City Council - Regular Meeting

One, two. Test one, two. There we go. Test yours. Test. Test. Yes. And then Lydia, if you can just confirm when we're live.

Okay. Good evening. Thank you all for joining us. I'm Tammy Loitt, your city clerk. We appreciate you all being here. This is the second meeting of our AG1 public input forum and it's the most important valuable input because it's from citizens and you all. So, we want to make sure we can give you as much information as we can. Your voice does matter. I want to make sure I take this time to introduce our two key people here in community development and public works. You have our community development and public works director Sarah Leers and our deputy community development director Tracy Wilds. And I will now turn what will happen is you'll hear a little bit from them and then we'll have a chance for the Q&A and I will come around and make sure you get your microphone so that you can speak into the microphone so our people that are listening online can al also hear as well. Sarah.

All right. Well, thank you again and welcome. This is really about hearing from you all and um we're we're structuring it more as a moderated comment time. Um we can we can take questions. Um it's not really structured as question and answer but we can we can talk through some things and with the small group um really want to hear your input related to some of the data we're going to share with you about AG1 and then we'll talk a little bit about how we got to this step in the process. So Tracy's going to kick it off with our first couple slides. Again, this is about less than 10 minutes. We'll just go through some background information on where we are. Great. Thanks, Sarah. So, there are two factors driving the challenges that we're seeing on smaller AG1 lots. The driving concern is the building trends for larger homes and additional site improvements make it harder for some properties to meet development standards like lot coverage and impervious service limits. The growing amplifier is the creation of smaller lots through minor plat process. Lots that are created through the minor plat process do not get early development feasibility review. So those conflicts show up later during the building permit. Next slide. As we reviewed the 2040 comprehensive plan, central Milton is identified as our largest character area and with many lots exceeding 1 acre. The comp plan envisions maintaining a uniform overall density that provides or I'm sorry, preserves the city's rural character. However, the building trends that we're seeing today have potential to move away from that vision. that.

So, I'm going to go through just a quick timeline and then highlight some of these trends that were discussed um most recently with planning commission and then with with city council. So in early January, the lot setback discussion was came before our city council and they direct us to look at a more holistic approach to what's happening, what the concerns are and what some solutions could be. Following that, a moratorum was enacted on minor plat. So that that's where the difference in the minor and um final plat process came into play was when that moratorum only focused on minor plat. But during that time staff has been looking at both the minor plat concerns as well as just general development trends that kind of went back to why the setbacks were looked at as well. Um from that on February 9th, that was the meeting when the moratorum extension was heard and it was agreed to extend that um to a date little further out but with the goal of having any amendments that are being developed at the April 13th council meeting. So that brings us to where we are today. So at on February 9th, staff collected a lot of data that was shared with city council at that time to help determine if if there was a need to extend the moratorum. So these are a summary of some of that data that was shared in preparation for that February 9th council meeting. So first of all, we looked at building trends. We pulled five years worth of data for just AG1 lot. So we didn't look at Deerfield or Crab Apple. And the measuring point we chose with that was when the certificate of occupancy was issued. So that's when the home was was constructed and completed. And what we found, these are just some of the highlights. Um there was a lot of data gathered and analyzed

related to this, but we found that the one to one and a halfacre lots were the ones that were experiencing the most feasibility challenges specifically related to lot coverage. Um, related to that, year-over-year from 2021 to 2025, we looked at what the average footprint was for those houses that got those certificate of occupancies and found that that those have been increasing steadily year-over-year. And related to that, we also looked at that that data in a median format. So if there was one very large house that was throwing off the numbers, we also looked at that in the median and found a very similar trend in let's see oh the the other point of that is lot size. So while the footprint is getting larger, we also looked at the lot sizes for where those houses were being constructed and found that that trend those lot sizes were actually getting smaller. Similarly looked at the median there because you know a single large lot could could drive that number. Um so we looked at the median of the middle of where those um those averages fell related to lot coverage. We took all those data points for the one to one and a halfacre lots where again where those were the most tight and we plotted those on a graph and looked at the trend that we found year-over-year was that the the lower end. So, when a house is first constructed, the percent impervious, the percent lock coverage that they're already at had had risen. Um, so in 2021, we were seeing some that were in the 10% lock coverage range. By 2025, that number, the lowest number we had in our data set was 15. So, the that bottom

