plats that are under three acres in size and less than three lots total can be created through the minor plat process with little develop development review upfront. So the result of that is that development issues are caught ar are not caught up front. Instead they surf surface later in the review process and at the building permit when options are limited and the impacts are harder to manage. So the bottom line is that the the minor plat process is quick and it's easy with limited upfront review making issues harder to correct and later enable more smaller lots which is amplifying the root cause. Next slide please. So in our 2040 comprehensive plan, the map on the right side of the screen highlights central Milton, which is our

larger AG1 area. And in this central milton area, we maintain and enforce a rural viewshed which has been able to create a uniform overall view along the corridor. um and it matches the alignment with our vision in the 2040 comprehensive plan. The building trends of today are potentially in conflict with that vision. In preparation for again that February 9th council discussion, staff started compiling some of the building trend data. And so we looked at the last five years 2021 to 2025 and really focused on the AG1 lots and at the point where the certificate of occupancy or the CO was issued. And these were some of the takeaways from looking at that 5 years worth of data that the 1 to one and a half acre lots are the ones that that were experiencing the challenges with setbacks with lot coverage. Over those five years we looked at average footprint. So that's the house, the garage, and the porch. anything kind of covered by a roof. And we found that that that size had been increasing year-over-year. And in addition to that, the average as well as the median of lot sizes. So the the size of the lots where those new new homes were constructed are actually decreasing year-over-year. From the lot coverage standpoint, we looked at kind of plotting every point that that was a um one of those new homes that were constructed. Again, looked at that year-over-year. And the the trend we found related to lot coverage was really that that initial build, the amount of the lot that was covered by the home as well as some of the amenities at the time of the certificate occupancy

was was higher than the previous year. So we saw that floor that kind of bottom level of lot coverage had been increasing. Another thing we found related to lot coverage is there there could be a difference between what was shown on the approved plan for the house and the amenities and then what was um ultimately built out. Some other trends that we we highlighted as part of that presentation were some concerns that we've heard as a department from new homeowners, ones that are wanting to do improvements, but they're already maxed out at their lot coverage requirement, concerns from adjacent neighbors related to how close construction's occurring to their existing homes, as well as concerns for the rural view. Then one final trend is is variances. And the main thing we've seen here is that while the number that go to the board of zoning appeals or or to council as part of a a larger um grouping of homes that were seeking a variance, there's there's a lot that's underneath the surface that that the public data may not represent. all the inquiries that staff gets related to again that lot coverage is the primary concern here. So looking to find alternate solutions with pvious pavers um things that may not get built to plan um a homeowner that may just move on without doing the project. And again those those inquiries so the so minor plat um minor plat compared to lot development um staff is finding is a little bit backward. First of all with a minor plat the lot first comes first the function comes later. In the graphic on the on the slides in the lower leftand corner you will see the

minor plat that's being evaluated and that focuses on the lot size access to the lot and the location of the property lines. However, on the left side in the graphic, um the site capacity, what's able to fit on the lot, um access to the lot with driveways, um that's all done during the building during the building development permits process stage. So, upfront, we're not doing the amount of due diligence from a review standpoint on the site that we are when it be when it comes to lot development. Um, so again, the best analogy that I can use is if you're buying a house or you're moving into a new house, you buy all the furniture for the house before you actually see the sizes of the rooms. So, it's a little bit it's it's a it's backwards in that thought process. So we have started looking at some initial opportunities, things we can look at related to the the site capacity, the the wants and needs of of future construction to better influence lot size and then ultimately better outcome. Um we've can started looking at those. We've introduced a few as part of the council discussion, but really what we want to hear from you on is is related to those trends, related to concerns you have. and just wanted to open the floor to to have more discussion on what what um you all see as residents, property owners. And uh that so that concludes our our presentation. Um we're not this isn't structured so much as a question answer. Of course, we can we can write down any additional information that comes up, but we really want to to hear your thoughts and and opinions as we uh move forward with looking at future opportunities. So, with that, um

Tammy, did you have a thought on how we we call if call for volunteers of who'd like to speak first or what were you thinking on moderating the discussion. Okay. Yes. In fact, um I have the wireless mic. So, Okay. Perfect.

All right. Such a small group. I am going to kind of start here on the side and if you would like to speak. Does anyone here have a question here? Any questions? Test test testing.