level of of uh percentage of lock coverage had been increasing. Some other um trends we wanted to highlight were some concerns we've heard. We've had new homeowners that have reached out with concerns about already being at their maximum lot coverage and not having the ability to add improvements that they would like to add. Heard concerns from adjacent neighbors about the how close uh buildings occurring to the the property lines as well as the preserving the viewshed. And we show this graphic on the right, the two subdivisions. These are actually bordering subdivisions. They're um right adjacent to each other along the same roadway. They're both private subdivisions. And just the difference in the home construction and the lot coverage trends between these two developments was something that we wanted to to illustrate through this um aerial imagery. The final trend we wanted to talk about was variances. So we we have the variance data that is what goes to the board of zoning appeals and that's what that's that publicly available data. It's it's how many variances are seen. But what we wanted to highlight here was there is a bit of data that's that's under the surface. Um it's the the calls and the emails we get related to lock coverage. Can I can I build a pool? Can I extend my driveway? um and staff working with those those requesters to find ways to either remove some concrete, remove um a part of the driveway, look at pvious options for some of the improvements that they've wanted to do. The other components are that are maybe the requester decides not to build not to build what they were pursuing. Um sometimes we find they may not be building those to plan or um or building without a permit.

So as we look through the AG1 lens, understanding how land is divided expla helps explain how will ultimately be developed. So on the left side of the screen, the subdivision rules determine how many lots can be created and where those lot lines go. On the right side, development standards determine how much can actually be built on the lot and how much land can be covered by buildings and pavement. The key takeaway of this slide is that these two systems work together. Uh the way land is subdivided is directly influenced by the development standards that apply to each lot that ultimately shapes the intensity and sort of the character uh of that development. This slide here right now illustrates that the minor plat process focuses mainly on size and configuration of the lot rather than how the lot ultimately functions. So in many ways the process works lot first function later. So that means that a lot can meet the city the city's minimum requirements on paper, but they still face challenges later when a homeowner tries to build a home and site improvements of everything that they desire for that lot. So, as we look at possible opportunities to address some of these trends, we feel like there's a plan a chance possibly to put some better guard rails around lot standards that will eventually help produce um better outcomes and inform the size of lot based on what we're seeing as these trends and and needs and desires for what fits on the lot. And so that's the the basis of the background we wanted to share and we'd love to move to a moderated session and

Tammy is going to provide the microphone and love to hear your input. Anybody want to go first?

Perfect. Um, from the last meeting with the feedback that you guys got, have you come to any updated conclusions that you can share or solutions that you've thought of?

The public input, the first one that we had as well as this one has been so our first public input, we received incredible feedback. Um, good feedback that would help us frame sort of the direction moving forward. So we've collected a lot of in of information internally with our research and metrics and looking at our existing code coupled with the public input that we got from the first one and then we're excited to take the information from tonight and whatever feedback you all can provide to sort of help that. So we're framing that. I'm not exactly sure that we're at a an a point right now in the decision of of we've got a lot of good information and so we're working right now to frame all of that. I will add to maybe that it some suggestions we got were maybe it's not necessarily the process but it's the requirements or the standards that get put to help better inform minor plat. Um so we did get some good feedback related to that that that again maybe it's not necessarily the exact process but it's what's what's required at different times.

Okay. And is there a an opportunity where that will be shared those updates as you guys work through this process? I know it's quick. I know we have deadlines. Um, but just looking for opportunity for not just the feedback now, the feedback then as you guys move through the process. Hey, this is what we found. This is what we discovered and here's how we're trying to move it forward.

Our plan right now is we have this um set of code amendments set to have a community zoning information meeting on I believe it is the March 24th. So that's a Tuesday. Um so we would publish ahead of that meeting anything that we're proposing to move through um the code amendment process and this is a very compressed timeline again because of the moratorum. So that would go to planning commission the next day um for their discussion and then that would then move to a special called council meeting and then to the April 13th. So, we are after this meeting, we are going to hit the hit the books on getting looking at what what if any potential changes that we're going to um propose and then have those prepared for publishing ahead of that March 24th community zoning meeting.

Okay. Um I've got more to say, but I'll offer to pass if anyone else is ready.

Um hello. Uh thank you for the opportunity to to gain some more knowledge about what you guys are doing. Um certainly a compressed time frame. Uh we had the opportunity to get a little bit of insight before the meeting officially started. Um not knowing what you're looking to propose certainly limits the ability to ask some of the questions that I might otherwise have. Uh my understanding is that one consideration is maybe this distinction between minor plat. Um, as somebody that owns land, uh, I have a concern over what that incremental cost would do if we wanted to carve out a a lot for a child or a grandchild, right? and having to suddenly jump through a much more extensive, much more expensive process when we're not looking to necessarily develop or if we wanted to develop at some future point, what sort of incremental increase cost are we now having to incur as individual citizens of Milton um that we otherwise wouldn't have to? Um I certainly understand the dilemma over larger homes being built on less land and I I share that concern. Um, but I don't want to as a land owner have to um absorb higher costs to be able to build a home for myself or build a home for my child or my child, adult children to choose to build a home. So, I think that there are some unintended consequences that could negatively impact citizens that have been here a very long time that want to continue to live here. And uh I I think that needs to be a consideration when we decide potentially to change that process because the process is much more expensive and much more laborious and that may not be the correct approach for a lot of the land that's still available. Um so expense and time and process. Um, I think you made a great point, Sarah, about that the process may

not have to change. Maybe it's an opportunity to communicate more fully when someone is coming in to either look at a piece of property to develop or they're looking to buy a parcel. Maybe we just need to do a better job communicating what they would have to do, right, as the person that eventually wants to build that home. Um, so that would be another thought. I just want to applaud that thinking. Uh, another when you talk about variances at the BZA, um, I know we didn't necessarily have all of the variances that get requested and how many get approved. It would be interesting to me to know how many variances are asked and requested and ultimately approved that have allowed these larger homes to be built on less land. Right? So on that one to one and a half acres when we drive by and see these tremendously what seems tremendously large larger than they were historically has that been a function of getting a variance approved because I think another solution is we just don't approve variances when there's not a hardship that meets the four conditions of hardship at the BZA. So I don't I don't have that data enough to be able to say is part of the issue that variances are getting approved. I know the BZA um looks pretty carefully at those standards, but that's just a piece of data I don't have that I think would be helpful. Right. What's gotten us to this place? Um another comment and then I'll hand the microphone to somebody else. Um is the idea that major or that a subdivision has the ability to have a 25% coverage and that a a home or homes on open roads do not. Um, I'm curious about that. Is that necessarily fair for the land owner that doesn't want to develop a development necessarily, but that has open road

land? Why would those land owners be penalized while the others are having a a greater ability to build something um with more pvious surface? I I think you somewhat answered that question about the private roads in a gated community, but again, if a gated community can have 25% coverage, why can't everybody else? You know, maybe they have purple hair, I don't know. Um, but I'm more concerned about moving from a minor plat to a major plat instance. If we wanted to sell a portion of our land today, would we have to go through this process of dividing the whole parcel up and platting the whole thing and going through engineering studies? Our neighbor sold 13 of their 40 acres two years ago and then uh December last year she got rid of the rest of it concerned about what was going on and the cost of it. But she didn't have to do anything but cut a cut put a little line on it and had a 13acre plot that she sold. Very simple. I I would hate to think that going forward you would have to go through a bunch of engineering studies to sell a parcel of land and instead of just selling it. So is that your thought process to have? And the last question is how many times can I subdivide my lot? That's my big question. How many how many times am I allowed to do that?

And I'd like to extend that thought process because I'll give you a scenario and I think it exists. I've certainly historically heard from constituents, citizens that have very specifically called and said, "Julie, can you help us? we've got children or grandchildren that we want to carve out some land for and they had difficulty being able to do that and I think that when we have flexibility in the city that allows large land owners to do that we actually are doing what we say we want to do which is to keep larger lots available right so I think we need to be cautious that we don't put limitations on the process of division of land in our case right families that have the desire potential potentially for other family members to one day live on that. And I I think to Bill's point, maybe today we only know that one child would want to live on the land, but maybe in five or seven years another child would want to live on the land, right? So to to have to know that today, thinking that we would be procluded from further subdividing down the road would be troublesome.

Does that make sense? It does. I just want to get uh photographed by the Milton Herald because that's last time Tammy and I and CL got involved. I'm with the Milton Equestrian Committee and so we've also been focusing now a lot on the issue of the large lots and how to keep this rural what did you call it? Rural shed view rural shed.