Um, it's not exactly input. I'm just uh more trying to figure out where you guys are. You have a moratorum in place and you got another process of maybe changing the rules and setbacks and whatnot. So I just was curious more about what the process is that's going on right now. So while the moratorum is is underway and it was extended so that we could look at some potential code amendments. And so the first thing we're we're looking at is the process for those minor plats. And then we we have some ideas for some other opportunities. And we're going to actually start with planning commission tonight to to get an idea of if there's any of those other opportunities that that may be able to to move along the same tract as the the minor plat process amendments. Um, and there there's going to be some opportunities that are just going to take longer to vet and to to look more at the data and to come up with with recommendations. So, that's where we are. We kind of have two tracks going um for potential amendments. Um, one is the the process, the minor platility, and the other is larger larger standards for lot development. So, we want to look for any any overlap for maybe some that are are easier to um to quantify and qualify and to move along. So, that's that's kind of where the process is that we're going to start with planning commission tonight. We're going to have another one of these public input sessions and then we'll have a community zoning information meeting in the plan is to have that in March and then have um the the amendments actually proposed

before planning commission in March. So, we've got a a month to kind of gather additional data and work through potential amendments. April 13th. I first I want to say thank you for taking the time, council and staff, to look at this. This is very important for the future of Milton. So, I really appreciate that kind of step back and let's see what we can do. My first question is what is a onex versus a 5x on that slide? I didn't I didn't get that. It

you know it was graphically it was just a meant meant to represent what the root cause the smaller problem is versus what's amplifying the bigger problem. Okay. Okay. So, it doesn't it does not they don't have any Okay. Um,

I've been confused a little bit just in general if the rules that we have for setbacks if they apply to like a single home. I mean, they do obviously, but if it's a different rule for someone building a single home on a road or in a community versus a community that is three or more, are is it the exact same setback everything for that for a one home versus a three or more? So, the setbacks are the same. So, AG1 setbacks are 60 foot front, 50 rear, and 25 foot side. And that's in the code. That's the default setbacks for an independent standalone lot versus

wonderful common developments. That's correct.

Um, one of the things that I know you all are thinking about is when you have a home that is 50 feet from the street, but it's a smaller home. It's one level. It's maybe recessed a little bit. It's not it's not as visible from the street. And so you still get a lot of the viewshed behind. When you have a large home, maybe it's at the same distance, but because of the ratio, that house is so big, you lose any of that viewshed. So if that's being considered when you're looking at this, it's not I don't think it's a one-sizefits-all where you can say this size house and this little house can both be 50 foot setback. So just something to consider on that. Um, and then maybe looking at with a oneacre versus a two or three, what it seemed like on a oneacre is that people are fitting everything they possibly can. And even though we have a 20 or 25% pvious um standard, some of the things that they're putting on there don't get included in that. So you could have all kinds of things on your property, lose all the viewshed, the neighbors lose the lovely trees or that viewshed as well. So is there maybe the real root thing here is that one acre to one and a half versus the two three acre. I don't know. Um and then let's see that might be it. And I I think you're going on the right track with the minor plat process that that should not it should go to everything goes under the same process because it's just so much heartache for the people building for you guys. It just seems to make a lot more sense to have that same process where everything is vetted ahead to avoid further issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next.

So, sorry I'm going to be long-winded. Um I think Okay. So, um I'm going to just go through uh the gamut of things that I have, uh gone over in my mind since I attended the council meeting and I'm going to be maybe focusing on solutions to what I see as people are perceiving as the problem. So, I'm going to start out. So, a minor plaque can only divide properties that have never been divided previously in Fulton County or the city of Milton via the minor pro process. So, and also you're capped at three lots. So we're only I guess iding the real problem children as the 1acre lots. So only parcels of land that have never been subdivided previously this way being 3.00 acres or 2.00 acres being a two lot division or a three lot division. So if you've got six acres and you're dividing through the minor plat you're only going to get three lots. So you're going to get two acre lots or 1.5 and 2.2. So we're really dealing with a very small segment of available land in Milton. But the people that own that land, it's very important to them that they not have a devaluation of that property. So I think you know it's always easy to be concerned about when you ride up and down the road but if you're you know