Yeah. And it's a challenge obviously and and it also addresses these questions of the people with large lots. Um in fact I think we're planning to try to do a survey of of large lot families and see what they're concerned about. And initially it was were they planning to sell their lots was one of the questions of the survey. But I've kind of come back and said do are do you plan to sell a part of your land in the future? And if that's the case then how does that happen? And how do you structure that? And then how do you carefully figure out what you can and cannot do with within the land that you do finally subdivide? Because you could ultimately want to subdivide two acres because you get more room for the the house rather than the one acre if you didn't realize that suddenly the one acre only meant you could build a 3,000 foot house or whatever the the challenges might be. Well, I'm very intrigued by what what are going on in the course of this of this process. But it certainly feels like a lot of it has to do with getting the information upfront, very clear, unmistakable. Here's what a what your size of lot is, and in that context, here's what you can and cannot build, and you need to plan for these things in the process. And I think that's a fair game. and and and maybe again get the the zoning board to be a little more careful about what kind of variances they allow. So,

um back to the small lot. So, we live on a small lot. Um we're currently working on uh permits variances going through the process. Uh we understand how much money it costs uh to do so. Uh it is very expensive. So coming back to you know the mentions on the residents and land owners that are current um and just while regulation and process updating may be good you know keeping the financial impacts uh as less as possible um I had brought it up to potentially you know based on scotch review of an asbuilt survey on the last meeting you know maybe looking at that instead of requiring it per a citizen or resident um you know maybe that's something this the city could provide as a as the third party service or as verification itself, you know, as an option to to keep cost down. Um, we have a lot of restrictions uh since we bought in 2017. Um, you know, the 150 foot lot width has been added. We're grandfathered in on that. Um, it was also mentioned in the last meeting about just the amount of restrictions on the small lots. Um, in our situation, we actually did a minor plat for combination uh and assemblage. Um maybe there's an incentive that can be offered for people who are looking to do that. Um we would, you know, if as financials allow, you know, if able, we would buy every piece we could um and continue to combine it, you know, until we're no longer on this earth. You know, that's just how we feel about Milton in the city. Um so there's a there's a other viewpoint of, you know, we're approaching it from subdivision, small lots. You know, there's also an opportunity uh for some incentives maybe for combinations and assemblages as well. Um yeah, you know, the people's rights and freedoms, um 100%, you know, whether you're a developer, resident, owner, um you know, it it needs to be protected, um as well at the same time. And uh you

know, rights for one, as long as it's acceptable should be rights for all. Um I think that's something that also needs to to be considered in this process. And Yeah. And then the rural viewshed piece, you know, the neighborhoods and the small lots, that viewshed in a neighborhood while it's in Milton, I think the expectation is different than a viewshed on one of the main roads, um, where it's a single family lot and you're driving by it. you know, the expectation inside of a neighborhood, um, different types of neighborhood, equestrian based, uh, agricultural based or just, you know, cookie cutter homes. Um, landscaping, high-end landscaping may be the norm. Uh, whereas in another location, you know, a pasture or field planted with grass is the norm. Um, and then driving down the road, maybe it's a lot full of trees. Um, so there's some different components there, too. Uh, when you guys look at it holistically from a satellite image, it's not as simple as just, you know, yeah, the lots are getting tighter. Yes, they're more landscaped, but that may just be a small segment of Milton. Um, so that doesn't necessarily apply all the way around.

Anyone else?

Another thought that comes to mind as I just reflect on the the different possibilities and scenarios is that we have been trying to encourage more folks to pursue a coova, right, a conservation use valuation. Again, right, we're we're looking to protect viewsheds. We want to protect what makes Milton Milton, what's made up Milton before it was Milton. Um, I certainly care about that. And one of the incentives that has been discussed for large lots, right, is to do more education, to bring more education to people about KUVA. If we contrast that, however, with the idea of how do you divide land? One example, so you have somebody let's say with 10 acres, 20 acres that's in a Kuba, right? Kuba requires that you can have certain homesteads on that and maintain the Kuba. So there are some cases where we might be working against our desire to keep large lots with Kuva if we don't also allow subsequent division into maybe one acre another acre and a third acre down the road where the majority of the land stays in Kuba but then you've carved out the allowable acre for an individual home a family's home another family member's home so I think that that is something that speaks to people that have existing large lots. The part of the generational legacy, right, might be to leave land to their family, which again speaks to how often could you do a minor platility to divide it into small lots, but to divide it in order to have other people deed a land and still maintain Kuba. Does that make sense?

It does. I just think it's a it's a potential dilemma that we might not have thought through fully and I think we need to be cautious that we allow for those types of scenarios to still unfold as time passes because it's I believe it's one of the ways that we can continue to incent people to maintain large lots to the next generation and I think we need to be thinking about that when we consider some of these changes. Are we required to continue talking? No. Great feedback. Well, you're on a roll. Thanks. is necessary.