that is someone's probably in this area someone's retirement plan um that you're if you uh come in and change the rules for devaluation. So, um, we're capped at 20% impervious or lock coverage, uh, per the existing code. A big fix would be to require at CO an asbelt survey that demonstrates that they're compliant. So, that should be public policy number one. I'm not trying to create more work for myself, but how can you create rules if you have no policing action to know if you're you're compliant? Um, and you know, there is the 20 versus 25% rule. Minor plats dictate that they that they all minor plats must adhere to the 20% rule as opposed to the 25% rule. So 80% of the lot is going to be uncovered. Um so these acre lots or these newly created lots are going to have to accommodate the new imperous lot coverage. It's also going to have to in its design criteria and the very first thing it's going to have to do is have health department approval and demonstrate that 30,000 square feet of usable suitable soil is on this lot via a level three soil survey. So all of the if any tracks have stream buffers or rocky or steep slopes that's not

considered in there. So that's a beginning factor to increase the lot size before it even gets to the city of Milton. All right. Secondarily on that lost train of thought there just for a second. Um, so the if you're capped at 20% uh impervious, 80% open area and you police that also to kind of alleviate a headache down the road on the face of that document, the final plat. So, anybody that buys a piece of property, they're going to have a deed and it's going to reference that the property they're purchasing is lot one, two, or three of minor plat as recorded Fulton County Records Plat book X page, you know, ABC. on the face of that minor plat. Each lot should have a a box that indicates the allowable impervious area lot coverage on it point blank. So when someone comes in after they've purchased the lot and said, "I had no idea I couldn't do that." And I'm sure you're not all as well verssed in Latin as I, but caveat mtor buyer beware. you've that is I'm sorry you should have known when you were buying this lot what you needed to know and that is you're capped at 8,900 uh square feet of lot coverage that includes your house build footprint your all your um paving driveways turnarounds um sidewalks unless they've gone through

a, you know, a real stickler for pvious paving the pool, the pool deck, anything that's considered in lock coverage that so a lot of it is self-p policing. Um, if we make the public aware, so um, also you're talking about the process. I get it, but it's not feasible. 99% of the minor plats that I've ever done were created before a buyer was in mind. And that is just the way that system works. So if you don't have a buyer in mind and you don't have a product in mind because there's a lot of difference in each of the footprints in Milton. I just as much as you know the process is in place to review. So by the time the minor plat is issued a building permit, it basically goes through the same process as a major plat. It's just a different scenario because a major plat 99% of the time is a development community has organized and they know what they're going to build on each lot. The minor platypically someone is either stage of life they're moving existing house or they're keeping their house and they're cutting off a lot or two to sell. So you don't have an end buyer at the creation of the lot. So I don't see how we can reverse the process if I don't know what's going to be put on the project. To me with the stating on the

face of the lot the allowable imperous area will remedy 95% of that problem. All right. Um view shed. So right now, Major Platt's division of property, any lot that fronts on an existing public street has a 60oot rural view shed. And the way it's enacted is is that's a no touch zone. Those lots are constructed off of an interior street and this is off backyard. Minor plats are going to be facing an existing street with a driveway coming off that street and a front yard that's going to abut that street with a 60 ft front building lot. Anyone that's ever been in the construction business knows that digging of basements and constructing that house is going to severely impact any of the trees located in that 60-foot zone. A lot of those pre-existing 60-foot areas are lawns or of existing houses or pastures. If we're trying to uh negate the the impact of the new house bill, would it might be smarter for the city to come up with a standard planting plan for that 60-foot strip, a portion of that um that would you can plant trees after the build and bushes and they will survive. But if I'm digging a basement at the 61 ft off the front building setback line, I'm going to impact critical root zone, structural root zones of everything pre-existing in that area. So looking

for a solution, I think it would be better to plan that front line um or that impact zone for a planning plan that the city arborist in conjunct I'm sure there are some landscape companies and landscape architects in the city that would volunteer their time to come up with a mix of overstory, understory, midstory trees, um a mix of hardwoods and evergreen shrubs. clubs that would create a a nice um viewcape but not just a single line of Leland Cyprus. Um uh I'm sure I will probably come back. I just think the rules we have in place are such that with a few nips and tucks and um some change in oversight that um that it's going to fix 95 to 99% of the problems without completely thinking that we're going that we have to throw all the rules out and start back over. Um I I mean the day of everything being divided into 10 acre tracks is not here. And I get that, you know, you hate that anyone's going to sell off an acre of their 5 acre estate because they need some income, but I don't know how you protect their property rights. Um, it's a balancing act and you know, not everyone's going to be happy on everything, but I think uh compromise is the way to go. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

So, uh, so my situ can you hear this? Okay. U, my situation may be a little bit different than what's directly being addressed. Uh we're a property owner here in Milton and we have a large lot. We've got an 11 acre lot um that sits just beside what had been a 20 acre farm for you know ever. And in the last year plus the farm was sold and it's now under development as uh a subdivision that's going to have 14 houses sitting on oneish acre lots. Um, as best as I've been able to tell, the rules don't provide any protection whatsoever to our viewshed. So, if you look at our viewshed from before all this started, uh, we looked out on a a pasture with a bunch of woods um, and some cows sitting in it. And, you know, I realize that can't stay forever, but that's now been replaced by um, ground being disturbed literally on the other side of our fence. you know, within 25 ft or whatever minimal uh area that is. Um we're facing construction that will likely happen over the course of the next several years as these houses go in uh and the lots get developed. So, um you know, while you said something about a balance, I think it is a balance. Uh so without taking away the right to build and do those things, what can be done differently to replicate to the extent possible a viewshed for those neighbors? And since we're on the side, you know, the front is addressed a little bit more with what the gentleman was talking about, there's nothing address addressing aside. So our and you know, just luck has it our property runs the whole length of the the neighbor property. So, uh, what had been a pasture in some woods will now be

literally seven the back of seven houses, uh, buting up against our fence. Um, so, um, having conversations now to try to to figure out, you know, with the city's help and with the builder's help, what to do, you know, to do the right thing. But, um, you know, in line with the the city wanting to maintain a certain viewshed, which I saw up on the presentation, what can be done? you know, what can go into place around like types of trees, types of bushes, is it fencing that helps preserve uh that rural look, but but something that uh creates a little bit more of a of a requirement. And along those lines, does that on the front end of the development instead of after everything's been taken down and the house build and the people moving in and that's that's years later. and uh all the trees that got knocked down uh currently. Um those are being replaced with, you know, trees that won't get to uh the same level of growth in any of our lifetime. Uh so it's not the same thing to have, you know, just plant a tree this big to replace a tree that's been there for a few hundred years. So, so I would love to see something that that provides some standard around addressing that privacy of the neighbors while still allowing uh the the seller of the property and the developer to to exercise their rights as well. Okay, I can sit sit for this one too maybe. Dan, I won't be too long. So, uh my name is Carson Seville. I'm a large lot owner here too and uh we have 10acre farm in Milton. We've been through this minor plat process and I've got a pretty diverse background when it comes to this whole thing. Um I was chairman for Jackson County's planning commission several years ago and they were the fastest growing county in the state and

we put a moratorium in. Uh very similar situation. The growth was out of control. Uh we had schools coming to us. We had the water authority coming to us. the growth was very similar to here. And so with that, uh, we moved here and everybody talks about how Milton is unique and Milton is has the rural viewshed and has the large lots. Uh, and I'm all for property owner rights. I I own property here. That might come up in my lifetime, too. But the other thing, so I also have sat on MEC here and I created that farm map that a lot a lot of people have seen at council where there is 230 active horse farms. Another 80 farms that could be active just don't have actual horses on them. So there's a lot more large lots. We've got 1500 different lots over three acres. So I say all that I think the minor plat process right now is a very heavy lift on staff because you have these minor plats that's such an easy way to subdivide land and then staff is left with figuring out what the topo is and neighbors as well are left with figuring out the rest of the buildout process versus the final plat they would enable staff to go in and make all the decisions. I understand that we don't have a buyer right away for a lot of these things, but I think the system does need to be changed a little bit so that staff can adequately because what we don't want is homes all over the place that look like they don't belong or they're squeezed into this tiny lot. And one big thing I I told Jackson County all the time before we left was once these once this is done, you can't put it back. Nobody's going to be able to go remove these neighborhoods or these lots that are squeezed in. uh you can't fix it. So once we lose this unique feel and layout that Milton has, it will