Um so the in the the previous meeting the lot size so the the goal of the minor plat oversight um from what I understood and heard was to there was a example given where you know there was a 10acre lot before that had you know all trees no home and the resident on the other side similar property 10 acres but their house was you know 25 ft from the fence. Um they had I think a barn. I I think the rule is you can't have a a equestrian barn or horses um farm animals within 200 feet of the property line. Um you know bees I think there's a requirement on that too. Unsure but by when they by not having the minor plat process in place that neighboring property of 10 acres when it was subdivided you then had residential homes up against the back of what is now an operational farm or what is an operational farm. And the instance that was brought up was, you know, when those houses were built now, the activities that are being done on the AG1 property that was always there may no longer be in compliance. Um so from that standpoint I think if we're evaluating the minor plat and making adjustments for that I think that is is a key thing that I heard um that would definitely be interested in protecting is like you said the lot size versus the function and not just the division of the the lot setbacks the sizing but then what is the current function surrounding it and what is the function of that new property going to be so that there is no limitation or if there is the homeowner again is aware of it um before purchase.

I don't know how directly this is impacting this particular focus, but storm water management. Um and it's it's something that I know I've had a conversation, several people have had conversations about this. Um, it seems that sometimes the storm water management requirements are requiring, and I know we don't like to use this phrase, but I'm going to use it, require clear cutting in order to accommodate some of these new builds that are occurring. And that seems to be something that needs to be addressed. And I don't know if it if it's something that should be part of this process of review. It seems that perhaps it should be. Um it certainly ties to large lot incentives, right? If you've got a large lot, not requiring um the same level of storm water management. Um I certainly am a believer in storm water management, but not when I drive by and I see a huge home on multiple acres and every tree has been taken out and it's been taken out in order to accommodate storm water management. It is not seeming to reconcile with the desire for tree coverage. the desire for large lots, the desire for a viewshed. I just I think we're getting some unintended consequences that are completely in contrast to what our 2040 comp plan says, to what so many of us cared about and continue to care about and in terms of what defines Milton as Milton, right? So, I I would I would hope that we're looking at that as well. And and some of these, right, if you were to have a ven diagram, they certainly cross over. Um but the storm water management piece seems huge and it seems to um dubtail with the issue of what's being required. Are we requiring more? Is it causing clear cutting?

There's a lot of that needs to I think rec be reconciled. It's fantastic feedback and we we are we have we have taken every all the input tonight all the input from it's been extremely helpful because there are things that staff sees on a daily weekly basis and uh so it's nice to step away and get uh feedback from residents and these types of settings. It's been immensely helpful. Um, and this information, some new, some emphasizing things that we've already heard, uh, are are definitely things that we'll be able to incorporate, uh, in the information we've we've gathered already.

Yep. So, our again, next steps are to to take all this feedback. I've listened to the last meeting three times now to to recapture what was heard and and download the transcript and um plan to do the same for tonight's to really help us focus any changes we're going to make around the input we've heard. So this is been so helpful, so important. Um and so the next next step, like I said, will be to get the agenda prepared for that community zoning information meeting for March 24th. and it'll be roughly the same package that goes to planning commission because they'll both have to publish in advance of those meetings. So, that is our next step to work. Tracy and I are going to be busy over the next week. Again, really using this input to help us determine what what changes to uh to move forward with. In some cases, it seems as simple as when we used to look at, you know, commercial development and we would say they're just putting too much stuff on too little land. And that really boils down to, I think, the the premise and the question that was asked in chambers with mayor and council is, are we just allowing people to put too much stuff on too little land? And if we went to those folks that are coming and wanting to purchase and if we communicated with them better and just said, "If you're buying an acre, this is what you can put on that land. And if you want to put more discretion,

right? And if you want to put more, you're going to need to buy more land because that's effectively how we've managed the commercial development in Milton is that when there's too much stuff, you just don't get to build it. So, I'm just wondering if in some cases it could be that simple. Or you can build it, but you need more land in order to meet all the requirements that allow Milton to remain Milton. I promise that's my last comment.

Adding to that, um the um again Scott mentioned it about having the allowable impervious surface on the property deed. Um I think that is a very good tool because it allows the buyer to understand what it is. They can then read the laws, regulations and codes of the city and say okay this is what I can build and it also gives you guys the policing um you know even the legal policing to do so. I think that also comes back to the variances. I mean there's always cases for variances. Um but I think it makes the variance board actually you know a true variance board because now you have a legal process. It can be policed. it's known public information and then you can make a variance decision based on the case. I think that would continue to add strength um to that as well. And then as mentioned if you need more impervious surface and there's an opportunity to buy more land then and you want a certain product that's what you'll have to do both for residents and developers.

Thank you. All right. Well, thanks again. we will conclude this public input session and um we're happy to chat anymore as we close this up. So, thanks guys. Thank you.