never go back. So I think y'all are doing a great job. I appreciate y'all putting this together. Um but I I really I I've talked to hundreds of parents that I've coached their kids, uh friends, family. Everybody here, whether they live in a neighborhood or on a large lot, loves the beauty and the natural layout of this city. and we got to do what we can to protect that. And I think this is a good step to make sure that when it does get developed, it's done correctly and staff's able to handle it and not trying to create more problems with the minor plot process that's in place now. So,

um, yes, I'm Greg Rathen and I'm now recently a member of the MEC, I guess, is the right word. I keep hearing the word viewshed and it it seems like the viewshed is defined simply by what you see from the street as opposed to a 360 view that would constitute picking in other kinds of dynamics in that particular process. And you know the viewshed obviously has to incorporate more than that but the kind of rural shed almost might be a better word for it to preserve that kind of element and to maintain the rights because I don't know if you have horses or not but if you had horses it changes the dynamic behind the house if you find your property if you've got you know 18 houses and and suddenly you've got a whole new dynamic and that almost leads you to say well it's not worth it to stay here time to move and then Milton just continues to work become much more like East Cobb than it ever wanted to be and it loses its right to be a a horse community or equestrian community like you've said. So I think there's some care needs to be thought about beyond the view from just the street also in other kinds of context if that makes any sense.

Does anyone else want to speak? Just to be upfront, um I I'm on about four and a half acres and I am a realtor for 39 years. I've lived in Milton for 29 years. I'm on the BZA board, Board of Zoning and Appeals. And just a couple of things up front. I'm here more talking about this small land and what the restrictions that you already have on the books have already done to small land. I would say one of the largest was that you increase the size by 150 ft wide. Most of these properties are not 150 ft wide. And then you take away by saying, "Oh, well, if you're going to do a flag lot, which is all they would be able to do, it now has to be an acre and a half." So, every restriction that you have put on has caused an issue for people who are on small land. I don't ever plan on dividing my land or doing anything more with it. But as a realtor trying to talk to other people, you tell them, "Hey, you're you're stuck because of what they have already done." So, I feel like we've done enough as far as the restrictions go. We need to be able to work with what we have. And as far as a rural viewshed goes, if you bought a piece of land that backed up to multiple acres and didn't start planting trees around your own house and for just in case what's happening is happening. You don't should not rely on the new person moving in to plant the trees. Start planting now. Don't put in little trees. Put in eight foot trees. by the

time something happens, it will have grown. Um, and a lot of realtors when it comes to doing something beforehand. I agree 100% with what Scott has said, we do need to do something upfront, but we also have to realize that you can't go in and make an offer on a piece of property and have a six-month due diligence period. You can't try to do everything. But if you do what Scott says and you get a make them get a survey and figure it out, even if you have to hire one person that all they do is look at surveys all day long and they can make an appointment and you can tell them yes, you can do this or no, you cannot. That will stop it from there and then they can walk from the property if they can't do what they want. But no seller is going to take their house or land off the market for six months to a year waiting for all of this to take place. Um, you know, and back to the rural viewshed, you know, what people don't understand is that it's great that you can drive by and look at my house and tell me what I can do and what I can't do on my own land. And I think it's become ridiculous, especially with people who live in these subdivisions and are saying, "Hey, I live on one acre, but no one else can live on one acre again." So, you have got to stop restricting any more than you already have. And if anything, loosen up a little bit. I can say that in the last six months on the design uh BZ BZA board that we haven't had a lot of people coming up. and I look at is they've been there or it was a previous something the previous owner did and didn't do and there's now a new owner and we're trying to rectify what that

situation is. The staff does a great uh just is really great about trying to handle everything so it never has to come to us and and it works most of the time. But I do think that if we could start something earlier but do it as quickly as possible that that would actually work. And I'm sure there are lots of other things that I could say, but just remember that each piece and each parcel of land is unique. If they have water on it or the the topography is wrong or whatever, they're already limited. And most of the land that's left in Milton has those unique issues already. So when you want to sell because one, they see all the restriction, they figure they better get out now before it gets worse. That that's what it turns into. You have seven acres now. You can only put probably only three houses on it. Whereas before all of this was happening, they could have put and made more money on their land. So the longer they stay here and the more the restrictions that are here, the more likely they are to say, "Let's just move to Cherokee County. It's not that far. Don't have to deal with all of this or at least not as much." And then it becomes a subdivision. So I think we need to really think about all these restrictions and maybe doing something upfront. Uh, one of the um, can you hear me? All right. Uh, one of the slides that you showed, it looked like a subdivision, but we're supposed to be talking about minor plats. I think there were 10 or 11 houses up there and and the viewshed was discussed at that time, which shouldn't be in there's not a viewshed inside the

subdivision. Um, and I think that uh trying to make a a five acre parcel split into three parcels and going through all this process uh like it was a major plat. Uh, I think we've got enough restrictions on it and um I don't think that uh I'm not hearing anything from anyone in the room about what actual process you're discussing. What what specifics? What are the details that you're talking about doing with a a minor plat change? What is the what is the purpose? I mean, showed a couple pictures and people have said, "Yeah, we want to have property rights. We want to be able to divide it up." But what is it that you're looking to change in the ordinance? get some idea of how people feel. And I know I have no microphone

here. I I generally uh I'm I'm actually really happy to see that we've got quite a diversity of of of thoughts and and opinions here today. We're going to gather this information and bring it back to the planning commission initially. It'll be before the planning commission twice and ultimately to council, but we need to hear what people think are issues. You know, I had a meeting with a bunch of uh builders yesterday and I, you know, one of the things I said was, you know, what we're calling a problem most cities and counties would look at as a blessing. Um, you know, our houses are too big. That that doesn't sound like that doesn't sound necessarily like a problem if you went throughout the state of Georgia, but it is a challenge related to our current comp plan. potentially this is an information gathering time. There's all kinds of different tools that could be implemented, but I think it's important that we have a framework by which we work to ensure that we're not unnecessarily impacting any of the potential stakeholders, whether it's the current large lot owners who will eventually sell their property. Um, as one of the speakers said today, we recognize that there's generational wealth tied up in that property and anytime you chip away at that, you're chipping away at someone's generational wealth. We also recognize that it's impacting other other neighbors. And I think that the subdivision that was shown earlier was not necessarily an indication of of just minor plats. I think that was really trying to show and oddly those were not cherrypicked. Those are right next to one another. um it's showing the massing that you're seeing as opposed to what you've we've seen in the past. That was the the full reason for that slide. Ultimately, I think it's going to come down to what this community thinks is appropriate for it. Whether the current building styles

you're seeing is what this community wants to see. Perhaps there are no changes that need to be made. Perhaps there's a couple of small tweaks that need to be made related to understanding what could be built on a property before you buy it. There's there's still information gathering before we're prepared to come out and say to present solutions because we're not entirely sure, as you can hear from the comments you've heard today, how big the problem and I'm putting I'm can't trying to do air quotes. um the problem is before we start coming up with solutions because we don't want to be in a the solution business trying to find a problem because I hope that helps a little bit. Anyone else? Well, to echo what um Steve just said, we were hoping for this kind of input. It's extremely valuable to get uh different opinions and different thoughts. Um staff does this every day, so we have an overview of some of the challenges that we have and that we foresee that are coming in on a on a weekly basis. But to hear you all to have this attendance and to hear this different perspective is immensely helpful. So we certainly appreciate that. This is the we intend to have another input session like this. Um simply to give everyone an opportunity to come out and speak just as you've done today. Uh we will have planning commission tonight where we will introduce it to that board um to gain their feedback. Um, so we are extremely grateful that you took the time to come and uh and and we are aware of the timeliness of this and we are uh

intentional with uh these meetings and with our timeline to make sure that we are meeting that April 13th uh council meeting date. Sarah, anything else? Yes, I was just going to say that as we while we've advertised for some code amendments, hearing some of the the input today will just help inform, you know, what what even makes sense from a code amendment standpoint and working through the again the community input process as we as we refine that. We we don't know exactly what would be changed but in in relationship to the moratorum and to be able to lift that um going going through this process and getting the input and determining if any code minutes are needed and what they are is part of what what all this is about. So, thank you all so much again for your your input and um there will be again the next opportunity will be just like this one. Um and then the community zoning information meeting will be a little more a little more focused. Um so that would be a good opportunity to attend that. Um that right now is scheduled for I believe March 24th. Um, so it'll be a just an open input session, but it'll be more focused on the what we're looking at related to potential code changes. All right. Thank you.